Context

It’s no secret that the technology and communication revolution has produced manifold socio-political consequences. While there have been many advantages, these advancements are also creating numerous headaches for the existing political, economic, and security systems that were meant to preserve order. Change is inherently dynamic but overtime is slowed down by the human systems that are initially developed, or imposed, to bring a semblance of stability.

There is increasing evidence that the present political, economic, and security models are no longer working optimally, as discontent mounts amongst the participants at the global, nation-state, and individual level. Adding to this is the uncertainty being produced by climate change. But there are no clear alternatives to replace what is malfunctioning – at least not at this stage. For more than a decade, Globalization was presented as the emerging model – but that appears to have been shot down in the form of reactionary ‘Brexit’ and the ‘America First’ approaches.

What Ails the System?

Future looking entities are constantly trying to make sense of the flux, often proactively inducing it, and then attempt to manage and shape it. This process usually starts with a review of the existing system to determine if it is tweakable. Alternatively, if the situation has grown too out of sync from reality, it might be preferable to focus on fresh mechanisms altogether.

The business world is more proficient in adapting, and to determine what is changing as it relates to the customer and the business environment. However, often the choices they have made under the laissez faire approach have had an adverse impact on the political and economical governance models connected to the present nation-state structure, especially as it relates to the phenomenon known as Globalization.

No wonder, a lot of effort is being directed in the developed world to understand the emerging trends – so as to position better for the future. However, there is a growing alarm, bordering almost at paranoia, that the present models are unsuitable for the future needs, and thus the participants are also freaking out.

To make adjustments to the existing systems or develop them anew, an essential prerequisite is also to comprehend what is changing, why, and the trajectory. Obviously, developing a solution that is inconsiderate of this is likely to have a short life span.

Participants of the System

Moreover, the sentiments of the participants of any system also need to be gauged; to what extent they have evolved versus their expectations and tolerance level? There is a symbiosis between the participants and the system they live in. The systems should represent the participants, and they in turn tune the system to make them relevant.

In addition, the continuous interaction between the system and the participants produces mixed results. Some are always disproportionately benefiting and prefer statusquo, while the losers desire reforms and a better outcome. And then there is the middle tier whose involvement is essential for the preservation of the model. In the political and economic domain, many such models have recently been experimented with, and go by the names of Socialism, Communism and Capitalism etc.

Irrespective, anyone attempting to change a system has to put in place a strategy on how to deal with those desiring a status quo versus those not benefiting, especially if the beneficiaries are few and influential. And this is particularly true today.

Political Governance

Other than technological and communication revolution, including climate change, the most significant challenge has to do with the weaknesses in political governance that have failed to deliver to the masses with inequality at all times high. The democratic systems are faltering first because the societies are extremely polarized – and developing consensus on critical issues is acutely difficult. The election results are failing to produce majority, and thus the resulting governments are fragile and indecisive.

Moreover, the collusion between money and politics has gravely polluted governance – as this means the interests of the powerful are represented at the cost of less affluent, leading to highly biased policies and corruption.

In the developing world the situation is further aggravated when the corrupt political leadership is often supported by the West, which does not cater to the masses and the needs of the youth bulge. This also results in anti-west sentiments and has created an environment that is ripe for revolt. Many of these reasons are also responsible for why extremism has spread.

Campaign Against Extremism and the Global Balance of Power Tussles

The campaign against extremism is another big source of societal change and polarization in the regions where the war against terror is being waged. While considerable effort is being devoted on collecting data on how many incidents took place, how many people died or were maimed, but the long-term impacts of this campaign are the least researched.

While the Global War on Terrorism is continuing, it has resulted in precious resources being spent on security related matters than on the development of people. Moreover, large populations have been dislocated by the ongoing conflict. According to the 2017 data of Watson Institute’s Costs of War website, 21 million Afghan, Iraqi, Pakistani, and Syrian people are living as war refugees and internally displaced persons, in grossly inadequate conditions.

The western nations have also been facing the consequences of this campaign indirectly – in the form of mass migration from places like Syria and Northern Africa to Europe and Northern America. This has increased resentment against immigration have strengthened far right groups.

As the war against extremism spread and reached Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria, it had morphed into a full fledge proxy war with different brands of extremists being supported by various powers. For example, in Syria, the Assad government is backed by Russia, and Kurd forces are supported by the US, while Turkey considers the Kurds as terrorist. In other words, the campaign against terrorism has fully merged with the global balance of power tussles.

Balance of power tussles are also immensely contributing towards creating internal fissures in many nations – on whether to support western connected systems or those tied to the emerging powers, such as China and Russia. This is amply visible when one studies the dynamics related to CPEC in Pakistan, or the broader One Belt One Road initiative. Sanctions were also introduced for entities with business and energy dealings with Iran, and Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline became a casualty. On the other hand, India and Afghanistan were given a waiver on dealing with Iran and developing the Chabahar port.

In Europe, US recently introduced sanctions on German entities for continuing the work on Nord Stream 2 – with Russian support. According to the US, this will make Germany dependent on Russian energy supplies.

Conclusion

The question remains, is the present system salvageable, or has it changed to the extent that it’s better to develop a new system. The organization of the emerging powers known as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) represents one such an attempt.

In the past, any major overhaul to the global political, economic, and security order were only possible after major conflicts; and the winners got to implement the systems of their choice. At present, the tensions amongst the global players are playing out in the internal politics of many countries, in an attempt to pull them away from the Chinese, US, or Russian influence.

As far as the Islamic world is concerned, the recently held Islamic Summit organized by Malaysia, and backed by Qatar, Turkey and Iran, indicated a preliminary attempt to present an alternative system. This endeavor was opposed by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt.

“We are attempting to start small, and if these ideas, proposals and solutions are acceptable and prove workable, then we hope to take them up to the larger platform for consideration,” Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir stated. He added, I have suggested that we re-visit the idea of trading using the gold dinar and barter trade among us.

As described previously in this space, the core Arab states have remained allied with the US, but the Peripheral Islamic states, represented by Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, have moved closer to China and Russia. The Muslims of Sub-Continent, including Afghanistan, could prove to be the decisive factors in determining the direction of the balance of power and the associated systems. This could also be the reason why UAE and Saudi Arabia have increased their involvement and investments in India.

The post Global Socio-Political And Economic Change; The Battle For Alternative Systems appeared first on Politact.

By Arif Ansar

Context

While the Pakistan-India tensions are known to flare up occasionally, the present one over the February 14 Pulwama incident has calmed down for the time being. However, in the absence of any political dialogue related to Kashmir, there is likely to be a next episode. Most assessments of the incident have examined the conflagration from a bilateral prism, and less emphasis has been directed on scanning the domestic and regional context under which the present tensions have taken shape.

In the aftermath of the Pulwama incident, on February 26 India claimed to have carried out air strikes against militant training camps in Balakot, inside Pakistan. The attack indicated the evolution of Indian strategic thinking that border towards irrationality, and is more worrisome on what could come next. To the contrary, during the whole affair Pakistan exhibited mature escalation control in a nuclear environment. However, connections to groups like Jaishe-e-Mohammad (JeM), which accepted responsibility for the Pulwama attack, are adding to the costs for Pakistan.

Domestic Politics, Afghan Reconciliation and India

Palwama attack triggered a dangerous crisis between the two nuclear-armed neighbors; it represented a first foreign policy test for the Pakistan’s new economically strangled PTI led government, and was perhaps was meant to.

Then there is the regional context to consider where Afghan reconciliation is swiftly moving forward with emphasis on four key segments: intra-Afghan dialogue, foreign troop withdrawal, counter terrorism assurances, and a ceasefire. However, it’s unclear what the role of India, if any, would be in the Afghan settlement.

Speaking at the Senate Armed Services hearing recently, CENTCOM Commander General Votel commented US desires to ensure “Pakistan’s equities are acknowledged and addressed in any future agreement in Afghanistan.“

If Pakistan plays a positive role in achieving a settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan, the US will have opportunity and motive to help Pakistan fulfill that role, as peace in the region is the most important mutual priority for the US and Pakistan,” he added.

However, India cannot let Pakistan and China emerge as the chief beneficiaries of peace in Afghanistan, or to allow a return to the pre 9/11 geostrategic environment. The Pulwama incident once again raises Indian concerns and its attempts to place Pakistan at the center of cross border terrorism. Meanwhile, Pakistan tries to clear its culpability as the proceedings of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the United Nations Security Council take place.

Timeline of Major Events

Since India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998, there have been a series of major events risking full fledge war between the two nuclear neighbors, each times raising the stakes tremendously.

– The Kargil War of 1999 was one such event. It was only after reports emerged that India was planning to open other fronts, and that Pakistan had started to move its nuclear weapons, was the conflict defused with the active US mediation.

– The alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and JeM planned attacks against the Indian Parliament in December 2001, led to an extended stand off as both nations deployed conventional forces along the border. This confrontation also resulted in the Indian Cold Start Doctrine, which Pakistan countered overtime by developing tactical short-range nuclear weapons.

– This was followed up by Mumbai attacks in 2008, for which LeT was once again blamed. The attack caused the deaths of more than 150 people, to include citizens of Israel and the US. Once again, India was prepared to launch a full fledge onslaught, which was only stemmed by active US diplomacy, and pressure on Pakistan to act against such groups and by conducting a transparent investigation. In the post 9/11 environment, Mumbai incident inflicted acute damage to Pakistan’s global image.

– The killing of popular Kashmiri militant Burhan Wani by Indian security forces worsened the security situation in Indian Occupied Kashmir. In 2016 an alleged JeM planned attacks on the brigade headquarter in Uri, lead to the death of about 19 soldiers, followed by claims of surgical strikes by India targeting training camps in Azad Kashmir. Pakistan denied any such strikes tool place. The Uri attacks were preceded by similar incidents in Gurdaspur and attack on Pathankot Airbase.

Indian Approach Towards Kashmir and Pakistan

In the conventional arena, India has attempted to address the issue of Kashmir, and countering Pakistan, by strengthening its military presence in the Indian Occupied Kashmir, and escalating its kinetic tactics there. It has targeted four of Pakistan’s sensitivities dealing with maintaining territorial integrity, military parity, economic viability (includes water resources), and political harmony.

According to Times of India, in 2018 Indian defense budget stood at $58.6 billion, compared to $26.6 billion in 2008/09. On the other hand, Pakistan defense budget for 2018 was around $11 billion, compared to $4.2 billion in 2009 (Source: Defense Industry Daily). For 2018, Indian defense expenditure reflected 2.1% of the GDP, while that of Pakistan represented 3.6% of the total GDP (Source: Times of India). Quoting Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) 2018 data, India has remained the largest importer of major arms, making up 13% of the global sales.

Secondly, using its newfound economic prowess and strategic ties to the US, India has attempted to isolate Pakistan in different global forums while maligning Pakistan’s military as rogue – and thus building a case of international sanctions. Moreover, it has threatened to curtail water flows to Pakistan, agreed under the Indus Basin Treaty.

Thirdly, India has been working to curtail sources of Pakistan’s traditional support, such as from the Gulf States, and has been attempting to tilt these ties in its favor. This was recently exhibited when Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) for the first time invited the Indian foreign minister to its meeting.

Fourthly, India has attempted to deepen the civil-military, ethnic, and liberal-conservative fissures in the country, and ceased all sports and cultural ties.

In the domain of unconventional warfare, Pakistan has accused India of using proxies from Afghan territory to launch terror attacks inside Pakistan, which have caused thousands of causalities. India has also been supporting militants to destabilize Balochistan province and to cause friction with Iran. The Indian role in transforming the former East Pakistan in to a new state of Bangladesh has been accepted by Prime Minister Modi himself.

Related Interviews

Pakistan’s Crackdown Against Banned Groups And Pakistan-India Tensions

Pulwama Attack: Political or Military Solution to Pakistan-India Tensions

The strategists in India have hopped that through the above mechanics, it would be able to strangulate Pakistan and change its traditional support for Kashmir.

In essence, India has presented its interests as aligned with the US and the West, especially as they relate to extremism. This has been further reflected in the Indian thinking by the use of phrases like ‘surgical strikes’ etc., of the sort US has used in its campaign against terrorism. Moreover, Indian approach towards Kashmir presents similarities with the Israeli strategy towards Palestine.

Conclusion

In the broader geopolitical context, what strategic calculus is India attempting to address and alter by building a narrative of a surgical strike inside Pakistan, and how is this different from its past posture – or anything else India has attempted previously?

Moreover, with retaliatory action by Pakistan and repeated messaging from Prime Minister Khan, the nation made it unequivocal that the matters could easily escalate in to a nightmarish nuclear exchange. As Pakistan employs the first use doctrine, it would have no choice if matters had escalated beyond a certain point. At the same time, it was practicing a ‘graduated response’ to the evolving situation, and exhibited ‘escalation control’ when it unilaterally released the captured Indian pilot, Abhinandan Varthaman.

Through the use of surgical strikes, India most likely meant to test Pakistan’s first use threshold. India would prefer to utilize its superior conventional advantage rather than resorting to mutual annihilation approach. This is why it is important for India to test Pakistan’s nuclear first use threshold. Through the surgical strike claim in 2016, and now in the case of Pulwama, India has been checking Pakistan’s limits, and the International response to any serious crisis.

The perceptions become critical when nuclear weapons are involved, the ramifications of a nuclear exchange go much beyond the geographic confines of South Asia. While the claims of Indian surgical strikes in 2016 could not be independently verified, and were carried out in Pakistan side of Kashmir, therefore the country did not feel a need to respond.

There was no such ambiguity when Indian jets crossed over and claimed attacking militant camps inside Pakistan in Balakot. The country not only acknowledged but also responded. Irrespective of if Indian strikes caused any damage, it carried a more serious symbolic implication. And this was also the reason that Pakistan had to retaliate to demonstrate its strategic will and capability.     

Indian experimenting with Pakistan’s first use threshold suggests that when the next attack in Kashmir or India occurs, it would want to have the space to launch punitive strikes without worrying about nuclear repercussions. Pakistan, on the other hand, would like to convey in no uncertain terms, that there are no grey areas – if such an eventuality took place.

The drone strikes that US carried out in the FATA region under Bush and Obama, whether with Pakistan’s acquiesce or not, may have conveyed the wrong message to India. There are huge discrepancies between the military prowess of US and India, demonstrated by the downing of Indian fighter jet, and a number of other technical mistakes that went along. In its desire to be seen as a global player, India has inadvertently exposed its conventional vulnerabilities and international repute. 

Moreover, simply labeling every incident in Kashmir to have been supported by Pakistan does not absolve India from acting rationally. Even at the height of Cold War, US and former Soviet Union avoided direct confrontation. Meanwhile, whatever Pakistan may have done in the past, the present requires a course correction; the Kashmir cause is much damaged when groups like JeM accept responsibility for carrying out attacks in India, or Indian held Kashmir.

The post Pulwama Attack And The Indian Strategic Calculus Against Pakistan – From Cold Start To Surgical Strikes appeared first on Politact.

Context

While the Pakistan-India tensions are known to flare up occasionally, the present one over the February 14 Pulwama incident has calmed down for the time being – but is likely to have a next episode. Most assessments of the incident have examined the conflagration from a bilateral prism, and less emphasis has been directed on scanning the domestic and regional context under which the present tensions have taken shape.

Domestic Politics

Palwana attack triggered a dangerous crisis between the two nuclear-armed neighbors; it represented a first foreign policy test for Pakistan’s new economically strangled PTI led government. It was perhaps meant to test the fresh political setup. On the other hand, corruption cases are proceeding against prominent political leaders, with the nations former three times prime minster, Nawaz Sharif, already serving a jail term. So there is the domestic politics of Pakistan to consider.

Afghan Reconciliation and India

Then there is the regional context where Afghan reconciliation is swiftly moving forward with emphasis on four key segments: intra-Afghan dialogue, troop withdrawal, counter terrorism assurances, and a complete ceasefire.  However, it’s unclear what the role of India, if any, would be in the Afghan settlement.

Related Interviews:
1. Pakistan’s Crackdown Against Banned Groups And Pakistan-India Tensions
2. Pulwama Attack: Political or Military Solution to Pakistan-India Tensions
3. Afghan Peace Process: Can Pakistan, Afghanistan, and US Trust Each Other

Speaking at the Senate Armed Services hearing recently, CENTCOM Commander General Votel commented US desires to ensure “Pakistan’s equities are acknowledged and addressed in any future agreement in Afghanistan.“

If Pakistan plays a positive role in achieving a settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan, the US will have opportunity and motive to help Pakistan fulfill that role, as peace in the region is the most important mutual priority for the US and Pakistan,” he added.

However, India cannot let Pakistan and China emerge as the chief beneficiaries of peace in Afghanistan, or to allow a return to the pre 9/11 geopolitical environment. The Pulwama incident once again raises Indian concerns and its attempts to place Pakistan at the center of cross border terrorism. Meanwhile, Pakistan tries to clear its culpability as the proceedings of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the United Nations Security Council take place.

Pakistan’s Crackdown Against Banned Outfits

The post Palwama crackdown on banned India oriented outfits in Pakistan, such as JuD, has the potential to make matters difficult for Imran Khan. He won the election apposing the kinetic approaches adopted in the campaign against extremism, and supported political route to settle the Afghan quagmire. Imran’s method ultimately received the American buy-in and has resulted in the present on-going direct talks between the US and Afghan Taliban.

The Pulwama attack, and the subsequent crack down, could add a new dimension to Pakistan’s campaign against extremism. Can Imran Khan also convince India that the causes of mutual animosity can be settled by dealing with the simmering Kashmir issue politically? India, under Modi, appears hell-bent on taking a military approach, but the world can hardly afford an irrational strategy in a nuclear environment.

Nonetheless, if Afghan reconciliation does take place, it does give Pakistan the space to address India oriented groups. Moreover, with Kashmir already hot, now mainly due to the Indian mishandling and harsh military tactics, any connection to groups like JuD serves to harm the otherwise legitimately accepted global issue.

The post The Pulwama Incident And Imran Khan’s War On Terror appeared first on Politact.

By Arif Ansar

Context

The international conferences where leading global thinkers and shapers gather to share insights on the present political, technological, and economic challenges, are crucial to observe. Their thoughts processes help to build a narrative and assist the rest to gauge the future direction.

The Davos World Economic Forum, held every year in late January, is just such a venue where political, intellectual, and corporate leaders share their knowledge. This year, it was reflective of the contradictions that the world presently confronts as it relates to the governance structures, the economic and political models, addressing climate change, and harnessing emerging technological advances in a mutually beneficial manner.

In some respects, these kinds of topics are lately been talked about at many other such conferences, but the irony in Davos could not have been starker this year – when the European Union and Europe itself is in the grips of Brexit related confusion. And when the strong influence behind globalization, represented by the US, is adrift, and under increasing nationalist and isolationist policies.

The hard debates took place at the various Davos forums on the corporate role in the present economic woes, and responsibility towards tacking inequality, fixing the climate, and creating more jobs as Artificial intelligence (AI) and Big Data alter how the business will be conducted in the future. The dilemma remains that under globalization, the nation-state model, and state sovereignty, takes more of a back seat – and this is exactly what has resulted in the populist responses such as ‘American First’ or ‘Brexit’.

1. Globalization and Reforms

Consider the statements of Angela Merkel, one of the Keynote speakers at the Davos this year. She emphasized Germany’s commitment to globalization and multilateralism, and reiterated the risks. “There is a new approach that we see in the world today, an approach that harbors doubts as to the validity of the international system,” she stated.

Indirectly countering Trump’s ‘America First’ mantra she added: “I think (that when it comes to) our national interests — I think we should always understand them in such a way that we always remember that others also have their own vested interests, factor them in, and then shape a win-win situation that will guide us in international politics.”

The Chinese perspective was reflected in one of the discussions titled ‘When Global Order Fails’ by Fang Xinghai, who is the Vice Chairman of China’s Securities Regulatory Commission. Xinghai commented that West should not make China a scapegoat for what is not working in the Western democratic system and that reforms were needed to fix those issues, which have nothing to do with China.

Commenting on why US worries about China, Xinghai replied that the US should be open in accepting polities that operate differently, because if they do not, it would mean excluding China, Russia, and pretty soon India as well. Adam Tooze, who is a historian from Columbia University, further elaborated the response. He pointed out to the evolution of Indian democracy under Prime Minister Modi, which does not resemble democratic norms especially when considering its Muslim population.

2. Emerging Technologies and Digital Consensus

The technological upheaval is another aspect of the global flux. Like globalization, the Internet and Internet of Things (IOT), Big Data and AI, work best when there are no hindrances in the way. However, this has great risks and fears associated with it, when knowledge and technology (automation) is replacing traditional sources of labor. It could become, if not already, a new factor that exasperates global inequality.

Quoting McKinsey’s Global Institute (MGI) report ‘Globalization in Transition’, the Managing Partner Kevin Sneader wrote on the company blog:

“…for the first time, the emerging markets now make 50 percent of the counterparts in global trade. While these markets are perhaps more optimistic about growth than many developed economies are, they face their own challenges as knowledge and technology replace labor as the critical sources of arbitrage in global value chains.”

Therefore, the globalists desire a new form of technological consensus to shape the digital future – that balances the state sovereignty with in the globalized structure. Or as Elizabeth Heineman writes in The Conversation:

“Merkel’s – and Europe’s – quandary is this: how to move forward in the digital age when Europe’s contribution is to seek balance between state power, individual rights and the dynamism of capitalism. Achieving that balance – achieving any balance – means slowing things down. It means philosophizing.” Achieving this equilibrium is what Angela Merkel terms Social Market Economy

The Japanese Prime Minister reflected his sentiments on the subject:

“I call on all of us to rebuild trust toward the system for international trade. That should be a system that is fair, transparent, and effective in protecting IP (intellectual property) and also in such areas as e-commerce and government procurement,” Abe stated in his speech.

While there are many international agreements to address security and trade related matters there are no such agreements when it comes to the digital world especially in the realm of Cyber threats, AI and Big Data etc. This is a cause of enormous concern for nations that are competing in these emerging technologies. 

3. Geopolitics and Economics

The tussles of the global balance of power between the emerging and established powers is obviously not just restricted to security affairs, it also includes trade and technology domains. The ongoing economic tensions between the US and China are having a ripple effect downstream with negative impact on globalization.

The primary concern being that by learning and tweaking the laissez-faire system, China is exploiting it and negatively impacting the American economic outlook, as it relates to protection of Intellectual Property and by forced Technology Transfers. Moreover, there is a pressure on China to address the trade imbalances by opening its market more. Obviously if the Chinese economy continues to strengthen at the cost of others, it will also reflect in its global defense posture and influence. 

The other Asian nations are increasingly concerned as US appears to be withdrawing from international regimes, and this they think would only benefit the Chinese. According to them, the best way for the US to address its apprehensions is by staying in the system and by negotiating. Moreover, the debates also continue on the best way to engage each other and address differences.

Multilateral approaches, as adopted by the US in the past, complicate the negotiations. Conversely, the Chinese have benefited by engaging in bilateral tracts, however, in bilateral negotiations the stronger party usually benefits. Nonetheless, US is increasingly moving towards adopting bilateral talks for engaging and negotiating.

Then there are concerns that a Cold War is developing between China and the US and what that would mean for the international system. Will this result in to a new alignment – with other nations being pushed in to one block or the other. A comparison is also being made with the nature of Cold War between the then Soviet Union and US. That Cold War was primarily in the defense and security realm, and not as much in trade, as is the case between US and China now. And just because of this difference, it may not mature in to a full fledge Cold War.

Many of the above dimensions were discussed in an event titled ‘The Geopolitical Agenda,’ moderated by Vali Nasr. The panel recognized that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is changing the geopolitical landscape and in ten years the results will be obvious.

In this context, the Pathfinder and Dow Martin Groups held discussions related to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, moderated by the Chairman Pathfinder Group, Ikram Sehgal. The speakers, which included the Chief Minister of Baluchistan province Jam Kamal Khan, promoted investment opportunities in the mineral rich, and strategically located Baluchistan province of Pakistan. The province borders Iran and Afghanistan, where not only the Pakistan-India rivalry is playing out, but also the tussles of the global balance of power.

Conclusion

In many of the discussions referred above, the common worry remained how the US-China trade rivalry is going to unfold and how it will impact different businesses and free trade. However, one could see some confusion in grasping the connection between the economic and security domains.

The optimists thought that because the nature of competition is mainly economic, these differences could be managed. But they miss the point that is raising concern for the US: globalization has made China tremendously stronger very quickly, and this would also translate in to defense and technological wherewithal. After all, the nation-state system, and national interests, still exist and cannot be wished away. 

China preaches engagement and negotiations, and stands ready to address the trade imbalances and grievances, while admitting to the benefits of the liberal trade system. Will this be enough to save globalization remains to be seen. After all, trade wars are linked to the change in the global balance of power. What is particularly worrisome is that US no longer sees eye to eye on these matters with its traditional European allies. Moreover, the Europeans do not have consensus amongst themselves either. At no time since World War II, has the division between the globalists and the nationalists, so acute.

The post Davos 2019, EU, And US-China Trade War appeared first on Politact.

A media discussion on a VOA Urdu Program Jahan Rang hosted by Behjat Gilani on October 14, 2017. Topics included:

Trump’s US Iran policy and world reaction.
Situation of Myanmar Rohingyas.
Pakistan, US, and Afghanistan Relations.
Pakistan’s Civil Military Confrontation.

The analysts participating in the discussion were:

Lord. Nazir Ahmad – Permanent British Parliament Member, London
Arif Ansar – CEO, “POLITACT” Washington, DC
Brigadier (R) Imran Malik – Defense Analyst & Columnist
Mir Waise Afghan – London based Analyst, ‘Khabrial’
Prof. A. Z. Hilali – Political Analyst, Peshawar University

Sound Bites From
Syed Khursheed Shah, Leader of Opposition, National Assembly Pakistan
Major General Asif Ghafoor, Director General ISPR Pakistan

Strategic Insight

While it is customary to point to issues related to Afghanistan, and more recently India, for the cause of mistrust between US and Pakistan, it is actually the differing strategic visions. Approaching the future of the region in a zero-sum manner is the basis for recurring tensions between US and Pakistan. There is a need to craft win-win scenarios amongst the various stakeholders and dealing with extremism of different colors.

On the other hand, scrutiny of the Iran nuclear deal is part of the wider US foreign policy review being carried out under President Trump’s America First Doctrine. A number of international economic and security treaties have already been revoked, and others are being appraised on how they benefit the US. What would be critical is how the foreign policy evolves after the initial bluster that has marked President Trump’s style.

The post Review of Iran Nuclear Deal And Pakistan, US, Afghanistan Relations appeared first on Politact.

A comprehensive media discussion on Voice of America (Urdu Service) program Round Table, hosted by Qamar Abbas Jafri, on December 12, 2016. The focus was on the key foreign and domestic challenges likely to be confronted by President-elect Donald Trump.

The discussion panel included:

Dr. Tayyab Mahmud – Director of the Center for Global Justice, Seattle University
Arif Ansar – Chief Analyst, PoliTact
Ali Imran – Independent Analyst
Lord Nazir Ahmed – Member British House of Lords
Dr. Atta Mohammad – Paris University

Subcribe to get strategic insights from this discussion.

The following represent a list of foreign and domestic challenges likely to be faced by President-elect Trump.

• The US-Russia relations and aggressive Russian efforts to influence US politics through information and cyber warfare. The conclusions reached by the US intelligence community and Trump’s response.
• The US-China relations and the future on ‘One-China’ policy.
• The growing China-Russia security and economic cooperation and what it means for the US.
• The challenges in the way of Trump’s US-Russia reset, especially the Iran nuclear deal.
• The future of US Pivot to Asia/Rebalancing policy.
• Trump’s outlook towards Europe and NATO, especially in the aftermath of Brexit and the risk of other nations following the same path.
• The impact of Trump’s untraditional operational style and diverse business interests.
• The influence of people selected for key cabinet positions.
• The new approach to fight extremists and policy towards Middle East and South Asia. How will the growing Russian involvement in facilitating the Afghan peace rhyme with its ties with India? More importantly, how will the emerging position of China and Russia on extremism impact the wider campaign against terrorism? And how does this correlate with the vision of the important security and defense related nominations made by President-elect Trump?
• The future of Globalization and major free trade pacts, such as Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
• The prospects of reforms within the US political system and parties.
• Dealing with perceived American weakness and emboldened Putin.

The discussion panel included:

Dr. Tayyab Mahmud – Director of the Center for Global Justice, Seattle University
Arif Ansar – Chief Analyst, PoliTact
Ali Imran – Independent Analyst
Lord Nazir Ahmed – Member British House of Lords
Dr. Atta Mohammad – Paris University

Listen To The Program

Strategic Insights

To get our detailed strategic insight contact info@politact.com

The post President-elect Trump’s Major Domestic, Foreign Challenges appeared first on Politact.

A media discussion on Voice of America (Urdu Service) on September 26, 2016. The program covered the political and security implications of the India-Pakistan tensions, resulting from the Uri attack and unrest in Kashmir. A particular focus is on the security implications as both nations are nuclear powers with well-developed nuclear weapon programs.

The panel included:

Nuclear Scientist Dr. Samar Mubarakmand
Nuclear Analyst Commodore (R) Uday Bhaskar
Chief Analyst PoliTact – Arif Ansar

For discussion of the political dynamic participants included:

Dr. Asma Khawaja from the National Defense University, Islamabad
Dr. Ravni Thakur from Delhi University, and
Strategic Analyst Shama Junejo

http://www.urduvoa.com/a/3503005.html

The post Political, Security, And Nuclear Dimensions Of Pakistan, India Tensions appeared first on Politact.

Obama administration has proposed a total of $8.2 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations to support the civilian led programs and missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. According to the State Department, from the annual budget of $3.8 trillion, US has proposed financial aid worth $2.4 billion to Pakistan for the fiscal year 2012-13. Of this aid, $2.2 billion is for strengthening democratic institutions of the country, including $800 million for the Counter-Insurgency Capability Fund (PCCF).

US Officials have maintained that the aid is “conditional”. The Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will have to provide ‘Presslar Amendment’ style certification to various Congressional committees on the following:

• Pakistan is “cooperating” against the Quetta Shura, Haqqani Network, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Al Qaeda and other domestic and foreign terrorist organizations.
• Pakistan is not “supporting terrorist activities against the US.”
• “Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies are not intervening extra-judicially into political and judicial processes in Pakistan”.
• Speedy issuance of visas for US personel involved in counterterrorism efforts and assistance programs in Pakistan.
• Pakistan is taking action against networks that facilitate building of IEDs used against American forces in Afghanistan.
• Pakistan must take steps to prevent nuclear proliferation.

The Secretary of State not only has the authority to suspend aid to Pakistan if the country does not demonstrate progress in meeting these conditions, she can also waive the certification requirements using the ‘national interest’ clause.

The post US Attaches Stringent Conditions To The Proposed $2.4 Billion Pakistan Aid For 2012-13 appeared first on Politact.

Context

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited Syria and Turkey last week with a bevy of discussion topics on the agenda. From Iran to the Middle East Peace Process, Moscow is signaling to the Middle East, and the region at large, that it is serious about taking a leading role in the future of the region.

This Vantage Point Analysis takes a closer at the changing balance of power in Middle East and how the Russians envision their role in the region. This article also provides clues to understanding potential Russian engagement in other regions, for example the Af-Pak Theater.

Analysis

Syria played host to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for the May 10, two day visit. While Russia and Syria were previously close allies and formed a very important partnership in the region, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and a period of retrenchment for both countries during the ’90s, the relationship diminished somewhat. In recent years the bilateral relationship has been regaining some of its polish, with the visit by Medvedev an important signal that the two countries are well on the way to a new, firm strategic partnership.

The visit comes just days after the US renewed its sanctions regime against Syria because of Syria’s alleged “continuing support for terrorist organizations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs,[which]continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States.” US President Obama said on the May 3 in a press conference about the sanctions.

The US and Israel are concerned that the Russian high-level visit is sending a tacit signal of approval to Syria, who will feel emboldened by the Russian show of support in the face of the recent sanctions. Israel is especially concerned about the Russian visit, and keen to know if there will be any more arms deals between the two countries. Israel has previously accused the Syrians of passing on weapons acquired in Russian arms deals to Hezbollah in Lebanon, a claim which Syria denies. This will likely dampen the possibility of renewed armament deals, especially as Israel has also accused Syria of intending to pass on weapons to Iran as well.

Russian sentiment during the visit is overwhelmingly that Russia is ‘a friend to all’. Medvedev met with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal during his visit, and at the same time promised to ‘send a message’ from Israel to Syrian President Bashar Al Assad to try and ease the tensions between the two states: whether he actually did or not is still unclear.

The Russian visit is also a signal that Russia is looking to boost its status as a moderator and mediator in the region, with Medvedev stating his concern that “Tensions in the Middle East threaten to lead to a new explosion or even a catastrophe.” Russia is perhaps trying to show itself as the ‘unbiased’ mediator, in contrast to the perceived Israel-bias of the US when it comes to the Middle East Peace Process.

The Russian President continued his overseas tour with a trip to Turkey, where business was on the agenda. Medvedev stated that “We can confidently say that Russian-Turkish relations have advanced to the level of a multidimensional strategic partnership,” which was actualized by the signing of a visa-free agreement between citizens of the two countries. The 2 million+ Russians who visit Turkey every year as tourists will be very pleased with that particular dimension of the multidimensional partnership.

Russia and Turkey share a mutual vision to some extent as far as their roles in the Middle East are concerned, with Turkey renewing overtures to moderate peace talks between Israel and Syria. The feeling is that Turkish-Russian relations are much more mutually beneficial, and less benefactor/beneficiary than those of Russia and Syria, despite how Syria would protest this statement.

Energy played a key role in the Turkish and Russian talks, with the proposed Blue Stream-2 and South Stream gas pipelines discussed, as well as the possibility of a Russian-built nuclear power plant on Turkish soil.

It is overwhelmingly clear that Russia is positioning herself as the ‘Great Friend’ in the Middle East neighborhood. Russia is doing a good job of being friends with everybody, even those who have unbridled antagonism towards one another, like Israel and Syria-how long Russia can continue pull this off is yet to be seen.

Russian statements also make it clear that Syria is considered a pivotal country in the success of the Middle East Peace Process. Russia’s playing down of weapons deals, and the keen interest in joint economic activity may be a ploy to pry Syria open economically, into the open-market economics that Russia has embraced. Economic openness is often a precursor to political openness and moderation, but then again, Russia is not overly concerned with the types of polities it does business with, so long as business is beneficial.

The relationship of both Syria and Russia with Iran was also under scrutiny during the visit. Many thought that Syria’s Assad would use the visit to try and convince Medvedev to block the planned fourth round of Iranian sanctions in the Security Council: sanctions which Russia as it is seems reluctant to endorse. This is perhaps due to the fact that a Russian-built nuclear power plant in Bushehr in Iran is set to be completed this year. While the power plant was endorsed by the US because it would mitigate the need for Iran to continue with uranium enrichment programs, this has not been the case in reality, so the sanctions are being tightened.

As Russia seems to want to take a leading role in the neighborhood of the Middle East, it is also positioning for a role in the Af-Pak region.

Russia and Pakistan have a rollercoaster relationship, with relations at their sourest during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and the cozy bond that existed between India and the Soviet Union at this time. Irked by the American criticism, Karzai has recently made a number of overtures towards the Russians, a scene reminding the players of the cold war days. India also stands disillusioned by the new US Af-Pak strategy, which has caused it to strive for closer Indo-Russian ties once again.

Russia and Pakistan seem to skirt around their possibly strong bilateral relationships-on Pakistan’s end, perhaps this is in fear of upsetting allies in Washington. On Russia’s end perhaps they are biding their time until the US withdraws from Afghanistan. Then they can have free reign to play the ‘Great Friend’ and benefactor role in this region, as it is showing overtures to want to play in the Middle East. Russia, like China, has shown a keen interest in Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project.

Soon after Medvedev’s visit to the region came the joint declaration yesterday by Iran, Turkey and Brazil on the signing of the Nuclear Swap Agreement. This development has caught everyone by surprise. PoliTact will be examining the ramifications of this development.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post Russian Role in Middle East and South Asia appeared first on Politact.

A media discussion on Voice of America (Urdu Service) on August 29, 2016. The focus of the program was on increasing awareness of Cyber threats and the use of social media by extremists. Morover to understand privacy and legal dimensions of Cyberspace.

The increasing focus on Cybersecurity is to protect the Cyberspace from the threats posed by State and Non-State Actors to infrastructure, computer data and networks, and financial institutions etc.

The panel included:

Arif Ansar – Chief Analyst, PoliTact
Farhan Hussein – Founder of ‘Bites for All’
Tariq J Qureshi – Meena Group Global
Sangeen Shah – Kings College London
Amjad Malik – Barrister

http://www.urduvoa.com/a/3464345.html

The post Understanding Cyber Threats And Extremism appeared first on Politact.