Saudi-Maldivian Ties: An Opportunity or Threat for India?

Anushree Ghisad, 

Research Intern, VIF

The President of Maldives Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom paid an official visit to Saudi Arabia from 18th March. A joint statement issued at the conclusion of Yameen’s visit to the Kingdom said that the two sides have expressed their desire to strengthen cooperation in foreign affairs, defence, Islamic affairs, justice, economic, investment and trade sectors, providing support to the issues of the Muslim nation as well as education, health and social affairs to realize their common interests. The Saudi Fund for Development will continue to finance development projects in Maldives. The statement also said that, “as part of efforts to deepen educational and cultural cooperation, Saudi Arabia will provide 150 scholarships to Maldives’ students.” Both the countries have rejected any foreign interference in their internal affairs. Discussions were also held on strengthening unity of Islam and increasing Saudi investments to give fillip to the Maldivian economy.

Implications of Gayoom’s Saudi Arabia visit

Amidst the ongoing Maldivian turmoil where former President Mohamed Nasheed has been sentenced to 13 years imprisonment without being given a fair trial, which has seen internal clashes in Malidvian society and has evoked a severe reaction from UNHRC and other countries, Prime Minister Narendra Modi cancelled his scheduled Maldives trip in mid-March, so as not to endorse Gayoom’s actions of trampling democracy by undermining opposition and appointing loyalist to all constitutional places. It is China alone which had categorically declined to comment on the developments in the Indian Ocean island citing it as an ‘internal matter’, and now Saudi has joined the hands by endorsing President Gayoom and his policies. This raises substantial concerns for India as Maldives is coming under the influence of China under Gayoom’s regime, wherein Beijing is securing this precious ‘pearl’ in its ‘string of pearls’ by ensuring its multidimensional dependence on China. Saudi too seems to be following in the Chinese footsteps, albeit under the religious garb of promoting ‘Unity of Islam’, however antithetical any pseudo autocratic regime might be in the eyes of Islamic tenets.

Saudi Arabia’s recent mollycoddling with Maldives

Diplomatic relations between the Maldives and Saudi Arabia were established in 1981.It is noteworthy that in 2008, Maldives opened its embassy in Riyadh, which was its first ever mission to the West Asia. Both the countries have always recognized the historic friendship and Saudi’s role in development of Maldives. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has agreed to open an embassy in the island nation during the current visit of Maldivian President.

The Kingdom’s growing role in this Sunni littoral nation became palpable when in February last year many tourist reservations were cancelled with no prior notice as Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (the current Saudi head of state) allegedly booked three islands of Maldives. Tourism is the lifeblood of Maldivian economy and yet Maldivian government did not mind hampering its reputation for hospitality when it came to receiving the then Saudi prince, thanks to the Kingdom’s growing investment in the archipelago.

President Gayoom affirmed that the Republic of Maldives views the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the country that houses the two holy mosques and as the focus of the hearts of all Muslims as it represents their Qibla. He also emphasized that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the primary partner of the Republic of Maldives.

It is this growing camaraderie which infused a confidence in Maldives to take the EU head on when the latter removed the duty free status of Maldives’ fish a couple of years ago. Maldives reacted by attacking EU’s policy and said it would certify its fish as halal and find new markets in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Maldives’ Infatuation with Saudi Arabia

Maldives, like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is a Sunni Muslim country and considers Saudi Arabia the fountainhead of Islamic practices, which is a well-respected fact. Enamoured by Saudi’s Islamic heritage, Maldives seems to have started adopting the customs of the Kingdom, but is it at the cost of undermining its own ancient tradition? For example, the official Maldivian language Dhivehi belonging to Indo-Aryan group of languages and is closely related to Sinhalese. The original Dives Akuru script was replaced by Thaana by around 18th century, which is largely modelled on Arabic style of writing. As against this, Central Asian states continue to follow the local traditions and language despite being Islamic countries.

Does this paradigm shift in the native ethnic orientation of Maldivian society underline its eagerness to submit to Saudi Arabia’s hegemony over Sunni Islam? Two success stories of Asia- Japan and South Korea, are firmly rooted in their respective ancient heritages and do not ape India despite being ardent followers of Buddhism. Invoking religious aping out of a genuine religious awe can turn into formidable identity crisis for locals as is evident in the case of Pakistan. And if this is the case, then will Maldives not try to replicate Saudi’s education system which is largely based on Wahabi ideology, for which Saudi is believed to be funding in this island nation?

Going beyond Religion- Saudi stakes in Maldives

Maldives has undergone lot of struggle since 2003 to throw off the shackles of dictatorial rule to see the light of democracy. It finally succeeded in throwing the three decade long dictatorial yoke of Mohamed Gayoom in 2008, when Nasheed came to power by democratic means. With strings of high profile political ousters and in desperate attempts to consolidate power by throttling Nasheed from contesting next presidential election scheduled in 2018, the current Maldivian regime is undermining the very spirit of democracy which its citizens had fought so hard for. As a result, the Jamhoori Pary (JP) has parted ways with ruling alliance and joined hands with Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to start a movement called ‘save the constitution’. Even the ultra-hardliner Adhaalath Party (AP) is disillusioned with the current government due to its brutality and its President Sheikh Imran Abdulla has called for the formation of a “national unity alliance” against the government. Occasional clashes between Gayoomists and Nasheedists on the streets of Male have further intensified this conflict.

Saudi Arabia finds itself cornered after Arab Spring as its roots are secured in economic and democratic reforms, the later one being the existential threat for monarchs of the Kingdom. Hence Saudi is clamouring hard to nip this spirit in its bud wherever it starts surfacing, and Maldives seems to be traversing the same path. Hence, Saudi Arabia might be willing to strengthen the hands of Gayoom by assuring investment and trade.

The usage of wordings in the recently released joint statement emphasises on ‘rejecting any foreign interference in their internal affairs.’ This implies that the arrest of Nasheed, a champion of democracy and human rights; which has clearly been orchestrated with Chinese blessings, has been upheld by Saudi Arabia.

In order to lose its clutches of overdependence on United States, Saudi has embarked upon what is touted in Riyadh as a ‘look east policy’ since mid of last decade, which is an attempt to diversify. Playing on its ‘custodian of holy mosque’ card, Saudi Arabia uses the non-oil Islamic countries like Maldives to ensure a master-client relationship based upon the broader connotations of ‘Islamic unity’. Also, it is in long term commercial interests of the Kingdom to have a stronghold in a strategically located island nation like Maldives, which falls on international sea lanes of communication through which a major chunk of Saudi oil passes.

Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in Indoctrination & Terror Financing

In the joint Communiqué, both the countries have repeatedly focused upon deepening of educational and cultural cooperation, for which, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has announced the allocation of one hundred fifty scholarships for students from Maldives. In 2014, Saudi scholars had pledged a grant of $ 100,000 for Islamic education, while the Saudi prince has pledged to build 10 world class mosques in Maldives.

According to Prof. Shireen Hunter, financial support received from abroad can be divided into two categories; one for maintaining Muslim institutions such as mosques and two, to exercise a degree of political control over various groups that are recipient of such funds. Saudi Arabia is the most important country mainly indulging in second kind of support. Though the impact of Saudi education is not uniform and does not necessarily transform into blind support for the Kingdom’s government as it also produces radical Wahhabis who are highly critical of country’s ruling elite. Yet any outcome, which rides on ‘mine is the only truth’ dictum and fails to appreciate the inherent pluralistic nature of human society, is inimical to long term stability and security structure of that region where such investment is being made. And due to modern tools of communication and social networking and rising people to people contact, the cascading effect of such ideologies can endanger the security structure of neighbouring countries as well.

Saudis follow the Wahabi school of philosophy in its own education model, and has a track record of funding for such education world wide. In India, we have the prime example of growing radicalism under the influence of Saudi funded Wahabi ideology in the Kashmir Valley. In a report in 2011, Asit Jolly indicated this trend and reported the mushrooming of mosques and madrassas, funded by the Ahl-e-Hadith. The report, quoting US intelligence sources, highlighted the House of Saud decision of 2005, to allocate US$35 billion for building mosques in South Asia. A large number of madrassas have also accompanied this growth, and have penetrated the poorer segment of Kashmiri society.

In this backdrop, Maldives can probably emerge as a smaller version of what they have done with PoK and Pakistan, a breeding ground of terrorism. According to Zahid Shahab Ahmed from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia was one of the prominent players who funded madrasas in Pakistan to promote anti- Shia Islam. It eventually resulted in the radicalisation of Pakistani youths.

Saudi is the main financier of Madrasas which creates Taliban type fighters. Saudi Arabia has also emerged as a large source for funds for terrorist groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed told the CNN-IBN news channel during his visit to India in 2009 that "Hundreds of Maldivians" have been recruited by the Taliban and are fighting in Pakistan. Dr. Azra Naseem of Maldives argues that Maldives is tilting towards Deobandi Islam, the religion of the Taliban. There are reports of Maldivian youths fighting alongside Taliban in Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) of Pakistan. The growing radicalism, funded by money received from charities and donations, has led to extremist views on religion and its influence on society.

Saudi’s commitment to build ten world class mosques in Maldives reiterates the taboo of ‘liquor mosques’ where praying in the mosques built out of tourism revenue ( as tourists indulge in relishing alcohol) is considered haraam. Otherwise what logic explains building ten more mosques in a country which has less than 4,00,000 of population and already had more than 725 mosques by mid-1991? Hence such commitments by Saudi Arabia need to be watched carefully as it raises many apprehensions for regional stability.

Saudi: A stabilizing factor amidst growing ISIS threats in Indian Ocean?

Amidst the rising clout of non-state actors and global extremism, Saudi and Maldives have reiterated their determination to fight extremism and terrorism in all their forms and manifestations, as both the countries are based on “tolerant principles of Islam”. This could also be interpreted as a hint towards curbing the ISIS menace. Saudi Arabia, during the early days of ISIS appeared to be smitten by it, as it had pledged to vanquish the Shiite crescent with Sunni fire. But later the Kingdom officially condemned Islamic State’s activities as it started taking shape in the heart of a historical Sunni patrimony and posed existential threat to the Kingdom’s monarchy by promoting the pristine Wahabi ideology of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed". The ‘one leader’ here essentially meant the Caliph of Islamic State and not the king of the Saudi Arabian kingdom. As British diplomat Alastair Crooke observes, ‘On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahabist. On the other hand, it is ultra-radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahabism.’ To add to its woes, neither the pro-reform (spring leaders) nor anti-reform leaders (ISIS) are giving any importance to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed had earlier expressed fears that around 200 Maldivian youths have been recruited by ISIS. Even the Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed has said that it is a cause of concern that Maldivians nationals are leaving the country to fight in wars abroad. The exact number of Maldivians abroad for Jihad remains unclear, with sporadic groups departing to Syria and Iraq every week. The Commissioner of Police has estimated that around 50 Maldivians are working with foreign rebel groups, dwarfing figures suggested by Home Minister Umar Naseer in December 2014. A jihadist group called Bilad Al Sham Media (BASM) – which describes itself as ‘Maldivians in Syria’ – revealed that a fifth Maldivian had died in Syria. Now the figure of youths joining extremist groups can be contested, but the fact cannot be denied that even a small group is potent enough to spread the poison of extremism in this tiny nation, which can have cascading effect over maritime security of Indian Ocean.

If both the nations are genuinely committed to fight the ghost of ISIS, then it is a welcome move as a stable and peaceful Maldives is in the interest of regional security of Indian Ocean Region at large and India in particular. But the question remains as to what Saudi and Maldives are aspiring for? To replicate a Pakistani model in India’s backyard or to create a win-win-win situation for all?

Maneuvering between Two Friends- Way Ahead for India

Saudi Arabia is a time tested friend of India with trade being the dominant factor in the relationship. Diplomatically, Saudi is the gateway into the wider Arab world. India has contributed a lot in the prosperity of Saudi, by buying oil at high prices and by helping in building up its economy. It is largely believed that the Kingdom granted a grace period of six months to correct and regularize status of illegal workers in Saudi Arabia post enactment of Nitaqat wok policy in 2011 (directed at illegal expatriates in Saudi Arabia), keeping in mind more than 280,000 Indians working in Saudi.

Similarly, Maldives has traditionally come under India’s sphere of influence and depends heavily on India for its maritime security and military requirements. New Delhi’s immediate intervention under the banner of ‘Operation Cactus’ after Maldives request in 1988 to thwart the attempted coup against the then President Mohamed Gayoom is still remembered with reverence in Maldives. But the ongoing turmoil in Maldives which essentially is inimical to Indian interest is raising the concerns in New Delhi. Any attempt by an external player to strengthen ongoing consolidation of power and exacerbate the radicalization can have detrimental effects for India.

Deepening Saudi-Maldives relation can prevent Maldives from turning into the launchpad of Islamic State in Indian Subcontinent. But at the same time, India cannot remain insulated if Maldives becomes a safe haven for other extremists due to generous pouring of money from Saudi, which may like to foil Islamic State by emboldening its arch rival Al-Qaeda or LeT. Even the common Maldivian is not willing to endanger the gains of hard earned democracy by turning his homeland into a fertile ground of extremism. The challenge for India is to ensure that the money emanating from Saudi goes for empowerment of Maldivian society by actually promoting ‘the tolerant version of Islam’ than further radicalizing them and to pull out its economy from the current slump, without undermining the friendly relations with both the countries. It is extremely important to turn this credible threat of growing camaraderie between Saudi and Maldives into an opportunity for strengthening regional security mechanism by exchanging information.

The timing of Yameen’s visit to Saudi, barely five days after the pronouncement of Nasheed’s thirteen years jail term is alarming and underscores the urgency with which China and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have legitimized President Yameen’s acts. India cannot in any case remain a mute spectator and has to steer the wheel if it aspires to be the ‘Net Security Provider’ of the Indian Ocean region.

---

Published date: 31st March 2015, Image source: http://vid.alarabiya.net

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

Afghanistan’s Turbulent Past Could Once Again Become Its Future

Lt General R K Sawhney, Distinguished Fellow, VIF

Sushant Sareen, Senior Fellow, VIF

More than a decade after the US and its allies ousted the monstrous Taliban regime and gave the people of Afghanistan a level of stability and progress that they had not known in decades, it seems that things could well be coming a full circle. Ironically, someone who is perceived to be a prodigy of the Americans who has been fostered on Afghanistan through an election that was marred by ‘industrial scale fraud’ is likely to be person who is going to push Afghanistan towards instability and conflict, undermining the achievements for which a very heavy price in men and money was paid not just by Afghanistan but also by the international community. Worse, the new President of Afghanistan is not just seeking security from, but also appears to be mortgaging Afghanistan’s future to, the very country – Pakistan – that has been responsible for sabotaging the efforts of the international community to bring peace to Afghanistan.

Although the political transition from the former President Hamid Karzai to his successor was botched by the horribly rigged electoral process that catapulted a political light weight like Ashraf Ghani to the Presidency, there was some hope that the formation of the National Unity Government would help in getting over the bitter taste left by the stolen election. But it increasingly seems as though Ashraf Ghani is not going to live up to his side of the bargain, especially in terms of sharing power with other stakeholders and building a consensus on critical political, security and foreign policy issues.

By all accounts, even though Dr Abdullah Abdullah has been made the Chief Executive (a post that enjoys no constitutional sanctity) and had been promised a fair share in distribution of cabinet berths, Ghani appears to be manoeuvring to reduce Abdullah and his supporters into mere embellishments with no real power and no say in anything. This power grab by a man whose own legitimacy is in question is already causing a lot of heart burn and is likely to make cohabitation very difficult. Some Afghan analysts are of the view that the unilateral shifts affected by Ghani in foreign and security policy by literally agreeing to become a vassal of the GHQ in Rawalpindi – his ‘calling on’ the Pakistan Army Chief during his recent visit to Pakistan left no doubt about which way he is swinging – has only added to the sense of disquiet inside Afghanistan.

Already under strain, if the fragile political arrangement breaks down, political stability will become the first casualty, something that will work to the advantage of the Taliban and their backers across the Durand Line. Ashraf Ghani’s detractors believe that he is going all-out in trying to appease Pakistan in the fond hope that with a ‘friendly’, even compliant, government in Kabul, Pakistan will not only assist in a rapprochement with the Taliban but also stop all overt and covert hostile action inside Afghanistan by its proxies. In other words, Ghani’s play is to give the Pakistanis everything they want in return for them ensuring his own survival in Kabul.

In the quest to buy his insurance in Rawalpindi, Ashraf Ghani is engaged in striking closer relations with Pakistan’s allies, namely China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. He apparently has come to believe that financial support from these countries will compensate for any loss of assistance from countries like India and even some Western countries and therefore pave the way for an economic transition from an aid dependent to a self-sustaining economic model. Clearly, for Ghani, getting Pakistan on board is the key to successfully making not just the political but also the economic and security transition.

On the face of it, Ashraf Ghani’s kowtowing to Pakistan may appear to be making the best of a bad bargain. But this policy shift is likely to crumble when pitted against the reality of the Taliban. By casting his lot with Pakistan, Ghani will end up playing the Pakistani game in which he will either become a puppet or worse become redundant and therefore expendable. The Pakistani insistence on giving the Taliban a stake in power is quite simply unworkable because any power sharing agreement with the Taliban will not be worth the paper it is written on. Given that the Taliban leader claims to be Amir-ul-Momineen (leader of the faithful), he just cannot and will not accept such an arrangement and will sooner rather than later make a grab for total power.

Even if Pakistan is able to somehow bulldoze Mullah Omar into some kind of power sharing agreement with the Ashraf Ghani regime, it isn’t clear how this will wash down in the rank and file of not just the Taliban but also the anti-Taliban forces. Chances are that a large section of the Taliban fighters will repudiate Mullah Omar if he shows any flexibility, which in any case he doesn’t need to because he is pretty much sure he is on the winning path. The real question will, however, be what the Pakistanis will do if Mullah Omar refuses to any deal with Ghani. Will Pakistan declare war on the Afghan Taliban? Highly unlikely. And even if they do, it will in all likelihood mean prolonged instability in the entire swathe of territory straddling the Durand Line and even beyond. This means that the economic dividend being dreamed by Ghani and also by the Pakistanis – pipelines, trade and transit, energy corridor, minerals and what have you – will go up in smoke.

For their part, the anti-Taliban forces, which comprise the bulk of the army and other security agencies are also not going to take kindly to any major concession to the Taliban which leaves them marginalised and irrelevant in the scheme of power. Given that Ashraf Ghani has very little purchase with the Army, there is a strong possibility that he may not be able to bring the military to accept any Faustian bargain with the Taliban. There is also bound to be unease in the Afghan Army over Ghani agreeing to use Pakistani military training facilities for the Afghan officers and soldiers. This effectively means asking the Afghan military to take training from the very people who are responsible for supporting, supplying and providing sanctuary to the terrorists against whom the Afghan Army is fighting. Even if he is given the benefit of doubt and his intentions are not questioned, it is difficult to disregard that Ashraf Ghani is sending completely fuzzy signals to the security forces about who the enemy is, who they have to fight and how they have to fight. The more uncharitable assessment of Ghani’s plans for the Army would be that he is bartering the interests of the Afghan people and state for his own political survival, which too is doubtful.

Actually much of what Ghani is trying to do has been tried by his predecessor with very little to show for it. But while Hamid Karzai could afford to see his outreach to Pakistan fail because he had the benefit of US-led International forces propping up his government militarily and monetarily, much of this support will not be there for Ghani. In other words, he doesn’t have too much slack to play around with. A few wrong moves, some of which he has already made, and before he knows it, the entire edifice could start to crumble. His expectations of the Chinese, Saudis and Turks bailing him out are unrealistic. Worse, the Americans and other Western countries are losing interest in Afghanistan. Even though the Americans are assuring their watered down presence until at least 2016, there is a good chance they may leave much sooner. And the day they leave, the gravy train that had been propping up the Afghan state could stop abruptly. As far as the Americans are concerned, it seems they have no real problem with the prospect of the Chinese calling the shots through the Pakistanis in Afghanistan. Whether this tack will work and the Chinese will play ball in the way the Americans would like them to is another matter.

As far as India is concerned, Ashraf Ghani has made it quite clear that he has no use for India and has relegated it to the fourth circle of his priority countries. Frankly, part of the blame for this sort of relegation must be borne by India, especially the previous government which rooted for Ghani over Dr Abdullah partly because they were taken in by his smooth words professing eternal friendship, partly because they bought into the nonsense of backing a Pashtun, and partly because they somehow believed that Abdullah was getting too close to the Pakistanis. It is of course another matter that who India rooted was hardly important because things were going to be decided not by India but by the Americans and others who had decided to back Ashraf Ghani over Abdullah. But to the extent that India’s stance rubbed its friends the wrong way, it has been a bit of a setback. The worst mistake that was made by the UPA government was its extreme reluctance to provide the weapons and equipment that the Karzai government wanted to bolster its defence against overt and covert aggression from Pakistan. Ostensibly this was done because Manmohan Singh and his advisors were more mindful of Pakistani sensitivities than Afghan requirements. This disastrous policy not only created an impression that India was an unreliable partner, but worse, convinced some Afghans that if India too is giving more credence to Pakistan than to Afghanistan, then perhaps the Afghans are better off by dealing with Pakistan rather than relying upon India. Already India has a terrible reputation of not standing by its friends and this impression has only got strengthened in the backdrop of developments in Afghanistan.

All this is not to suggest that India has no cards to play. But before India plays any cards, it must understand that it was always a bit of a marginal player in Afghanistan. Partly for reasons of geography, military and economic strength - simply put, India isn’t quite America – and partly for reasons emanating from the way India conducted its Afghan policy – riding piggy back on the Americans and even giving in to them on its principled objection against delinking of Taliban from Al Qaeda – it was going to play at best a marginal role in determining the course of events in Afghanistan. To be sure, India’s development effort and its soft power earned it tremendous goodwill in Afghanistan. But this was never going to be worth much in the face of use of hard power by the enemies of Afghanistan. There was a time, in the early years after the ouster of the Taliban that India could have played a more pro-active role and tied the Afghans closely with Indian interests. But back then, the Americans wanted to keep India’s role limited to keep the Pakistanis happy. By the time the Americans realised that the Pakistanis had outplayed them with their treachery, and they wanted India to commit itself to Afghanistan, it would have been foolish for India to clean up the mess that the Americans were leaving behind.

While India did share a close relationship with the Afghan security establishment and there was cooperation on intelligence matters relating to the terrorist threat that both countries faced from the same source, this was a normal state to state relationship between two friendly countries and wasn’t directed against any third country. And yet, Pakistan created a bogey out of this which it then used to justify its sponsorship and support for the Taliban. What was most galling was the manner in which the specious narrative of Pakistan found subscribers in the West who spoke about an India-Pakistan proxy war in Afghanistan. These people never bothered to ask as to how come if a proxy war was being fought, then diplomats and citizens of only one country were on the receiving end of terror attacks while those of the other country strutted about as though they owned Afghanistan. If India had actually been involved in a proxy war, surely there would have been some retaliation against Pakistanis in Afghanistan, but this never happened.

The fact, however, is that India has a vital interest in Afghanistan. This interest is essentially limited to seeing Afghanistan become a stable and secure country. Historically, instability in Afghanistan has destabilised India. For stability in Afghanistan it is important that it doesn’t become a base for international or regional terrorists. This is an interest that India needs to protect, something it can do despite limitations of geography. India has enough friends in Afghanistan who share the same interest and regardless of what Ashraf Ghani does, India can continue to play a role in Afghanistan, directly or indirectly. The simple logic of Afghanistan is that there will always be people who will reach out to India for help and assistance. When this happens, India should be ready to play the role that it needs to for stabilising Afghanistan. In the meantime, India needs to build its economic strength and its military muscle. Most of all, India needs to pay attention to border security and beefing up its security grid not just along its western borders but also its other land and sea borders.

---

Published Date: 24^th November 2014, Imagesource: http://i1.tribune.com.pk

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

War on Terrorism – Role for 'Modi-fied' India

Col (Retd) Karan Kharb

The horrific video clips showing masked killers from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) killing hordes of unarmed civilians and beheading humans have shocked but convinced the civilised world about the gruesome design and expanding outreach of terrorism in the world today. Joint military operations undertaken by the coalition forces led by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere have no doubt uprooted and transplanted governments but more terrorist outfits have sprouted from every assumed victory. The menace of terrorism has only multiplied in size and potential like the mythological character of demon Raktabeej. Every time Raktabeej was wounded, hordes of his clones would rise from the drops of his blood falling on the ground until he was finally vanquished and killed by Goddess Mahakali. The Goddess had adopted a unique strategy of pointed and precise lethal strikes taking due care ('Khappar') not to allow a drop of the demon's blood fall on the ground.

Today, the worsening security scenario of the world warrants a review of the terror climate so that pragmatic strategic options can be explored and found to not only chase and kill terrorists but also to address the problem in a holistic manner. It is not enough to locate and destroy the frontline pawns of terror. Roots of terror have not yet been touched. The strategy must encompass ways and means that would discourage, suppress and finally reverse the trend of violence through multi-pronged intervention including the roots.

West Asia – the Cradle of Terrorism

It is now clear to everyone in the world how mass uprisings against the autocratic regimes in West Asia and North Africa in the recent years have only precipitated the inevitable. The cascading course of these uprisings had markings of a revolution, people's quest for liberty and democratic and people-powered regimes. The tumultuous movement, however, has gone awry giving way to forces of anarchy and ultra-violent extremism in the name of Islam. Whereas people had aspired for peace and prosperity and looked for freedom from self-serving despotic rulers, they found themselves in utter chaos and bedlam. It is a case of the proverbial fall from the frying pan into the fire – and the fire has continued to rage from Libya to Syria, Afghanistan to Ukraine and beyond.

While most of the Arab world continues to squirm under turmoil, organisations like Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab and Boko Haram have already established their physical control over territories in Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria respectively. The ISIS has grown rather fast and even more menacingly ceasing territories and publically executing innocent civilians en-masse. They have not shied from posting on the social media horrific video clips of hapless journalists and social workers being savagely beheaded by masked killers. Display of gore, gloom and horror seems to be a design to induce shock and panic in the public, horrify media viewers and kill resistance achieving thereby instant and absolute surrender of the terrified masses.

Significantly, ISIS already has raised an 'army' of its own from the remnants of Saddam Hussein loyalists. It also has some armoured and artillery units of the previous Iraqi regime. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the ISIS chief and self-appointed Caliph has under his control large swathes of Syrian and Iraqi territory as his Caliphate - an Islamic State (IS). His express dreams are "to capture and convert the entire world into an Islamic State". The end result of the air strikes being currently undertaken by the coalition forces will be known only after the operations are over. Nevertheless, going by the precedents it would be reasonable to assume that the ISIS will regroup and re-emerge in a refurbished form here or elsewhere in due course.

India – the Next Chapter of Jehad!

India figures among the top priority targets of most of these outfits. Charge sheets filed by NIA in New Delhi against five jehadis captured recently reveal existence of an AfPak based outfit called 'Ansar ul Tawhid fi Bilad al Hind' (AuT). AuT has been hobnobbing with ISIS and planning to unleash an Iraq-Syria like jehad in India, a threat that draws credence from ISIS Chief Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's video call for jehad in India. Obviously, India is the designated next chapter of Jehad. Socio-political environment within the country provides inherent protection for incubating and raising dedicated terrorists. The recent spurt in Hindu girls being induced or blackmailed to marry Muslim boys and reports of their forced conversions reveal how campaigns like 'Love Jehad' are being pursued in an organised way. Whenever terrorists are arrested or killed in encounter, politicians waste no time in raising an accusing finger at the police and security forces rather than appreciating their efficiency in pre-empting and defusing what could be devastating terror attacks. Further, even in the face of clinching evidence, Qazis and Imams have been unwilling to come together jointly to denounce and condemn violence and killings. Political parties also have been selective and subjective in their response. Positions thus adopted by vote-bank hungry politicians and community chieftains portend more serious challenges ahead.

The Looming Nuclear Arm of Terror

The Information Age technology has made it affordable even for the not-so-advanced states and terrorist outfits to steal, smuggle or devise material that can be put to devastating use. There are many non-nuclear states that have chemical weapon facilities of their own. Investigations carried out by the UN Mission in Syria confirmed that the rebels had used chemical weapons against soldiers and civilians in Syria in August 2013. Already there is enough evidence of illegal and covert transfer of nuclear technology and weapon grade fuels among nations. Incidents of smuggling weapon grade enriched uranium have often surfaced in the media. The name of Pakistani scientist AQ Khan was linked with covert and illegal transfer of centrifuge enrichment designs and components including some carbon-fibre rotors to Iraq and Libya. Concerns have also been expressed in the recent past about North Korea's undue interest in extending 'military cooperation' to Myanmar.

From time to time, there have also been reports and scientific conjectures that some of the non-nuclear states like Iran have acquired 'breakout capability' to quickly convert their low-enriched uranium available for civil nuclear facilities into enriched weapon grade uranium if and when needed. The nuclear safeguards regime has remained inadequate. There are apprehensions that illegal nuclear activities might be covertly in progress in various parts of the world despite IAEA oversight because the Agency itself is handicapped in its scope and capacity. Fabricating and detonating 'dirty bombs' require neither elaborate manufacturing plants nor sophisticated delivery means. The menace of mushrooming terrorist outfits, their expanding potential and success in gaining control of towns, villages, facilities, oil wells and other installations should convince the world that evil forces like ISIS, Taliban or Al Qaeda have already crept very close to grabbing control of nuclear facilities and weapons in nuclear weapon states like Pakistan. Once there with the nuclear weapons and crews under command, these very outfits shall deter coalition military operations against terrorism and dictate terms to the world.

It is well known that terror groups have been using communication networks including satellite communication to their advantage for quite some time. What is not as well known is their enhanced capability and potential in cyberspace. Al Qaeda and its affiliates have their threshold domains that would enable them to maximise use and misuse of cyberspace ranging from spying, hacking and hijacking communication and guidance systems of satellites, missiles, drones. This capability renders nuke safeguards even more vulnerable.

Need for New Vision, New Strategy

Military operations by coalition forces led by the US against rogue states and terrorist strongholds in the past have been vigorously conducted in different areas during the last two decades. Unfriendly regimes were wiped out and friendlier governments were installed. However, in all cases the new regimes have proved to be even more unstable and chaotic. Iraq, Afghanistan. Libya et al are live examples. More terrorist outfits, each stronger than their earlier siblings, have mushroomed after each phase of assumed victories over rogue terror states and organisations. Terrorism is no longer faceless or invisible today. The new phase of Islamic terror now stares and dares the world frontally from physically held territories. This phenomenon should convince strategists and planners of counter-terrorist operations that military action alone cannot be the final solution to the world's most vexing problem. Military operations are only one among the potent tools to discourage and suppress violence in a limited area for a limited time.

Today, while President Obama and Prime Minister Modi discuss the problem and resolve to address it unitedly, we need to look at it from another standpoint that is universally understood but persistently kept un-expressed in deference to religious sensitivities of followers of Islam. No one can deny that Muslims are largely a law abiding, peace loving and humanitarian lot full of compassion and care for others. Yet, no one can deny that the largest number of terrorists in the world today belong to this community. The painful truth is that not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists making news today are Muslims. In spite of this stark reality, all jehadis combined do not make even a noticeable fraction of the total Muslim population of the world. Yet, they are the darkest blot on their community and the worst threat to human civilisation and progress. Unabated growth of this evil is harming the Muslims themselves in return. Wary and suspicious under the circumstances, people all over the world are increasingly becoming reluctant to share opportunities, jobs, accommodation and relationships with Muslims in every country and society. Quite a few Muslim intellectuals believe Islam is already going through renaissance and the forces of violence are convulsions of labour pains of a new order.

The current strategy is a display of awesome military power that is unwittingly projected as anti-Muslim by the cynics and pro-terror lobbies. The propaganda makes the terrorists appear as victims in an attempt to garner undeserved empathy for them from the peoples where modern communication networks are controlled and not freely available even today. Thanks to the obscurantists in Islam, a Fatwa for Jehad from the fundamentalist clerics still galvanises people to support the evil under the cover of ethnic solidarity. Thankfully, however, more and more Muslim leaders, thinkers, entrepreneurs and people are getting averse to militancy growing at the behest of a few in Islam. Therefore, any strategy that ignores Islamic role in combating terrorism will remain inadequate in the War against Terrorism. Ideally, the onslaught against fundamentalist violence and terror must be led by the forces of modern, awakened Islam rather than powers that are spitefully projected by the perpetrators as un-Islamic and anti-Islamic.

India has a greater responsibility in the war against terrorism for two reasons. One, having suffered from the malaise for decades, India is the prime victim of terror. Two, India's Muslim population is more than the total population of Pakistan from where terrorism continues to flow in. Therefore, it is India's right as well as responsibility to assume a bigger and more direct role in the global effort against terrorism.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has shown early signs of a statesman who has vision and resolve. Also, his team of advisors has some of India's outstanding brains with rich experience and proven abilities to devise and implement strategic options of far reaching consequences that could catapult India to its aspired high position in the comity of nations. Enjoying the backing of a clear and thumping mandate of the people, the Modi Government can do it. In his address to the UN General Assembly, the Prime Minister actually sought to introduce a paradigm shift when he exhorted nations to shun fragmentary tendencies – "G-7, G-20…." – and called for "G-All" – a unity of all nations to serve all humanity under the aegis of the United Nations. It is time to translate this call into an action plan: "G-All – Be all together to rid the world terror and save human civilisation."

(The writer is a military veteran, author and social activist)

---

Published Date: 14^th October 2014, Image source: http://media2.s-nbcnews.com

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

India-US Relations – the Road Ahead

Dr Harinder Sekhon, 

Senior Fellow, VIF

The recently held Modi-Obama summit has been subjected to varied assessments both in India and the United States. Official communiqués describe the meeting as “extraordinarily successful,” one that has re-energised the strategic partnership between the two countries and set the stage for a ‘re-set’ of Indo-US relations. According to the Joint Statement, the two leaders have ‘endorsed’ the first ‘Vision Statement for the Strategic Partnership’ as a “guide to strengthen and deepen cooperation in every sector for the benefit of global stability and people’s livelihoods over the next ten years. They also reiterated their commitment to move forward together through a new mantra: ‘Chalein Saath Saath: Forward Together We Go.’

According to Phil Reiner, senior Director for India at the US National Security Council, Prime Minister Modi’s visit was “extraordinarily successful. It has provided a boost in terms of the vision and focus that we have for our bilateral relations." He further elaborated, "We’re excited to be moving forward with a re-energized strategic partnership. The US continues to strongly support a prosperous India that plays an important role in the global stage, and I think the Prime Minister's visit really provided the opportunity for the two leaders to discuss that vision that's necessary in order to set the framework under which we are going to operate going forward."

This in a nutshell sums up the importance of the Modi-Obama meeting despite a counter voice closer home where some analysts feel that the euphoria is a creation of media hype and that there has been more style and rhetoric rather than substance. India does figure high in US strategic calculus and according to Nicholas Burns, “In strategic terms, there are few countries more important to Washington than India, the dominant power in the Indian Ocean region and, with Japan, the most important U.S. partner in Asia seeking to limit Chinese assertiveness in the region.” Economically too, Indian and US interests are finding increasing convergence between the US search for investment opportunities and India’s need for foreign investments to meets its developmental goals.

This mutual dependence has turned Modi’s visit into one of the most remarkable visits by an Indian Prime Minister to the United States. PM Modi packed in a wide range of activities into a fast-paced schedule both in New York and Washington D.C. displaying great energy, oratorical skill and a remarkable flair for diplomacy that helped establish a strong connect with all the major stake holders – the Indian American community, business leaders and the US Congress. Whether it was his event at the Madison Square Garden or his stroll around the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington D.C with President Barack Obama, all had a positive impact and there is optimism that under Modi’s decisive and pragmatic leadership, backed by a strong political mandate, India-US relations will move to a higher trajectory. The vision statement lays out a clear road map for bringing matters to fruition over the long term and in the coming months various bilateral meetings are slated to be held between stakeholders to “revitalize the existing partnership and find new areas for collaboration and mutual benefit.”

But much work remains to be done. Despite the positive synergy that the two leaders have created, there are many hurdles that linger from the past. American strategic thinkers and policy analysts see a lack of vision and commitment on both sides and while admitting that President Obama has been more preoccupied with other pressing matters, they are equally quick to remind that India would also need to “walk the talk” and take definite incremental steps to overcome the policy paralysis of the past couple of years. To India, the United States seems too transactional which leads to considerable mistrust towards its motives. This leads to utmost caution on moving the economic and strategic agenda forward, which in turn frustrates the US as this has delayed and even disrupted initiatives in the past – something that does not inspire confidence especially at a time when India is seeking US investments to revive India’s economy.

In the economic sphere, the Joint Statement observes that while US-India trade, at $100 billion, has increased five-fold since 2001, the two leaders have committed to “facilitate the actions necessary to increase trade another fivefold.” Investments in infrastructure development, clean energy and R&D – all critical to India’s developmental needs, have been listed as priority areas for joint ventures. India also aspires to emulate the US in preeminence in research and innovation, as also the manner in which it has leveraged the power of entrepreneurship to enhance the prosperity of its people. Therefore, it is in India’s interest to foster closer economic ties with the US, our second-largest trading partner and the largest customer base for the Indian software industry.

While the PM has re-ignited excitement about India amongst major US business houses and the Indian American business community, asking them to “Come, make in India,” policy makers would have to be realistic and recognize that no investments will come if a venture will not bring benefits to the investor as well. For all stake holders to gain equally from any business collaboration, there will have to be immediate structural reforms to create an amiable business environment and assure the American business community that Indian red tape would be weeded out and simpler business and tax procedures established.

Both leaders “discussed their concerns about the current impasse in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its effect on the multilateral trading system.” Officials in both countries have been directed to hold consultations with other WTO members and find a way out of this stalemate. Since India’s recent stand at WTO has caused ‘frustration’ and ‘despondence’ in the US, India must be seen as a resolute power committed to upholding the global trading system and should find a solution that would safeguard its food security concerns without isolating it from the global trading regime. Such a settlement would benefit Indian business leaders too and they are in favour of India negotiating its inclusion into APEC, show its commitment to find a way out of the WTO impasse and look for ways to move forward on the BIT.

The fact that the D-Company and South China Sea were mentioned for the first time in the Joint statement shows greater acceptance and a meeting of minds on common threats and challenges. Both leaders “reaffirmed their deep concern over the continued threat posed by terrorism, most recently highlighted by the dangers presented by the ISIL,…and underlined the need for joint and concerted efforts …to disrupt all financial and tactical support for networks such as Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, the D-Company, and the Haqqanis.” This is a positive signal and counter-terror cooperation will be stepped up.

The two leaders have also agreed to intensify cooperation in maritime security to tackle the challenges posed by maritime disputes, especially in the South China Sea. Cooperation in East Asia is to be stepped up “through consultations, dialogues and joint exercises” amongst the countries of the Asia-Pacific. It is heartening to see that India seems to have shed off its reticence and is assuming a more robust strategic role in East Asia.

To facilitate deeper defence cooperation, the Framework for US-India Defence Relationship of 2005 has been renewed for another ten years. While not much headway was made in the first ten years as India has not agreed to US proposals for a Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), and End-User Verification Agreements (EUVA) on military sales because of the physical inspections built into military sales and transfer of technology issues, there is optimism that both India and the US would be more accommodating as India embarks on the process to acquire more weaponry to meet its defense shortfall, something that the US military-industrial complex cannot ignore.

The first meeting of the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), in September 2014, has decided to establish a Task Force to “evaluate and decide on unique projects and technologies which would have a transformative impact on bilateral defence relations and enhance India’s defense industry and capabilities.” This follows from US Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel’s assurance in New Delhi in August 2014 to revitalize the DTTI that had been announced by the earlier Defence Secretary Leon Panetta in 2013. The aim of the DTTI was to shift US-India defence relations from a buyer-seller relationship to one involving co-production and co-development. It said the "closest partners" would collaborate in "defence technology transfer, trade, research, co-development and co-production for defence articles and services, including the most advanced and sophisticated technology." Focused working groups to move this initiative forward need to be set up as such collaborations have the potential to impart India greater strategic autonomy and prestige in a changing global scenario.

India-US relations have without doubt received a positive boost from the Modi-Obama summit meeting. The two countries are bound by common values, people to people interactions, soft power linkages and a basic understanding of each other that brings a special dynamism into this partnership. But the challenge in creating a durable strategic relationship will be for the US to treat India as an equal partner and for India to make itself sufficiently useful to Washington to ‘justify the political costs’ needed to implement policies that strengthen Indian power. Can Modi and Obama establish a definitive road map and sustain the momentum?

---

Published Date: 13^th October 2014, Image source: http://im.rediff.com

China Eyeing Enhanced Role in Afghanistan Post US Drawdown

Monish Gulati

China's Foreign Ministry on 18 July said that it had appointed a special envoy for Afghanistan, underscoring its concerns on the political and security developments in the country. Sun Yuxi, a former ambassador to both Afghanistan (between 2002 and 2004) and India, has been named as the special envoy and will have "close communication" with Afghanistan and other relevant parties to help "ensure lasting peace, stability and development for Afghanistan and the region", the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in its statement.

Recent events, both internal and external, appear to drive the ramping up of Chinese interest in Afghanistan. Continued disturbances in Xinjiang, cooling of relations with Myanmar, Pakistan’s tussle with its internal security, Saudi-Iran rivalry and the developments in Afghanistan itself are some of the drivers. To that end, Sun Yuxi’s appointment not only signals Chinese concerns regarding possible threats emanating from the region, but also an intent to firm up some of its geo-economic initiatives in the wake of US drawdown from Afghanistan. This article examines the current Chinese focus on Af-Pak.

Terrorism

One of China's chief worries is that Uighur militants, who are fighting for a separate state called East Turkestan in China's Xinjiang region, will step up their activities by exploiting the security vacuum in Afghanistan after most of the NATO forces withdraw by the end of the year. China believes hundreds of Uighur militants of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) are holed up in the tribal areas straddling Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is a good cause for the Chinese worry- despite employing a wide range of measures it has failed to get a grip on the insurgency in Xinjiang.

Early on 28 July, the last day of Ramadan, 215 Uighurs armed with knives and axes attacked a police station and government offices in Elixku and Huangdi towns in Shache County in Xinjiang.¹ Chinese police shot dead 59 attackers in response and 37 civilians also died during the incident. A total of 13 armed Chinese personnel were killed and about 67 people were arrested in this connection. On 30 July, Jume Tahir, the Imam of China’s largest mosque in the westernmost city of Kashgar was attacked as he was leaving the Id Kah mosque and stabbed to death.² The 74-year-old Imam, who was also a former deputy to the official National People’s Congress (NPC), was reportedly supporting China’s Communist party by publicly speaking out against the wave of violence in Xinjiang and accusing the separatist Muslims for halting progress and social and ethnic cohesion.

The recent Ramadan violence is amongst a string of incidents that have been taking place in Xinjiang over past few months. Among the most shocking incidents was a market attack in Xinjiang’s capital Urumqi in which 39 people were killed in May, and a deadly rampage by knife-wielding assailants at a train station at Kunming in China’s southwest in March, which left 29 dead. Earlier this month, Chinese courts in Xinjiang sentenced 32 people to prison terms ranging from four years to life for terrorism-related charges. In June, authorities executed 13 people, and sent more than 100 to jail in a public mass sentencing on mostly terrorism-related offences in Xinjiang.

China’s approach to curb insurgency in Xinjiang is a combination of economic inducements and harsh security measures. To that end, it seeks to bring economic development, jobs and higher standard of living to Xinjiang by creating economic corridors or Silk routes through the region to the Central Asian Republics and Pakistan.

The insurgency in Xinjiang has been acquiring external dimensions. According to China's special envoy for the Middle East, Wu Sike, Muslim extremists from Xinjiang have gone to the Middle East for training and some may have crossed into Iraq to participate in the upsurge of violence there.³The Af-Pak region is key to curbing the disturbances in Xinjiang; both in terms of promoting economic development of the region and denying sanctuaries to the Uighur militants.

Afghanistan

Appropriately Sun Yuxi commenced his charge with a visit to Kabul, and on 23 July, he had talks with President Karzai and presidential candidates Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani on separate occasions. During his stay in Afghanistan, Sun also met with US and European Union ambassadors to the country as well as the head of United Nations Assistance Mission.⁴

Sun reaffirmed China’s support for the ongoing political and reconciliation process in Afghanistan and said if groups in Afghanistan including Taliban reach agreement on national reconciliation then nobody will make trouble."So far we have not directly got involved with Afghan groups including Taliban and we place our hope on the new government." He said he will visit US, Russia, India and Iran to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.

On Afghanistan's future, Sun said the immediate and most important task is to achieve reconciliation for all parties and sectors as only nationwide reconciliation is an effective measure for long term stability. He added that China is concentrating on economic development and raising standard of living to help create peace and security in Afghanistan and to that end the private sector must be involved.

Pakistan

In his first presser in China on 21 July, Sun Yuxi had praised Pakistan and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) for their fight against terrorism and all but absolved them of any involvement in the recent attack on the Indian consulate in Herat.⁵Sun Yuxi said "I think ISI has been effective in fighting against terrorism. I do believe that Pakistan government or any responsible agency of Pakistan will only fight against terrorism instead of being involved with any terrorist." Sun told the media that he saw in the future, the Pakistan government playing an important and positive role in the peaceful reconstruction of Afghanistan.

While visiting Pakistan, Sun Yuxi called on the Pakistani Foreign Secretary and expressed China's solidarity with Pakistan in this endeavour and appreciated Pakistan's contribution to global efforts against terrorism.⁶ Pakistan highlighted its constructive engagement to promote regional cooperation. The two sides also conferred on the Ministerial Meeting of the Heart of Asia/Istanbul Process, to be held in Tianjin, China.

At the same time, Pakistan is eyeing Beijing’s proposed huge investment of about $40 billion over the next eight years in the country’s energy, water, coal, roads and other infrastructure projects. China has reportedly commissioned a "preliminary research study" to build an international rail link connecting its westernmost city of Kashgar in Xinjiang with Pakistan's deep-sea Gwadar Port, according to the Director of Xinjiang's Regional Development and Reform Commission.⁷ The 1,800-km China-Pakistan railway is planned to also pass through Pakistan's capital of Islamabad and Karachi, with land ports to India and Afghanistan also being proposed.

India

As regards India, China is aware of the US influence on its Afghan policy and that as US forces withdraw, sooner or later Washington will lose its effective veto over more aggressive Indian approach. If Afghan politics and security start to unravel or India feels it has been short-changed strategically, it is likely to make its own costs and benefits calculations and chose a path of greater intervention.⁸ There would therefore a requirement to factor in Indian interests to some measure.

Assessment

Sun Yuxi statements during his visits to Afghanistan and Pakistan are indicative of Chinese approach to Af-Pak. Pakistan is the primary partner, who will play a dominant role in the reconciliation and reconstruction in Afghanistan. Efforts will be made to integrate the Taliban into politics and governance at the provincial level and ideally at the national level. Chinese capital would power the Kashgar-Gwadar economic corridor; Pakistan would ensure its security and indirectly contribute to the security of Xinjiang. Exploitation of natural resources would be the main plank of the Chinese strategy to revive Afghan economy and Pakistan would gain the control of the Afghan transit trade.

Beijing has come to perceive that its near-term aims in Afghanistan are consistent with those of the US, that being fighting terrorism and avoiding a relapse into civil war. To the extent the two sides disagree, it is over the specific sources of threat; Uighur separatists or al-Qaeda. Beijing, therefore, appears remarkably eager to cooperate with the US in Afghanistan. However, the key is how China is reading the situation in Afghanistan; does it anticipate a complete US drawdown from the region by 2016 or will find space to articulate its interest despite US presence in a counter-terror posture in Afghanistan. If not would it look to squeeze out US from the region with support from Pakistan; which would make it easy for it to negotiate with the Taliban and of course call the shots in Af-Pak .

Russian buy-in would come from the fact that it would get access to a land route for selling its gas; diverting it away from Europe and expand its arms supply to Afghanistan and other nations in Central Asia. It would assist in curbing narcotics trade and receive support in checking the rise in Islamist militancy. Iran would get to retain its cultural influence in Western Afghanistan, sell gas to Pakistan and probably India through a land pipeline and have the main Chinese “silk route” to Europe running through northern Iran.

In the coming few months Beijing would be focussed on the establishment of the new Afghan government and the Istanbul Process, a ministerial-level dialogue that brings together all of Afghanistan’s neighbours and major donors. China is hosting the next conference in Tianjin and is eager to make it a meaningful event by using the meeting as a means to confer the international community’s approval on the next Afghan government.

China is also conscious of the fact that its top down approach of doing work may not succeed in post-Karzai Afghanistan and that it would need Pakistani support. To this end, some Chinese officials even suggest that the present diplomatic initiative is aimed at expanding Chinese regional expertise and capacity to understand the political dynamics in developing states.

In the current situation, with the US seemingly keen on just curbing terrorism emanating from Afghanistan (and directed at the US), it would most likely be happy to go along with China as long as these objectives are achieved. The current imbroglio in Ukraine would to an extent have compromised the Russian stand in support of India, when faced with Chinese opposition. India would most probably then be coerced into accepting the Chinese game-plan in Afghanistan, with the prospect of TAPI/IPI, a land port on the Kashgar-Gwadar corridor and SCO/ APEC membership thrown in as sweeteners.

Endnotes

1. Dozens killed in terror attack in China’s Xinjiang, Agence France-Presse , July 30, 2014. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/624792/dozens-killed-in-terror-attack-in-ch...
2. ‘Imam of China’s largest mosque stabbed to death,’ Al Arabiya News, July 31, 2014. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/07/31/Imam-of-China-s-largest-...
3. Ben Blanchard. ‘China says may have citizens fighting in Iraq,’ Reuters, July 28, 2014. http://news.yahoo.com/china-says-may-citizens-fighting-iraq-065750770.html
4. China to give more support for Afghanistan's development: Envoy, Eastday.com, July 26, 2014. http://english.eastday.com/auto/eastday/nation/u1ai10370_K3.html
5. Sutirtho Patranobis. ‘China's new Afghan envoy lauds Pak spy agency ISI,’ Hindustan Times, July 21, 2014. http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-spy-agency-isi-a-respo...
6. ‘Pakistan, China renew resolve for Afghan peace,’ The Nation, July 28, 2014
   http://southasiamonitor.org/detail.php?type=vign&nid=8642
7. China launches study to build rail link to Pakistan via Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, PTI, June 28, 2014. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-28/news/50929596_1_...
8. Daniel Markey.’ Afghanistan Anxieties Reign in India and China,’ CFR, July 24, 2014. http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2014/07/24/markey-afghanistan-anxieties-reign-...

(The author is an independent analyst based in New Delhi)

---

Published Date: 22^nd September 2014, Image source: http://www.wadsam.com

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

Pak Army Ops in North Waziristan is a Tough Challenge

Brig (Retd) Gurmeet Kanwal, 

Visiting Fellow, VIF

The Pakistan army launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb(sharp and cutting), its much delayed ground offensive against the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in North Waziristan, on June 15, 2014. Since then, the army claims to have killed 386 TTP and Uzbek terrorists, including the mastermind of the twin terrorist attacks on Karachi airport on June 9th and 10th, while 20 soldiers have lost their lives. Approximately 600,000 civilian inhabitants have had to leave their homes and join the swelling numbers of IDPs (internally displaced persons) in Pakistan. North Waziristan is the last bastion of anti-Pakistan terrorists who have killed over 50,000 civilians and army personnel in ten years.

According to the Karachi Airport Security Force, 29 people died in the suicide attack on the airport, including all ten terrorists, while 24 were injured. On the same day, in the latest manifestation of continuing sectarian violence, Sunni extremists killed 23 Shia pilgrims travelling by bus in Balochistan. Later, on June 24th, a PIA flight was fired upon while landing at Peshawar airport; one woman inside the aircraft suffered fatal gun-shot wounds. Earlier, on June 4th, two officers of the rank of Lt Col and three other personnel had been killed by the TTP in a suicide attack in Rawalpindi. These attacks are clearly indicative of the ability of Pakistan’s terrorist organisations to strike at will and underline the helplessness of the security forces in taking effective preventive action.

Despite facing the grave danger of a possible collapse of the state, the Pakistan government's counter-insurgency policy had until now lacked cohesion. The commencement of a peace dialogue with the TTP in February 2014, despite the abject failure of several such efforts in the past, allowed the terrorist organisation to re-arm, recruit, train fresh fighters and plan new operations. In March 2014, the TTP offered a month-long cease-fire. The army honoured the cease-fire and refrained from undertaking active operations, but several TTP factions disregarded the diktat of the leadership and fought on. On April 16th, the TTP reneged on its ceasefire pledge and blamed the government for failing to make any new offers.

In the face of mounting public and army pressure, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reluctantly agreed to approve military strikes. He was apprehensive that General Raheel Sharif, the COAS, may unilaterally decide to launch an all-out offensive. The army had been recommending to the government for quite some time that firm military action was necessary to deal with the menace of home grown terrorism. The PM is now backing the army fully and has said that he will not allow Pakistan to become a “sanctuary of terrorists” and that the military operation will continue till all the militants are eliminated.

The deteriorating internal security environment has gradually morphed into Pakistan’s foremost national security threat. Karachi remains a tinderbox that is ready to explode. The Al Qaeda is quietly making inroads into Pakistani terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Harkat-ul-Jihad Al-Islami (HuJI), Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM) and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ). The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has consolidated its position in North Waziristan and could have broken out of its stronghold into neighbouring areas. Fissiparous tendencies in Balochistan and the restive Gilgit-Baltistan Northern Areas are a perpetual security nightmare.

Realisation about the gravity of the internal security situation has dawned on the Pakistan army as well. Two successive army Chiefs have declared publicly that internal instability is the number one national security threat. However, unlike the Indian Army that has been embroiled in low intensity conflict since the 1950s, the Pakistan army is relatively inexperienced in counter-insurgency operations. The then Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani had declared 2009 as ‘Military Training Year’ to re-orientate the army to internal security duties. Before becoming COAS, General Raheel Sharif had developed the training manuals for counter-insurgency. Over the last decade, the Pakistan army has deployed more than 150,000 soldiers in the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa and FATA areas. It has suffered over 15,700 casualties, including about 5,000 dead since 2008. The total casualties, including civilian, number almost 50,000 since 2001.

Hurt by a series of Taliban successes in “liberating” tribal areas and under pressure from the Americans to deliver in the “war on terror”, in the initial stages the Pakistan army employed massive firepower to stem the rot – as was visible on television screens worldwide when operations were launched to liberate the Swat Valley (Operation Rah-e-Rast, May-Jun 2009) and South Waziristan (Operation Rah-e-Nijat, Oct-Nov 2009). Fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships and heavy artillery were freely used to destroy suspected terrorist hideouts, irrespective of civilian casualties. This heavy-handed, firepower-based approach without simultaneous infantry operations on the ground failed to dislodge the militants, but caused large-scale collateral damage and alienated the tribal population even further.

Counter-insurgency operations against the TTP in South Waziristan drove most of the fighters to North Waziristan, but till now the army had been reluctant to extend its operations to this province. North Waziristan has rugged mountainous terrain that enables TTP militants to operate like guerrillas and launch hit-and-run raids against the security forces. When cornered, the militants find it easy to slip across the Durand Line and find safe sanctuaries in Khost and Paktika provinces of Afghanistan. A large number of militants are known to have escaped into neighbouring provinces in the month preceding the ground offensive.

Pervez Hoodbhoy, well-known physicist, said in an interview on July 3rd, “Pakistan's biggest problem is that religious extremism and intolerance have penetrated deep into the bones of society.North Waziristan is a magnet for jihadists from across the world. Earlier their terrorism was directed internationally and hence tolerated. But now their full fury is frontally directed at Pakistan: the people, state, and military... This military operation will certainly not eliminate terrorism. But unless radical militants are contained using force, they will soon overrun Pakistan. Recent events in Iraq and Syria should open our eyes to that terrible possibility... Forced into a war that is not of its own choice, the Army is seeking a way out.Today the Pakistan Army is genuinely at war against a fanatical, religiously charged enemy. It should not be dismissed as "noorakushti"…I suspect that, like the Lal Masjid operation, Zarb-e-Azb will turn out to be a kind of watershed. It has seriously disturbed the relations between the Army and its former allies, and will deepen the split within the Army as well. The traditionally pro-military Jamaat-e-Islami is furiously condemning the military action and demanding talks instead.”

Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban and Descent into Chaos, has written: “Not only does North Waziristan house Pakistani and Afghan Taliban; it is also a training ground for al-Qaeda, which attracts Central Asians, Uighurs from China, Chechens from the Caucasus and a flow of militant Muslim converts from Europe.” Quite clearly, the Pakistan army is in for the long haul and will undoubtedly suffer a large number of casualties.

Though the Army Chief has said that the present operation is aimed at eliminating “all terrorists and their sanctuaries” in North Waziristan, it is not yet clear whether strikes are being launched against the Haqqani network and two other militant groups that are based in North Waziristan. These groups have been primarily targeting the NATO/ ISAF forces and the Afghan National Army (ANA). Of these, the Hafiz Gul Bahadur group has hosted the Haqqani network and the TTP in North Waziristan and the Mullah Nazir group is in control of the Wana region of South Waziristan. These three groups are called the “good Taliban” by the Pakistan army and the ISI and are looked upon as “strategic assets” to influence events in Afghanistan after the NATO/ ISAF draw down has been completed. The Haqqani network has also been employed to target Indian assets in Afghanistan.

What do these developments portend for India? Regional instability always has a negative impact on economic development and trade. Creeping Talibanisation and radical extremism are threatening Pakistan’s sovereignty. If the Pakistan army fails to conclusively eliminate the scourge in the north-west, it will soon reach Punjab, which has been relatively free of major incidents of violence. After that, it will only be a matter of time before the terrorist organisations manage to push the extremists across the Radcliffe Line into India. It is in India’s interest for the Pakistan government to succeed in its fight against radical extremism.

Political turmoil, internal instability, a floundering economy and weak institutions make for an explosive mix. Pakistan is not yet a failed state, but the situation that it is confronted with could rapidly degenerate into unfettered disaster. All institutions of the state must stand together for the nation to survive its gravest challenge. The Pakistan army and the ISI must concentrate on fighting the enemy within, rather than frittering away energy and resources on destabilising neighbouring countries.

---

Published Date: 23^rd July 2014, Image source: http://cache.pakistantoday.com.pk