Significance of Historical Parallels and the Future of Anglo-American World Order

Context

The historical parallels are important in developing perspectives on present-day conundrums. They provide an illustration of where matters were and how they were dealt with at the time. Not only that – they also provide historical continuity and help grasp the future course. Consider the following excerpt from Allam Iqbal’s Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam:

“The past, no doubt, abides and operates in the present; but this operation of the past in the present is not the whole of consciousness. The element of purpose discloses a kind of forward look in consciousness. Purposes not only color our present states of consciousness, but also reveal its future direction. In fact, they constitute the forward push of our life, and thus in a way anticipate and influence the states that are yet to be.

To be determined by an end is to be determined by what ought to be. Thus past and future both operate in the present state of consciousness, and the future is not wholly undetermined as Bergson’s analysis of our conscious experience shows. A state of attentive consciousness involves both memory and imagination as operating factors. On the analogy of our conscious experience, therefore, Reality is not a blind vital impulse wholly un-illuminated by idea. Its nature is through and through teleological.”

How far to go in the past, what were the significant events, and how to relate them to the present, carries immense significance. Deciphering all of this helps to ascertain where matters stand and navigate the future.

British Departure from Subcontinent and Beyond

In the context of geopolitics, the departure of British from Subcontinent and the creation of India and Pakistan was one such significant event in recent history. It was the period when balance of power had shifted decisively, and the British were retreating from colonies they could no longer hold.

After being in the Subcontinent for about two hundred years, the last viceroy Lord Mountbatten was only given a year and half to complete his mission. He arrived in February 1947 and fulfilled his task in haste by August 1947. To draw the lines of divisions, Cyril Radcliffe was brought in, and was allotted just five weeks to figure out the complexities of such a momentous job.

However, the deliberation on the future of India had been continuing even before then, represented for example by the London based Round Table Conferences from 1930 to 1932 – and proved to be inconclusive. In any event, the baton after World War II was being handed over to the Americans – and soon transformed into a Cold War with the Soviets – giving rise to alliances such as Warsaw Pact, NATO, and affiliate alliances like SEATO and CENTO.

As the British withdrew from its colonies it must have thought deeply on securing its future interests as they related to other local and global players. Some of the strategic questions it would have had to grapple with is how to prevent the rise of revivalists in the Islamic world – against which the British, and other colonial powers, had fought hard in many theaters. Other consideration could have been, what kind of leadership to embed, land and sea accesses to secure, and resources to leave behind for their survival?

As victors of World War I, Britain had been ruling over more Muslims compared to any other European power, and in the Arab world under League of Nations Mandates. And, the holy places of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem had also been gradually taken out of the hands of the Ottomans with British support. During this time, many new Arab nations came in to being, and the foundations of other states, like Israel, laid.

Pre-Independence Loyalties

Ironically, the World Wars had provided a perfect opportunity for the Hindus and Muslims to revolt against the British colonialists and side with axis powers – and take this route to gain independence. For the most part, the mainstream Hindu and Muslim leadership decided to remain loyal.

From what one can gather, Jinnah supported Great Britain in both World Wars, while the Muslims in India, Middle East, and Northern Africa were being subjugated. This should not be interpreted as a reflection of his belief in colonial causes and interests. Rather, these positions indicated the meaning of these wars for him and for the future of the people he represented. Jinnah positioned himself to gain some reciprocity and sympathy when the opportunity presented itself.

When the Round Table Conference on Palestine was called in 1939 and to which Aga Khan was invited, Jinnah was critical and lobbied many British parliamentarians indirectly. He demanded to be present as well to represent the Indian Muslims, after all, he argued, so many of them were serving in the royal army.

In the end, did Jinnah get what he expected when the partition of Subcontinent occurred, is up for debate. Many would argue that he received the short end of the stick on many calculations related to strategic accesses and resources – not to mention the unfinished business of Kashmir.

Jinnah’s attitude was in stark contrast to that of Mowlana Azad, Mowdudi, Mohammad Ali and Showkat Ali, Ghaffar Khan, and other Pan-Islamists of the time. He was against the ‘Khilafat Movement’ (which was formed against the breakup of the Ottoman Empire) and considered it a religious exaggeration; Gandhi, ironically, had supported this movement. Some Pan-Islamists later resisted the formation of Pakistan, as it would divide the Muslims of the subcontinent, and inadvertently became Gandhi’s staunch supporters.

The critical point in Jinnah’s position was his differentiation between the importance of local and regional interests vis-a-vis global ones. The local and regional interests translated into nationalistic interests as opposed to larger Pan-Islamic ones, in the post-World War II nation-state environment. In Jinnah’s assessment, more importance was given to what was attainable; he complied with the nation-state trend in opposition to Pan-Islamism — the time for empires had passed. Not to forget, the transformation of Turkey to a State at the end of Ottoman Empire. And, it was not just Turkey. Virtually all the European empires had converted to nation-states toward the end of World War II.

Post-Independence Geopolitics

As the empires and the colonies evaporated, the balance of power struggles were being taken on by the nation-states that were either aligned with the Soviet block or NATO affiliated alliances. However, two dramatic events in 1979 would have a profound impact on regional and global dynamics: the Iranian revolution of February 1979 and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979.

The Afghan War in the 80s represented a pivotal moment in the Cold War. The Sunni Muslim revivalists now had the backing of US and moderate Muslims in the jihad against the Soviets. The subsequent collapse of Soviet Union meant that US had emerged as the sole superpower, and with the inadvertent side effect of empowered Muslim revivalists. The revivalists can be defined as of two types, ones that operate with in the system to reform through political means, and those that are working outside – against the whole system using violence (terrorists); those that belong to Al Qaeda and Associates and ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, it took almost eleven years before the Violent Revivalist struck US on September 11, 2001, and the War Against Extremism got initiated. US launched an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in short order. Taliban were accused of providing refuge and support to Al Qaeda while Saddam Hussein was suspected of possessing nuclear weapons. He had previously fought eight-year war with Iran, temporarily taken over Kuwait, launched scud missiles at Israel, and chemically poisoned Iraqi Kurds.

While the previous wars were amongst empires or nation-states – the War against Extremism is being primarily fought against non-state actors. While it is not known as a World War, it spans many nations. Moreover, the Arab Spring revolts which got underway in 2010 have added to the complexity and many regimes fell under accusations of corruption and economic stagnation. Moreover, the removal of Muhammad Morsi in 2013, after being in office hardly a year, indicated that Islamists are still unacceptable at the helm. On the other hand, Syrian turmoil, the situation of Libya and Yemen has demonstrated that balance of power tussles are fully intertwined with the Campaign against Extremism.

After two decades in Afghanistan, US withdrew in August 2021. And this represents another pivotal moment in the ongoing saga. Are the implications of US withdrawal from Afghanistan parallel to that of Great Britain’s from Subcontinent in 1947? War against Extremism has had tremendous impact on the political, economic, and security dynamics of the nations where this battle is being waged – and on those that wage it. Especially now that a New Cold War between the Anglo-American world order and China heats up – and circumstances related to Covid-19 and climate change add to the economic woes.

The post The Division of British India In 1947 And War Against Extremism appeared first on Politact.

Context

“The history repeats itself, “first as tragedy, then as farce.”

These profound quotes, irrespective of the source, are often repeated – but then we see them unfolding right in front of our eyes.

PoliTact has been observing the connection of the affairs of the Middle East and South Asia, while contending that what transpires in the Middle East region will have a profound impact over South Asia, especially Pakistan and India. Moreover, we had pointed out last year that the Gulf region is slowly moving out of Pakistan’s sphere of influence and into that of India.

The present Kashmir crisis has exposed and highlighted this fissure more than ever, where other than Qatar, the other Gulf Nations have come out in favor of India. The rationale is that under the nation-state structure – the state has to protect its national interest, and economic interests trump religious inclinations. However, there is much more sinister global trend at play and that has to do with the rise of racism and right wing extremism. This is a boomerang impact of the War against Extremists, when thousands of uprooted Muslims headed to the economically struggling Europe to seek refuge – meanwhile escalating ethnic tensions and reinforcing the fears and the message of the right-wingers.

Analysis

Core versus Periphery Dynamics

There is obviously the internal dynamics of the Islamic World, what we term as the ‘Core versus Periphery’ dynamics, on who stands up and represents the held over Umma grievances from Palestine to Kashmir. As the Core regions represented by the Arab world abdicates the role, the Peripheral powers of Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan have attempted to fill the vacuum.

These nations of South Asia and Central Asia, Middle East, and North Africa emerged from the ashes of WW I and II – when the tussles of the colonial powers had boiled over. However, even after attaining their nationhood, some of these states remained aligned with the West, as they switched from the British to the American sphere of influence.

However, after the cessation of the Cold War, and as the Global War on Terror (GWOT) evolved, the established and emerging power dynamics resurfaced will full swing. By the time, this campaign entered Syria and Libya, it transformed and has become a full fledge proxy war. Presently, it’s moving from the stage where the non-state actors were the primary targets – to becoming an inter-state conflict, which it had narrowly escaped up to now. Nonetheless, the war against terror and the tussles of the emerging and established powers are fully intertwined now.

While the low level conflict related to war against extremism played out, China has gradually made inroads into many of these former Western allies. Meanwhile, the US ties have deteriorated with peripheral powers of Pakistan and Turkey, which is also a NATO member. While an attempt was made during the Obama administration to ease tensions with Iran, the scraping up of the Iran nuclear deal, has rekindled the tensions. Meanwhile, the Syrian crisis has indicated that Russia never left the Middle East.

To counter these dynamics, US has developed strategic ties with India and the Gulf States. While Europe has served as the source of global power projection since the end of World Wars, India and the Gulf States are serving that purpose in these regions.

On the other hand, as the two-state solution is on a trajectory of slow death, the Gulf States have been aligning themselves with Israel and India, at the cost of both the Palestinian and Kashmiri Muslims. Instead, the rich Gulf States, with the exception of Qatar, have focused on fighting Iranian proxies in Yemen, and to counter the Iranian influence in places like Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. And in this they have convergence with Israel and the US.

On their side, both India and Israel have exploited the war against terror by linking the Palestinian and Kashmir cause with extremism. Irrespective, the Arab States will find it very difficult to manage the street as this transition unfolds, and even the peripheral powers will have a hard time sitting back – when India ruthlessly subjugates its Muslim citizens from Kashmir to Assam.

Post GWOT Era

With close to two decades of involvement in GWOT, in its new defense strategy, the US has finally shifted to focus on what it calls the strategic adversaries, such as China and Russia.

However, the post GWOT era is characterized by the weakness of Europe, growing ethnic nationalism, trade wars, and diminishing effectiveness of multilateral institutes such as UN, whose purpose was to prevent future wars and maintain peace.

Then there is the challenge of security versus economic dynamics. Meaning, should security affairs take precedence over economic matters, or vice versa. One thing is clear, that economies truly flourish in secure and peaceful environments. At the same time, when economy and fiscal conditions deteriorate, it gives rise to the blame game, xenophobia, ethnic nationalism, and civil strife. If religion is added as a variable to this dynamics, it results in a really combustible situation.

While the end of World Wars resulted in the cessation of empires and the emergence of nation-state structure, any future war of such magnitude is likely to spell the end of nation-state framework. And it’s not clear at this point what will replace the nation-state structure.

Conclusion

When it comes to India and Pakistan, the religious premise on which the division of India and Pakistan came about in 1947, appears to have been vindicated. But the history has not run in its course yet. While the politics, economics, and security of the region, and beyond, has evolved; people do try to settle scores when the timing is right, and in this sense history is always being rewritten.

India up to now represented the epitome of secularism and democracy, something it proudly shared with the West. A dramatic Indian turn to the right perhaps is matching the trend that is emerging in the West and the US as well. While this is by no means a done deal in the West, India seems to have chosen a direction that will be fought vehemently by the liberals there, as it is being in the West and Israel.

For right now, the vision of economic interdependence laid out in the post World War landscape, to prevent wars and prohibit ethnic nationalism from spreading its lethal tentacle in the future, is faltering right in front of us. The very powers that laid out the lofty aspirations are themselves turned inwards – from Brexit to America First. Once again, the world is entering a bleak phase where there is more reliance on military might and ethnic superiority to resolve issues – than negotiating and coexisting.

The post The Global Rise Of Far Right And Indian Annexation of Kashmir appeared first on Politact.

Arif Ansar

As the global campaign against extremism progresses along, there is a need to understand the evolving dynamics of this fight that got initiated after 9/11. Although a lot has been written about the circumstances that persisted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the matters have gotten a lot more convoluted ever since. Now, there appears to be confusion about what the goals are, and what state of affairs would represent the end of this campaign.

Election cycles, corporate interests, over reliance on military means etc, have all played a part in limiting our intellectually understanding about what has been transpiring, and how to counter it for the short and long-term.

Brutal attacks on civilians that are common occurrences in the regions inflicted by extremism are now also taking place in major Western cities. Although it’s not clear if the perpetrators of these strikes were directly linked to extremist groups residing in other continents, the question remains: what more can be done to stop the scourge that continues to inflict the humanity? At risk now are the very diversity and multiculturalism of Europe and North America. The threat of extremists, accompanied by economic circumstances, are giving to rise to the type of ethnic nationalism, bigotry, and xenophobia that were thought to be forever forgotten since the world wars.

Analysis

The Ground Situation

The strategy on how to deal with Islamic extremism has primarily revolved around countering it in the military, political, ideological, and financial domain. While military domain has achieved successes other areas have lagged consistently behind. The least progress has been made in the ideological and political arena.

Where areas have been cleansed of extremists, it has been difficult to re-cultivate people and provide political governance. This is mainly because the funds for rehabilitation are usually to slow to come in, and secondly, the societies in these areas have been so fragmented by the prolonged ideological wars that it has proven very difficult, if not impossible, to put the pieces back together easily.

Where structures for political governance and security have been installed, they are fragile and need consistent hand holding to make hard decisions and survive. The ‘Unity Government’ model is not moving and delivering fast enough whether it be Iraq or Afghanistan.

As far as the political solutions are concerned, the argument is that the ideological positions of extremists are so extreme, and their acts so heinous, that they cannot be reconciled with. This has led to the predicament where the arch of instability is widening, and what started in Afghanistan and Iraq has now spread across many borders and regions.

Differentiating between the reconcilable and irreconcilable have also not cured the situation, and may have made matter even worse. This strategy while helps to divide the bigger group, but often results in splinter factions, adding to the burden for security officials to monitor even more groups and individuals.

With expanding misery for the masses impacted by the campaign, and many more refugees, the message of the extremists resonates even more, if not out of conviction then simply out of necessity to survive.

Transformation of Non-State Actors And Conflicting Interests

When the campaign against extremism got underway it had a clear-cut goal of eliminating the culprits’ behinds the 9/11 attack and whoever supports them. NATO, its allies, and the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ in Iraq, took up the challenge.

Al Qaeda was weakened over the years, with the milestone of eliminating its leader Osama bin Laden achieved in 2011. However, the demise of Osama bin Laden has been accompanied by the rise of the phenomenon of ‘AQ and Associates’ and ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

Moreover, overtime the event of 9/11 has been politically exploited. Militants fighting in Kashmir or in Palestine, and political opponents in the nations inflicted by extremism, were also conveniently labeled as extremists.

While there has been a broad agreement that groups with global ambition such as AQ and Daesh pose a threat to all, this unity falters when it comes to the next level of extremists and non-state actors, which often a have nationalistic or regional ambitions and goals.

At this level, what the West considered an extremist has differed from what Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and India may consider an extremist. It is at this point that the campaign against extremism has gotten intertwined with the process of change reflected by Arab Spring, and the tussles for regional and the global balance of power.

Transformation of the Threat

On the other hand, since 9/11 American premise in tackling the extremists was to fight them were they are, so they cannot strike the homeland or repeat 9/11 style attacks. In addition, to prevent any safe havens were extremists could once again plan attacks on the West.

In reality, the increasing lone-wolf type attacks have undermined the above premise. While it has been become much more difficult, if not impossible, to plan 9/11 type spectacular coordinated attacks, it is very difficult to prevent self inspired type of attacks, we are witnessing now.

While US launched its campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq at a great cost of blood and treasure, it has ever since been trying to scale back its heavy footprint globally. This is partly due to economic recession many NATO members are confronted with, but also due to the realization that China and Russia pose a much more serious strategic threat than a bunch of ragtag extremist groups. However, pivoting to the Pacific from the Middle East is proving to be much more difficult. This is because the war against extremism now is intertwined with the regional and global balance of power struggles, as the case of Syria suggests.

Thus the characteristics of the campaign against extremism have transformed over time. While many head honchos of extremist groups with global agenda have been eliminated and their organizations weakened – the ideology appears to be persisting.

Moreover, the continuing burden of heightened security and economic costs are having an immense polarizing and destabilizing impact on not only the nations and regions that are frontline, but also in the US and many European states. The recent failed Turkish coup attempt, Brexit, and the Trump phenomenon can all be directly or indirectly linked to the consequences of the unending campaign whose end state remains elusive.

Transformation of the Alliances

As the campaign against extremism morphed, Western reliance on the allies has increased. However, many allies have been accused of not fully owning the war. At the same time, they have been blamed for differentiating between good and bad extremists; who are also linked to global terror groups such as AQ and Daesh.

On the other hand, NATO allies in the region are blamed for differentiating between groups that are aligned to their respective interests and those that are not. These could be the Kurds in the case of Turkey and Iraq, who are proving very effective in the fight against Daesh, but nonetheless could seek independence in the future. In the case of Pakistan, it could be the Afghan Taliban that do not attack Pakistan, but are linked with TTP and AQ, and are against Daesh, at least for the time being.

These pressures have left many allies with the burden of doing the heavy lifting with severe impact on their economies, social, and ethnic fabric, and quite often, their national integrity and sovereignty is on the line. As we saw in Egypt, and now in Turkey, under the pull of these forces many previously stable Islamic states are at a tipping point of major upheaval if corrective measures are not taken.

This difference over the nature of a non-state actor is now boiling in to the next realm where previous coalitions are now transforming in to Alliances of the Allies that are being formed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (with China, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) to wage the campaign against extremism based on their respective interests. In Syria, Russian has initiated its own war against extremists with Syrian government and Iran on its side.

One of the major bones of contention between Russia and US over Syria is that in addition to Daesh and AQ associated Jabhatul al-Nasra, Russia is also going after other factions that are attempting regime change in Syria, including those supported by the West. The loss of friendly Syria would have meant complete loss of Russian military footprint in the Middle East. This has put the two global powers on a collision course and the risks are being actively mitigated. Some former US officials are propagating a hard line towards Russia by arming moderate rebels with more lethal weapons, just as Afghan Mujahidin were supplied with Stingers back in the 80s.

While Saudi Arabia and US are both fighting Deash and AQ, why did the Saudis feel the need for its own coalition to fight Daesh? It is mainly because of the extending influence of Iran and its proxies throughout the Middle East. Saudi concerns were escalated further by the Iranian nuclear deal, and this is despite its behavior and support for Hezbollah, which further proved to the Saudis that being a close ally does not eliminate the peril of being expendable.

Turkey, a NATO member, is faced with similar circumstances. Western and Russian support for the Kurds have continued despite Turkish concern about their future aspirations, mainly because Kurds have proven to be the most useful in the fight against Daesh.

Conclusion

In the future, two risks need to be mitigated with utmost urgency. Firstly, to prevent the campaign against extremism to become a Shia-Sunni conflagration. And secondly, to prevent the campaign against extremism to transform in to a campaign against Islam.

The war against extremism cannot be won without consideration for the interests of the main allies. How to manage that is obviously tricky. Not respecting this or blaming the allies for lack of ownership will only exasperate the challenges.
American relations with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are all under stress, providing Russia and China easy opportunity to exploit.

A UN sponsored conference would provide the best venue to address the dangerous trajectory of the campaign, how to tackle the different brand of non-state actors, and to especially stop those with global agenda. For this to happen politicization of the campaign would have to cease.

If this does not occur, we can see more Muslim nations, including Europe and NATO, being destabilized by the increasing polarization caused by the stress of this unending campaign. As the refugee crisis and lone wolf phenomenon has demonstrated, what happens over there, does come back to haunt us over here indifferent forms.

A version of this article also appeared in Defense Journal Pakistan.

The post The Transforming Threats And Alliances In The War Against Terror appeared first on Politact.

Context

This is part three of PoliTact’s special series examining the variance in western interpretation of what is occurring on the ground and the lack of indigenous analysis, which has led to an imperfect comprehension of the present status of the campaign against extremism. Furthermore, the dependence on western economic assistance has further diluted the approach of the nations being consumed by terrorism. The often disingenuous and weak political leadership of the regions impacted by extremism, adopted policies that exasperated the problem. In turn, these leaders had to face western accusation of either lacking the will or the capability to counter terrorism. While the capability can be enhanced, the will is a difficult topic to deal with.

While it is very easy to start allocating the blame for the mistakes and question the motives of different actors, the real challenge is to figure out where to go from here. The pragmatic western think-tanks and thought centers now readily admit to the missteps identified in the previous article; the elimination of extremist leadership is not having an huge impact, extremism is spreading to new lands and is cross-pollinating with Arab Spring, including religious, ethnic, and global tussles.

The lack of clear victors means the political reconciliation process in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is mired with many challenges and contradictions. Similarly, the current events of Iraq perhaps demonstrate what can be expected from the Afghan draw down. In this regard, the examples of Syria and Egypt provide interesting models and will be explored more.

The preparation being undertaken by these global powers are reflective of the real trends and risks they see unfolding in the core Islamic regions. On the other hand, their regional allies are, once again, ill prepared for what the next stage of the campaign could mean for them.

Western Thought Centers

The above predicament has led western think tanks, such as International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and Atlantic Council, to conduct a serious review of the present status and to understand the future of Middle East, North Africa, and AfPak. The Foreign Policy magazine gathered 100 most influential global thinkers to point out the new trends and what they mean.

At the same time, the western economic pressures have equated in to low tolerance for costly future military interventions. NATO is being forced to not only formulate fresh approaches to deal with the ground situation, but also at the same time redefine its interests. The emerging western strategies are indicative of their key worries. On the other hand, their regional allies are, once again, ill prepared for what the next stage of the campaign could mean for them.

Obviously, extremism in the Core Islamic regions is not the only concern for Europe and America to contend with. There is a growing sense its China that poses the real future challenge and extremists may serve as a distracter from that threat. Pivoting to Asia, managing the rise of China and resurgence of Russia, maintaining an edge in developing game changing defense and business ideas and technologies, all have become equally pressing priorities.

European Divergence And Convergence

How the West prepares for these threats and challenges involves dealing with the diverging European interests for the firs time. As witnessed in the case of Afghanistan and the Middle East, there is a difference of approach between the European powers of Germany and France, and the Scandinavian nations, UK, and US on the other. It’s the Scandinavian nations of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark that are spearheading the outreach for the benefits of continued US-European economic and security integration.

Of course, one does not have to look very far to understand why this is the case. The assertiveness of Russia has the Europeans worried. This is amply at display in the case of Ukraine, where apparently the Russians are pressuring the government from deciding in favor of joining the EU. And then there is the growing economic prowess of China to contend with. France and Germany do not necessarily share the fears from Russia and China, as the others do. When it comes to imploding regions inflicted by the war on terror, France and Germany do not necessarily agree on the approaches to address them. Nonetheless, China, Russia, US, and other European powers, are all uneasy about the risks posed by the extremists. The activities of homegrown radicals are on the rise in the Chinese and Russian regions of Xingjian, Dagestan and Chechnya.

As Arab Spring spreads, the global powers have evaluated what a fall of a particular regime may mean for them on a case-by-case basis. So when it came to Syria, Russians were unwilling to make the mistake they apparently made in the case of Libya by allowing the no-fly zone and foreign intervention. When it comes to the Islamic Maghreb, it is France that has taken the lead in places like Mali and Central African Republic. This does not mean that US has retreated but it has essentially relegated the responsibility to the European power with most interests at stake, and has shifted to providing logistical support and capabilities that the Europeans otherwise lack.

Emerging Approaches

On April 29th last year UK based think tank dealing with defense and security affairs, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), presented a ‘Return to East of Suez’ policy brief. The paper suggests that Britain is considering placing its land, sea, and air forces across the Middle East, for touch and go type operations, which increasingly look likely due to the fragile situation of the Arab Spring impacted region.

The report suggests that Arab awakening, the situation of Iran and Syria, has made the Middle East volatile and Britain had to prepare policy options on how to respond. The potential policy shift is presented as a prudent attempt to place military assets around the region, for a number of explosive scenarios in the Middle East. According to the report, the potential missions could be in support of the American and European operations, but could be taken independently as well. And, it goes on to ease European worries that Britain is looking to operate outside of European security arrangement.

In June 2013, Putin declared that Russia will maintain a permanent naval presence in the area. “This is a strategically important region and we have tasks to carry out there to provide for the national security of the Russian Federation,” he had stated. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this was the first time Russia made such a move. While Russia evacuated its naval base in the Syrian port city of Tartus last year, it is negotiating with Egypt to establish a base there and to provide other military assistance. Iraq is having similar defense related negotiations with the Russians.

The situation appears to be moving towards establishment of spheres of influence for respective western powers, obviously not the first time in history. In the larger framework, as US pivots to the Pacific, UK may be pivoting towards the Middle East. Whether this is a coordinated move is not known yet, nonetheless, further reaction from other global powers is likely. Moreover, as the ties of US have deteriorated with the Sunni Islamic world, there is a worry that China and Russia will attempt to exploit, and the western détente with Iran has a lot to do with this as well.

The preparation being undertaken by these global powers are reflective of the real trends and risks they see unfolding in the core Islamic regions, the direction of which will be reviewed in the next piece. Irrespective of the causes that produced 9/11, the threat posed by extremists has not diminished. As the campaign against terror enters a new phase, the West and its allies are economically exhausted. In the AfPak region the mood has shifted towards reconciliation but the radicals want peace on their terms. In the Middle East, the dynamics is much more complex. While the pressure in the AfPak region has forced Al Qaeda to migrate. The question is: how will the situation of Middle East and North Africa impact the South and Central Asian region in the coming years.

The post The Western Vantage Point And War On Terror 2.0 appeared first on Politact.

Context
On April 29th, UK based think tank dealing with defense and security affairs, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), presented a ‘Return to East of Suez’ policy brief. The paper suggests that Britain is considering placing its land, sea, and air forces across the Middle East, for touch and go type operations, which increasingly look likely due to the fragile situation of the Arab Spring inflicted region.

The report suggests that Arab awakening, the situation of Iran and Syria, has made the Middle East volatile and Britain had to prepare policy options on how to respond.

The potential policy shift is presented as a prudent attempt to place military assets around the region, for a number of explosive scenarios in the Middle East. According to the report, the potential missions could be in support of the American and European operations, but could be taken independently as well. And, it goes on to ease European worries that Britain is looking to operate outside of European security arrangement.

In a larger framework, as US pivots to the Pacific, UK may be pivoting towards the Middle East. Whether this is a coordinated move is not known yet, nonetheless, further reaction from other global powers is likely. At the time of French deployment in Mali, PoliTact had pointed out the move could trigger reactionary actions from other European nations, to develop their respective zones of influence.

The post UK Strategizing About ‘Return to East of Suez’ appeared first on Politact.

Context

While US-Turkish relations are usually quite unblemished, recent events have caused them to score a little. One of the incidents responsible for this was the criticism of Turkish judicial system by no other than the US ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone. His comments brought strong criticism from Turkish politicians and officials.

It’s too early to tell if it’s just a temporary dip, nonetheless, there are indications that Turkey is not about to limit itself to the confines of its European dream. Caught in the midst of economic recession, the European Union no longer projects the same appeal as it may have in the past. This perhaps is the reason why the new US Secretary of State John Kerry has decided to make Turkey the first foreign destination he is planning to visit.

How this plays out, in the long run, will have implications for not only the US- Turkey ties but also the direction of relations between the West and the Islamic world.

Analysis

The Israeli Factor

The tensions between US and Turkey have a lot to do with Israeli role in the region. Ramifications of the Israeli attack on Gaza freedom flotilla in 2010 are playing out to this day. In retaliation for the attack, Turkey had suspended its defense ties with Israel. The stress between Turkey and Israel complicated Israeli dealings with NATO and that in turn also impacted the Turkish-US ties.

This year on Jan 30th, Israel conducted an air strike near Damascus, reportedly to prevent lethal weapons from getting into the hands of Hezbollah. Israeli intervention has started off another round of heated condemnation, especially from Turkey, Russia and Iran.

“We cannot regard a violation of air space as acceptable. What Israel does is completely against international law… it is beyond condemnation,” Erdogan commented.

On the other hand, Russia Foreign Ministry stated: “If this information is confirmed, then we are dealing with unprovoked strikes against targets located on the territory of a sovereign state, which brazenly infringes on the UN Charter and is unacceptable, no matter the motive used for its justification.”

Meanwhile, an official from the Iran’s foreign ministry warned of “grave consequences.” Only a few days earlier, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had stated, “an attack on Syria would be considered an attack on Iran and Iran’s allies.”

An Israeli strike on Syria not only tested the Syrian response but also that of Iran and projects the message that it will act to protect its interests with or without the consent of regional or International powers. It’s puzzling to see Israel acting with impunity in the case of Syria when Turkey itself is the most vivid supporter of the revolution that has unfolded there.

The Turkish Posture

On the other hand, the Turkish behavior is no less perplexing. The country is aiding and abetting the opposition in Syria with assistance from Gulf and NATO states but when Israel acts to protect its interests, Turkey has reacted harshly. This is mostly because the country is increasingly caught in a balancing act, a predicament similar to many other Muslim states, like Pakistan. Turkey is supporting NATO in the war against terror and also receives foreign assistance in conducting operations against the Kurd (PKK) insurgency. This is one of the reasons the country is extremely cautious about its image in the Islamic world.

Turkey had previously agreed to place critical components for NATO’s missile defense system on its soil, to the displeasure of both Iran and Russia. This step greatly unnerved the Russians and forced it to take counter steps of its own, such as the placement of S-400 anti-aircraft missile system in its southern region. As the Syrian crisis has gradually worsened, Turkey asked for NATO’s assistance in protecting against potential missile strikes. NATO agreed by providing the Patriot system, which is now operational along its border with Syria. However, the Russians think the deployment of Patriot system is in preparation for an attack on Iran.

Ankara’s contradictory behavior reflects on the challenges faced by the country. On the one hand it’s a member of NATO and on the other hand, it aspires to champion the causes of Islam. Turkey recognizes the negative perceptions created by these dual pressures that if no managed well, can ultimately cause a similar loss of public credibility that the Arabs are facing.

The American Position

This context helps to put in perspective the comments made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Jan 25: “If we get into the SCO, we will say goodbye to the EU. The SCO is better — much more powerful. Pakistan wants in, India wants in as well. If the SCO wants us, we will become members of this organization.”
The comparison with Pakistan was indeed intriguing as it too is tiptoeing between NATO on the one hand and SCO on the other.
Asked about the Turkish statement in the daily press briefing, the US State Department spokesperson stated, “I didn’t see that comment by Erdoğan. Obviously, it would be interesting, given the fact that Turkey’s also a NATO member. We’ll have to see how that goes.”

The US interests are best served by Turkey’s continued orientation towards Europe and it has persistently strived to persuade other Europeans to drop their objections. The possible loss of Turkish motivation in this respect is something the West and the US can hardly afford at this juncture. Nonetheless, the foreign policy of Turkey appears to be going through a fundamental transformation.

The post The Shape Of US-Turkey Ties, Europe, And SCO appeared first on Politact.

Context

Since the elimination of Osama bin Laden, the hype about Core AQ has decreased and the narrative adopted presents the organization as a much-diminished threat. There are political and psychological reasons for this change. Under increased economic stress, the death of Osama bin Laden provided a key symbolic victory in the war against terror and opportunity to move on. However, on the ground, a different picture is emerging that defines this version. It’s increasingly the affiliates of AQ that have taken on its mission in Afghanistan-Pakistan region, Middle East, Horn of Africa and now the Islamic Maghreb.

To prevent the region from further instability, France intervened directly into its former colony Mali on January 11 by sending troops. It has also conducted air raids against extremists using the airspace of neighboring Algeria. As a reaction, five days ago AQ linked Islamic militants took over an Algerian Amenas gas field located near its border with Libya. The jumbled operation conducted by Algerian forces to take back the gas field caused the death of 24 hostages, including foreigners. The situation has now raised the prospect of another NATO-led intervention in the region.

Analysis

Core AQ

Through the use of Special Forces and drones, NATO and US have been intensely involved against the Core AQ in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. The contention was that if the core leadership is dealt with, other offshoots such as AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq), AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), and AQIM (Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb) will also lose their vitality. The constant pressure, however, has produced two outcomes: many of the leaders have been killed, but new flashpoints are also emerging.

As the US withdraws its troops from Afghanistan, it does not in any way indicate AQ is a mute concern. Increasingly, the extremists and militant groups that are linked to AQ are spearheading its mission. This is evident in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region where are a conglomeration of militant and extremist groups led to the formation of Shura-e-Muraqabah. In the Middle East and North Africa, AQ and its affiliates are suspected of exploiting the Arab Spring afflicted hot spots, such as Syria and Libya. The assassination of the American ambassador to Libya is a case in point.

Emerging Tactics And Strategies

While the emphasis of the US and NATO strategy is to prevent AQ from finding a safe haven, from where it can plan attacks against the West. In actuality, AQ and its affiliates are relying less on safe havens and more on simply exploiting the chaos and vacuum created by weak or collapsing regimes. These governments are operating under the dual pressures of viral war against terror and Arab Spring.

One of the key challenges in this regard is that while these sites are being expected to control the situation within, they have minimal influence over the instability in the surrounding neighborhood. As noted previously by PoliTact, this has put the nation-state structure under considerable pressure.

When NATO and US went into Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the conflict did not remain within the confines of these countries. One of the reasons for this being that AQ, with the help of its affiliates, has operated across borders. Over time, to confront this, the response did the same with the area of operation for the drones and Special Forces spanning the whole region.

The Nature Of AQ Affiliates

It has thus become essential to understand the nature of these AQ affiliates. In a majority of the cases, the associates are mostly local extremist and militant organizations, with regional ambitions. They usually have their own religious, nationalistic and political agendas that further complicate the ground reality. In return for their cooperation, AQ turns a blind eye to their activities. Similarly, these associate organizations use the cover of AQ for their benefit. However, the cross-pollination amongst extremists groups has produced disastrous results. Consider, for example, the interplay of AQ and TTP, Haqqani network and LeT.

Working through a network of local extremist and jihadi organizations has several strategic benefits for AQ. Firstly it gives them a reach and penetration that is impossible otherwise. AQ members simply embed themselves and can go undetected for quite a while. Secondly, it gives AQ sustainability. When AQ members feel the heat of direct operations, they migrate to other less hostile environments.

Meanwhile, the local affiliates provide the continuity in the absence of direct supervision. As NATO moves its attention based on shifting threats, it too depends on regional allies to keep a check on local affiliates of AQ. The nut result is that while NATO and US may move on declaring victory, the conflicts still simmer while producing economic drain at a time when no one can afford it. This is the situation in present day Iraq and the likely predicament of Afghanistan and Pakistan once the US withdraws.

The Separatists

Even before the war against extremists got initiated and the Arab revolts spread, many states impacted by these two phenomena’s were also inflicted by separatist movements of one form or the other. Most of these were the byproduct of how new states were crafted at the end of World War II. In a majority of the cases, AQ has stayed away from such nationalist-oriented insurgencies.

On the other hand, in the unfolding Arab revolts, the West usually sides with the liberal anti-regime and moderate Islamic forces that accept democratic norms, and not necessarily the separatists. This is obviously is a difficult balance to maintain and may change in the future depending on the nature of global politics. Nonetheless, the availability of multiple options is a tremendous asset to have.

As the state structures crumble under the dual pressures of war on terror and Arab revolt, AQ and associates are striving to fill the vacuum and create new flash points; events of Mali and Algeria signify this. This is creating, even more, opportunities for Western intervention when they can hardly afford it economically. Perhaps it would be wise to start thinking beyond the nation-state.

The post Transformation of Al Qaeda And Islamic Maghreb appeared first on Politact.

Context

Pakistan has finally resumed the NATO Afghan supply lines after a hiatus of about seven months, with US rendering a sorry. The opening of these routes followed some ominous developments. While most of the discussion around the issue of supply lines portrays it as a matter principally between Pakistan, US, and Afghanistan, the debate fails to account for the larger geopolitical dynamics. PoliTact has consistently maintained the politics of the neighboring region of Middle East will define the shape of politics and alliances in the South and Central Asia.

Analysis

What Lead To The Opening Of Supply Lines?

Three unprecedented events that may have led up to the decision by Pakistan to resume the Nato Afghan supply lines. First the opening of the supply lines took place at a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation to western sanctions against its oil exports. The sanctions went in to effect on July 1st. While Iran has not deployed that option as of now, US has asserted such an action will be taken as a declaration of war. Iran, on the other hand, just concluded a missile exercise that projects Iranian response to any attack on its nuclear installations. The nation claims it has the capability to pretty much wipe out US bases in the region, and that its naval ships in the region are sitting ducks.

In this context, the deployment of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) USS Enterprise in the territorial waters of Pakistan near Gawadar is especially noteworthy. According to media reports, the aircraft carrier was moved there in the second week of June, carrying over 4000 marines and 80 fighter jets. The surveillance system of the carrier covers over 1000 kilometers, which puts most of Pakistan in its range. Enterprise is replacing CSG Abraham Lincoln that was located near the Iranian territorial waters previously and was then moved to the Persian Gulf, passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The placement of these carriers suggests that US is preparing contingencies for a number of regional scenarios that can play out in the near future.

The second event was the introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives last Thursday, urging President Obama to declare Haqqani network a terrorist organization. The designation will make provision of any support to the organization unlawful. The bill was initiated by the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers; Buck McKeon, Chairman of House Armed Services Committee and Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The initiation of the bill was widely seen as applying pressure on Pakistan to open the NATO Afghan supply lines.

The deportation of Abu Jundal (Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari) by Saudi Arabia to India, for his involvement in the Mumbai incident, is the third consequential occurring. His expulsion and arrest is believed to be deeply embarrassing for Pakistan and points to the sea change in its traditional good relations with Saudi Arabia. It is potentially an outcome of Pakistan insistence on continuing the Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project and energy dealings with Iran. While US recently exempted India, and even China, from its oil sanctions on Iran, Pakistan so far has not been.

Emerging Alliances Of Middle East And AfPak

On the other hand, the study of the emerging alignments of Middle East indicates that NATO and GCC countries are acting in unison while Russian and China are continuing to oppose military action against Iran and intervention in Syria. The matters have worsened to such an extent that both Russia and China boycotted the Paris meeting of the Friends of Syria. In reaction, Hilary Clinton stated that there should be a price for the positions China and Russia are taking in support of Assad’s regime. Meanwhile, the Friends of Syria agreed to hugely increase support for the rebels. There are also indications that the Syrian’s had shot down the Turkish fighter jet on June 22 using a Russian anti-air Pantsyr-1 missile, which were recently supplied to it. In short, the gloves may be coming off as far as the situation of Syria is concerned.

With Muslim Brotherhood at the helms of power, Egypt has emerged as an unknown factor in these emerging alliances. The Gulf countries are especially worried what Muslim Brotherhood inspired revolutions can do in their own backyards. To prevent this, attempts are already underway by GCC countries and Turkey to bring Egypt on board.

In the case of South Asia, the alignment is more like NATO, Afghanistan and India, with Pakistan being the unknown. If and when hostilities break out in the Persian Gulf, Pakistan’s relations with Iran will take on an added emphasis. Moreover, what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which have US presence, will be equally critical for Iran. This is where the matter of NATO’s Afghan supply lines becomes quite complex.

If Iran is attacked, the bases of Afghanistan are likely to be used as well. The downing of US stealth drone RQ 170 near the Iranian border with Afghanistan had already raised such a prospect. However, Pakistan will be seen as allowing supplies for NATO forces that are waging an attack on a state that is friendly towards it. In such an eventuality, Pakistan’s posture is bound to raise the suspicion of Iran, China and Russia.

Strikes on Iran can also cause sympathy of the Afghan Shiite population to rise in favor of the country and against NATO forces. This could put it in the worse possible position, under attack from Taliban and the forces that have usually been cooperative with the coalition forces. On the other hand, the increasing Sunni-Shiite tussles in the region assist in mitigating such an outcome.

As the Chinese and Russian position grow harder against intervention in Syria or military action against Iran, Pakistan will face the pressures to clarify its position. Although India started off being neutral initially, it has gradually moved closer to the NATO-GCC alliance. From how it looks now, Pakistan will have to decide between the NATO-GCC alliance on the one hand and the China, Russia, and Iran on the other. And, in this respect the future of Iran and Syrian conflict may also dictate events in the AfPak region.

The post NATO Afghan Supply Lines And Iran appeared first on Politact.

Context

In the last 10 days, a number of key international gatherings have taken place. The trilateral summit between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran was held last week in Islamabad. The conference on Somalia was organized in London, which also provided an important opportunity for the Clinton-Khar meeting last Thursday. On the other hand, ‘Friends of Syria’ met in Tunisia on Friday. In addition to the complex Afghan reconciliation and volatile Iran and Syria situation, the Horn of Africa has clearly emerged as another hot spot, impacting the events of Middle East and North Africa.

Analysis

Yemen And Horn of Africa

The Horn of Africa is in the limelight recently for several reasons. The surrounding waters are a hotbed of piracy and every major power has naval presence there to protect the busy commercial sea routes that pass through Suez Canal. Located to the north of Somalia, just across the Gulf of Aden, is Yemen, another trouble spot. In addition to the AfPak, the region has become another serious extremist hub.

Over the years, as pressure from US drones and Pakistan military operations on tribal areas mounted, Somalia and Yemen became the ‘go to’ safe havens for the extremists. This, in turn, produced serious implications for Middle East and Saudi Arabia, which most certainly did not want to find itself in the same situation as Pakistan: having to face a potentially dangerous combination of regional rivalries and the terrorist threat.

In August 2009, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had attempted to assassinate the Saudi Deputy Interior Minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah. It was later found that the assailant had crossed over from Yemen and had connections with the tribal areas of Pakistan. The country later arrested and handed over two suspects to Saudi Arabia.

Subsequently, the Saudi’s carried out a number of operations along the Saudi-Yemen border region. Just as the Afghanistan war has spilled over into tribal areas and mainland Pakistan, the Yemeni proxy conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia had the potential to cross the border while also exacerbating Shiite-Sunni tensions in the region. When one considers the present fragile state of ethnic and religious balance in Iraq, it has been a frightening scenario for the Sunni Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations.

Therefore, US, GCC, and especially the Saudis and Egyptians, augmented their support for the Yemeni government’s counterinsurgency efforts, fighting al-Houthi Shiite rebels in the country’s remote mountainous north. However, this was the situation before the Arab Spring brook out and fundamentally altered the political and security landscape. In March 2011, Saudi led GCC forces went into Bahrain to contain the troubles there.

Situation In Somalia

Towards the south of Gulf of Aden lies Somalia. A UN back Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in Mogadishu is being supported by troops from the African Union, Kenya, and Ethiopia, to carry the fight against extremists. A serious development occurred there in early February when Al-Shabab released a joint video with Al-Qaeda, pledging obedience to Ayman al-Zawahiri. The announcement of the merger has come at a time when Al-Shabab was considered to be under pressure. Many analysts believe that the merger could change the nature of the conflict in Somalia. In this context, the London conference on Somalia took place at a key time.

At the London conference, David Cameron has announced that Somalia needs a representative government by the end of August, when the term for TFG ends. Similar to the strategy being applied against Al Qaeda connected groups in Afghanistan; Cameron declared those that part ways with Al-Shabab and violence it propagates, can join the political process. On the other hand, Al-Shabab, which was not invited to the London conference, has warned of ‘an ugly turn of events’ in case of unwanted interference.

Trouble in Somalia has been brewing for a while. In November of last year, Israel had extended its support to Kenya to help the country deal with Somali militants. Israeli President Shimon Peres had said at the time that his country would “make everything available” to the African nation to help it fight against the Al-Qaeda linked terrorists. Analysts, however, had warned that the partnership could increase support for Al-Shabab, which would attempt to gain help by showcasing the deal as anti-Muslim. Israel looks at the stability of Ethiopia as fundamental to a stable Horn of Africa. Moreover, Israel considers checking Saudi and Egyptian influence in Ethiopia beneficial to its interest.

In December 2011, the US Secretary of Defense described Yemen and Somalia as key nodes during his visit to Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, and declared it as the central location for counterterrorism efforts in the region. He added that America is shifting its focus to Africa on its Al Qaeda hunt after the success in FATA. As Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Al Shabab become active in their ambitions, Panetta vowed that US would track these guys wherever they go.

Djibouti, a former French colony, has a strategic location; it borders Somali, Ethiopia and Eretria and is situated across the Red Sea from Yemen. According to a recent report in The Washington Post, US is building secret drone bases in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula as part of an aggressive campaign against Al Qaeda in Somalia and Yemen.

It is clear that in addition to Iran and Syria, the Horn of Africa is becoming much more active, with a destabilizing influence on the Middle East and North Africa. The Salafi Jihadists that were earlier forced to leave places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan for the AfPak, have now returned to haunt the Middle East and Africa. The environment created by the Arab uprisings has produced an especially volatile situation. There is an increasing risk that Al Qaeda and affiliated groups are planning to exploit the chaos in many of the new hot spots.

The post The Threat From Horn of Africa And London Conference On Somalia appeared first on Politact.

The Syrian government battled increasing opposition as violence continued in the country. In a dramatic development, Kurdish opposition leader Mashaal Tammo was shot dead on Friday in the northern city of Qamishi. He was the spokesperson for the Kurdish Future Party and member of the Syrian National Council. In retaliation, the Council announced it would step up efforts to mobilize people and overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

International pressure also increased on the Syrian government with France expressing its intentions to establish relations with the council. French Foreign Minister Alan Juppe stated that his country welcomes the efforts of the opposition to organize. France is joined by Russia, which despite vetoing sanctions against Syria, showed support for the opposition by inviting their delegation for a visit. Russia also offered to host talks between the government and the Syrian National Council. Turkey has also joined in by imposing its own sanctions against Damascus.

Meanwhile, US Spokesman Jay Carney admonished the Syrian ruler to “step down now before taking his country farther down this very dangerous path.”

The post Kurdish Leader Killed in Syria As Foreign Support For Opposition Grows appeared first on Politact.