How is Ukraine Conflict Impacting South Asia?

Context

One of the key theaters of the shifting balance of power is Europe, where Russia and China had been gradually encroaching. Europe has primarily been under the American Sphere of Influence since the World War II. Corona pandemic and ‘Decoupling from China’ was already impacting the global supply chains, but the Ukraine conflict has thrown in an added wrench.

The question is – how is Ukraine war and its tentacles impacting the balance of power in South Asia? The region already has a fair share of fault lines, to include Pakistan-India tensions, dealing with extremism – especially after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and growing China-India border tensions. Moreover, the geopolitics of the neighboring Middle East is likely to have a profound impact on what transpires in South Asia, especially as China establishes its role as the global peace maker.

While India is a key pivot of the Indo-Pacific strategy, it’s not a member of NATO. However, it is a part of BRICS and recently joined Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as well.

Analysis

Majority of nations from South Asia abstained from the UNGA vote which took place in February 2023, and was critical of Russian invasion of Ukraine and demanded that its forces withdrew. Generally, three main characters factored in the equation.

Big Versus Small Nations

The smaller nations have usually voted in favor of Ukraine – because of the threats posed by larger powers. For example, fearing China and India, Bhutan and Nepal, have sided with the US.

Multipolarity

On the other hand, other nations of South Asia gave more weight to multipolarity and abstained from condemning Russia. They want to avoid being dependent on any one power when the global balance of power is in flux.

This can be stated for Pakistan, which is also a strategic partner of China and hosting one of the key arteries of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The country has one more challenge to contemplate, it has been an ally of the West since its creation in 1947. It played a decisive role in bringing down Soviet Union by supporting the jihadist in Afghanistan in the 80s – concluding the Cold War.

However, Pakistan is doing itself a big disservice by not criticizing Russia, especially if India were to make aggressive maneuvers towards Pakistan Administered Kashmir – as some Indian politicians have often proclaimed in relation to Gilgit-Baltistan.

On the contrary, India has refrained from condemning Russia while at the same time being a strategic partner of the US. As opposed to Pakistan, India has had long cordial ties with Russia while it remained part of the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War. In the last five years, Russia has supplied India more than $13 billion worth of arms – and depends on it for 60 percent of its military equipment. As opposed to the emerging untested ties with the West, veto yielding Russia has traditionally proven to be a dependable ally of India. The country simply cannot burn these relations because of Ukraine.

In essence, India is pulling a balancing act by assisting West to prevent the rise of China, but at the same time having Russia on its side as a taming influence over China. All three players are part of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa).

Prominent Indian foreign affairs experts think that this is a risky posture for the country. Shashi Tharoor recently stated in an interview on Wire channel, by not opposing Russian invasion of Ukraine, the nation is setting itself up if China-India border tensions were to escalate. He went on to add that usually India stands for non-intervention and state sovereignty, which it is not doing in the case of Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In short, as international actors switch alliances or attempt to balance them – there is also the assessment of who is likely to prevail – and how that’s related to maintaining the existing ties and alliances.

Meanwhile, as the global attention has shifted to Ukraine, it has provided Afghan Taliban space. The opportunistic postures of Afghan Taliban are meant to exploit the fears of stakeholders like US, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, and Iran – and by maintaining a leverage of extremism over all of them. For example, it has kept the TTP gambit over Pakistan, while at the same time offering India to keep a check on LeT and Al Qaeda in the Indian Sub Continent (AQIS), and then delicately adjusting its policy towards global extremists (AQ and ISIS-K) and other Western concerns – including women rights and inclusion of minorities in governance.

And thus, the question becomes where do Afghan Taliban, including the regional and global extremists that operate from Afghanistan, fit in the great power rivalry equation. Since the US withdrawal, both China and Russia are attempting to build trade ties with Afghanistan.

BRICS and SCO

One of the biggest casualties of the Ukraine conflict are the organizations representing the emerging powers, the SCO and BRICS, in which India has emerged as a major detractor.

US and Indian interests are convergent when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, India has consistently taken a position against foreign intervention, in places like Libya and Syria, just as China, Russia, and Pakistan. India is also aligned with the Indo-Pacific strategy and that is what complicates its role in both the SCO and BRICS. It simply cannot be a member of both the emerging power club, and established powers, at the same time. This was evident at the recently held G-20 foreign ministers meetings in India, which were marred by differences over Ukraine – and attempted Indian balancing act while maintaining strategic autonomy.

Like in Europe, Ukraine has also become a test case for the tussles of the balance of power in South Asia. European dependency on Russian energy needs coupled with China’s economic penetration was considered a liability. As the Ukraine war unfolded, Europe is having to manage by using other energy resources – and Decoupling from China is also underway.

In the South Asia theater, before the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan – the nation had become the epicenter of the balance of power struggle. It was believed that if Afghan Taliban were to prevail, the influence of its backer Pakistan, and its strategic ally China, would multiply. However, things have not necessarily played out that way. In fact, the great power competition has left the country turned completely inward while facing an economic meltdown.

Moreover, in recent years the China-India border tensions have increased but both nations have remained engaged in trade. Just as European powers of Germany and France do not want to completely burn bridges with Russia, similarly, India does not desire to turn entirely against China, especially when it shares memberships in two major platforms, SCO and BRICS. Moreover, India conducted more than $135 billion of trade with China in 2022 while buying military equipment and cheap energy resources from Russia, and thus the prospects for decoupling from China or Russia are not looking good.

On the other hand, US-India trade amounts to more than $700 billion. India remains a US ally while doing business with Iran and Russia. It has received waivers from different US sanctions for building the Iranian Chabahar Port, buying Cheap Russian oil, and acquiring Russian S-400 air defense system. The hope is that ultimately India will recognize that being allied with the West is more beneficial.

China the Peace Maker

The recent development of Chinese acting as peacemaker between Iran and Saudi Arabia could be a game changer in the dynamics of regional balance of power. China has also presented a 12 point paper to resolve Ukraine conflict. As the power tussles in the Middle East playout, China is likely to assert more and act as a mediator in other longstanding conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the larger Middle East Peace Process, as noted by PoliTact previously.

In fact, in Chinese assessment road to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict likely runs through the Iran-Saudi rapprochement. Just like Iran and Saudi Arabia, China also enjoys cordial ties with Israel. This approach stands in contrast to the Outside-In approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Chinese peacemaker role could undercut US influence in the Middle East, which can restrict space for India as well. As China and Russia reach out to manifest their influence, they seem to be having more success in countries that do not have democratic forms of government. Meanwhile, democracy and democratic norms are faltering in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.

Related Articles:

• What Does The China, Iran Economic and Security Deal Mean?
• In November 16, 2018, PoliTact collaborated with the Middle East Institute’s Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies Center to examine the political, security, and economic interconnections between South Asia and the Gulf States, and one of the subsets, Pakistan and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

The post Great Power Rivalry In South Asia And Ukraine appeared first on Politact.

Context

As Biden administration formulates its Pakistan policy, and reviews the Afghan peace deal reached in February last year – a debate is raging in both US and Pakistan based think tanks on the future of US-Pakistan relations. It is like a new season of an exciting Netflix drama serial, only that this one has been continuing for about two decades. For all intents and purposes Biden administration represents Season 4 of the US-Pakistan serial which has seen many twists and turns. During this period, several terms were used to represent the ties, such as ‘frenemies’ or a troubled marriage heading towards a divorce.

If we use this analogy, the serial started right after the 9/11 attack – represented by season 1 under Bush, followed by Obama’s season 2, and Trump’s season 3 just concluded on January 20^th.

What may happen in season 4 requires an understanding of the plot. And the great debate ranging in the think tank world represent this assessment. One of the assertions is that although the nation has maintained an important position during the previous administrations, its likely to be low on Biden’s priority list. This emphasis is not much different than the approach adopted under Trump where military aid was cut to Pakistan. A greater emphasis was towards global adversaries than on countering extremism or promoting human rights. The analysts are thus suggesting areas around which convergences can be built.

Some have mentioned that Pakistan can help build bridges between US and China, just as it can between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Others have emphasized trade as the focus, and cooperation in dealing with the pandemic and climate change. As the balance of power in the Muslim world is shifting away from the Arab world and towards the peripheral nations of Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, the country can play an active balancing role vis a vis the global powers.

On the other hand, Pakistan is stressing it has moved away from geopolitics to geoeconomics, as witnessed by CPEC like initiatives. This has been a consistent message from Pakistan’s National Security Advisor, Moeed Yusuf, who recently spoke at the Karachi council on Foreign Relations and Woodrow Wilson Center.

Under the Coronavirus induced circumstances, this could be interpreted to mean that the nations focus is on economics and less on engaging in another kinetic phase in Afghanistan – which has devastated Pakistan’s social fabric and economy. And this mantra goes along with the policy the present Prime Minister Imran Khan adopted when he came to power in 2018 – that it can help in making peace but not in the continuation of war. Just about the same time, US also shifted its position, which resulted in direct talks with the Afghan Taliban. Previously, Taliban had consistently refused to negotiate with the Afghan government, calling it a puppet.

In essence, as opposed to the thrust on military solutions that had remained the hallmark of Bush and Obama administrations, under Imran Khan, Pakistan’s assistance was focused on facilitating the peace talks with Afghan Taliban. The concentrated efforts, and cooperation from China, Russia, and Iran, resulted in an agreement between the US and Afghan Taliban in February 2020.

The peace deal was not arrived at easily and there were obstacles at each step of the way, consistently from the same sets of players. The very first challenge perhaps came from President Karzai when Taliban were allowed to open an office in Doha in 2013, carrying the sign and flag of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He argued that peace talks should be Afghan led.

In September 2019, the talks between the US and Taliban were abruptly broken off by President Trump – when peace deal was nearly at hand. Reportedly, he called-off talks due to an attack carried out by Afghan Taliban in Kabul that killed an American soldier. The confusion remained for some time if Trump had permanently abandoned the talks or if it was a temporary suspension. Moreover, he faced severe push back from Ashraf Ghani’s government. Senior former US officials with experience in Afghan affairs recommended US should not pullout before a real peace agreement, or in other words a responsible withdrawal.

Even when the deal was signed, everybody knew that the next step of intra-Afghan talks will be even more difficult, especially because of the role of spoilers, especially India. Heating global power tussles between US and China during the Trump administration added another dimension of worries. Up to now, global powers have cooperated when it comes to Afghanistan. Can it stay that way is not guaranteed.

As Biden administration evaluates its Afghan options, it is important to keep perspective of how we arrived at this juncture, what has already been tried. More importantly, to not get distracted under different pressures, especially when domestic challenges are mounting for the US. Keeping in view the historical context, about what can be achieved in Afghanistan at present – may not be possible six months from now.

How Did We Get Here?

Season 1 – 9/11 Attack (2001-2008)

Bush administration had been in power for about nine months when September 11 attacks struck the US. America launched Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) on October 7, 2001 with military strikes against Al Qaeda (AQ) and Afghan Taliban. The Taliban government crumbled quickly. While there were confrontations like the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters mostly retreated to fight another day.

Early on US pressured Pakistan to join what later became known as the Global War on Terrorism. The nation had been one of the few, including UAE and Saudi Arabia, that recognized the Taliban government. The military ruler General Pervez Musharraf decided to support the US and to go after former allies, the Afghan Taliban.

In the aftermath of the 1999 short and bloody Kargil conflict, then the army chief Pervez Musharraf had overthrown the civilian government in October 1999, removing Nawaz Sharif from power. For this US had slapped sanctions on his government, which were in addition to the ones imposed on Pakistan and India in the aftermath of the 1998 nuclear tests. For Musharraf’s support in Afghanistan, Bush lifted all sanctions on Pakistan in October 2001.

The 9/11 attacks presented an opportunity for Musharraf to gain international credibility. It was only later the realization dawned that AQ and Taliban had mostly slipped away from Afghanistan into the ungoverned Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

While US got distracted by going into Iraq in 2003, Bush administration increased pressure on Pakistan to launch military operations in FATA to eliminate what it termed as safe havens. Pakistan moved nearly hundred thousand troops from the Indian border towards Afghanistan to tackle the issue. US also conducted thousands of drone strikes in FATA between 2004 and 2018 to go after the extremist leaders hiding there. But Pakistan’s military operations in FATA, including the Lal Masjid operation in July 2007, accompanied by drone strikes, started to create an ominous backlash internally. It was unclear if the US drone strikes were occurring with Pakistan’s acquiescence – but it would publicly protest the strikes vehemently as violation of its sovereignty.

Many high value targets and facilities were hit in Pakistan as extremist reprisal spread, with thousands of civilian and soldiers killed and maimed. According to Dawn newspaper, Pakistan’s economic loss in the war against terror was a figure around $126.79 billion. The security and political turmoil, including the civil-military divide, was reflected by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007.

By this time, the internal politics of Pakistan had gotten fully intertwined with the support it was providing US in the war against extremism and at what cost. While Musharraf had become increasingly unpopular, and US grievances with him grew, the death of Benazir Bhutto demonstrated that this was a battle for Pakistan’s survival too.

The Mumbai Attack in November 2008, just about a month and a half before Obama was inaugurated on Jan 2009, created fresh headaches for Pakistan on how it was dealing with good and bad extremists.

Season 2 – Obama’s AfPak

On assuming power, President Obama initiated an exhausting evaluation of the US Afghan policy, which later adopted the acronym of AfPak. The late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke was appointed to lead the office, whose mandate was to originally include India, but that part was dropped due to heavy lobbying from the country. This may have been a critical mistake, as India remains opposed to any negotiated settlement with Afghan Taliban.

At the time it was assumed that the new policy would break from the Bush era focus on kinetic approach, and tilt more towards a diplomatic surge and a search for political solutions based on a regional emphasis. Obama’s assessment went through a metamorphosis of sorts and ended up being an evaluation of the entire US foreign policy. Reappraisal of policy involved the critical questions of what is at stake for America in Afghanistan? Dealing satisfactorily with this inquiry required evaluating US interests globally, understanding how they are related and then prioritizing in terms of the prevailing economic recession at the time.

The strategy that finally emerged represented the competing institutional influences that shape American foreign policy. Obama had to balance domestic economic realities with the perception of appearing weak on national security threats, a leverage he did not want to offer to the Republican Party. Additionally, he also wanted to fulfill his campaign promises of pulling troops out of Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan. Specifically, the new strategy opted for sending 30,000 more troops while setting a timeline for an exit to begin by July 2011.

The new US policy was followed-up with a process of strategic dialogue with Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. What transpired from this dialogue with India was a civil nuclear deal, the groundwork for which was laid during the Clinton administration. On the other hand, Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package ran into controversy because of provisions that many in Pakistan thought compromised its sovereignty. The Raymond Davis incident in January 2011 further validated Pakistan’s apprehensions. At the same time, Mumbai attacks and dealings associated with David Hadley, increased cooperation between US and India against groups such as LeT based in Pakistan.

Thus, the feeling of mistrust between US and Pakistan continued to increase, with both actors blaming each other for playing a double game. The Operation Geronimo gave further evidence of how deeply each party distrusts the other, while claiming to be strategic partners. The subsequent Memogate Affair, followed by the Salala Incident on November 26, 2011 further dented the relationship. A perception grew that the Civil-Military divide in Pakistan was being exploited.

During Obama’s tenure, war against extremism had expanded quite wide and included Yemen, Syria, and Libya. Moreover, by 2011 and onward the extremist threat had transformed as many new groups came in to being, such as Daesh (also known as ISIS and ISIL). Moreover, the Arab Spring related upheaval was further destabilizing many regimes in the MENA theater, to be exploited by extremists and other global adversaries.

As US was over-consumed by the war against extremism, China and Russia were resurging. China launched the Belt and Road global infrastructure initiative in 2013, with CPEC being one of its main arteries. At the cost $62 billion China plans to upgrade Pakistan’s infrastructure, build modern transportation networks, numerous energy projects and special economic zones.

While US remained busy with the war against extremism, the economy was impacted. The 2008 recession had a significant impact on the American middle class and a thought was taking shape that China, and even American allies, were exploiting Globalization – and US was paying. These sentiments were galvanized and channeled by Trumps ‘America First’ mantra.

Season 3 – Making American Great Again and ‘America First’

While July 15, 2015 Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA) was a significant step in the direction of negotiated settlement to conflicts, only a year and a half later President Trump reversed the deal. On the Middle East Peace Process, he went ahead to make the controversial decision of accepting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Trump also stepped out of the Paris Agreement and annulled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that Obama had pushed and was signed in 2016. In essence, Trump was against multilateralism and multilateral institutions and preferred bilateral approach to issues. Trump stated in his speech at the 74^th UN session:

“Globalization exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests. Those days are over.” He went on to add, “Around the world our message is clear, America’s goal is lasting, America’s goal is harmony, and America’s goal is not to go with these endless wars, wars that never end.”

While on the political and economic front he declared: “If you want freedom, hold on to your sovereignty, and if you want peace, love your nation. The future does not belong to Globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to strong, independent nations.”

Following this principle, Trump supported direct talks with Afghan Taliban leading to the peace agreement. If it had not been for the Coronavirus, Trump would have likely won the election.

The storming of the Capitol Hill on January 6, and the events associated with the recent concluded US elections are reflective of the tremendous stress US is under to chart out its future direction; whether it be the globalized one or based on America First. The coronavirus has added to the woes – where many have lost jobs and the lifestyle of others acutely impacted – adding to the public anger and stress.

Irrespective of who is to blame for what transpired on January 6th, Biden administration would have to focus on how to bring the disillusioned, and the Trump supporters, back into the system. This is the best approach to prevent matters being further exploited. This implies Biden would have to address the concerns reflecting by the America First mantra – to provide jobs and to improve the economic well being of the Americans.

Season 4 – ‘America is Back’

Delivering a speech virtually at the Munich Security Conference on February 19, President Biden stated unequivocally that America is back. “I’m sending a clear message to the world,” Biden addressed the security conference. “America is back. The transatlantic alliance is back. And we are not looking backward.”

On the other hand, soon after his acquittal from his impeachment trial in the Senate, Trump stated: “Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun”. His acquittal from Senate trial means Trump can run for office again in the election of 2024, which is likely to be the most consequential in American history.

The domestic politics is becoming increasingly polarized and that is directly linked to the state of the economy, which has been seriously dented by mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic. In such conditions, it would become increasingly challenging for the US to concentrate on foreign affairs, especially on the ‘unending wars’.

And it is in this domestic and global context the US-Pakistan relations, and the associated Afghan conflict, will unfold. There is no appetite left in Pakistan, and perhaps amongst European allies as well, for the continuation of the war other than supporting a reasonable exit. Whatever could be done, has been done, and now the responsibility lies squarely on Afghans. This message needs to be delivered – accompanied by reduction in violence on the Afghan Taliban side – associated by agreed withdrawal of troops on the part of the alliance.

The mantra of Trade not Aid is more prevalent as far as Pakistan is concerned. While China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey, have all supported the resolution of the Afghan conflict and have not linked it to their other frictions with the US, this cannot be assured in the future.

In other words, if US would make things difficult for China and Russia in other places and matters, they will now likely reciprocate in Afghanistan. While re-engaging with Iran on nuclear talks, and suspension of sanctions, may buy some favors with Iran – coming in and out international agreements have casted a long-term impact on US credibility. There was a time when American word was taken as ironclad, and leadership changes did not matter. Now US is telling the world to accommodate its dysfunction and confusion.

One of the fundamental question at this point is, to what extent will Afghanistan become a theater where global power tussles are going to play out. And thus – how critical is Afghanistan to undercut China and Pakistan’s influence in the region – and this is where the role of India, the Indo-Pacific, and the related Quad strategy fits in. The answer to this question makes the decision for US and NATO easier – if they should leave now and fight somewhere else – or stay. In other words, will Afghanistan remain an area of cooperation amongst global powers – or will competition ensue.

The post US-Pakistan Relations And Afghanistan Under Biden appeared first on Politact.

A media discussion on Voice of America (Urdu Service) covering the future of Pakistan-India ties in the aftermath of the Uri attack, and the subsequent Indian claim of carrying out surgical strikes against Pakistan. Qamar Abbas Jafry hosted the discussion on November 21, 2016.

The direction of Pakistan-India relations will be impacted by the by the changing global power alignment. Moreover, the situation of Afghanistan, Kashmir conflict, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, and the emerging position of China and Russia on extremism will all play a critical role.

The discussion panel included:

Sudheendra Kulkarni – Head of Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
Arif Ansar – Chief Analyst PoliTact, Washington DC
Sajjad Naseer – Senior Fellow of Political Science Lahore School of Economics
Dr Farooq Hasnat – Chairman Department of Political Science – University of Punjab,
Nilofar Suhrawardy– Independent Analyst/Columnist.

lhttp://www.urduvoa.com/a/3597243.html

The post Uri Attack, Surgical Strikes, And The Future Of Pakistan-India Ties 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.

Context
A media discussion on VOA Urdu program ‘Round Table’ held on June 22, 2015. The program covered the US Department of State report on extremism for 2014 and comparing it with PoliTact’s forecast that lays out the top 10 characteristics of the war against terror.

The panel included:

– PoliTact’s Chief Analyst Arif Ansar
– Former Interior Secretary of Pakistan Tasneem Noorani
– Editor of London based Newspaper ‘Western Affairs’ Manzar Qureshi
– Journalist Aqil Yusufzai,
– Brigadier (R) Saad Nazir from the Institute of Policy Studies Pakistan

Analysis

The post 2014 US State Department Report On Extremism And Characteristics Of The Campaign Against Terror appeared first on Politact.

The head of the National Coalition of Change and Hope (NCCH), Dr Abdullah Abdullah said on Thursday the Bonn conference could have been a great opportunity for Afghanistan. He told reporters the symposium scheduled for December 5 in Germany, misses a great chance to discuss issues relating to the country. Abdullah said the meeting was unlikely to yield significant outcomes and would serve as a talking shop for government officials.

“If the Afghan delegation represented the Afghan people or if the past activities of Afghan government were satisfactory, the conference could have been in Afghanistan’s favor,” he said.

Dr Abdullah also criticized the conference organizers for failing to consider the input of the opposition. He said the NCCH should have been consulted in the drafting the agenda of the conference.

The NCCH agenda demands for transparent and fair elections, and the safeguard of legitimate rights of the population. It also calls for the impartiality of the Independent Electoral Commission and the independence of the judiciary.

The post Dr. Abdullah: Bonn Conference Represents A Missed Opportunity appeared first on Politact.

Pakistan and Turkmenistan on Monday agreed to expedite their energy projects. President Asif Ali Zardari met with his counterpart Gurbanguly Berdymuhammedov and announced that the two countries would make efforts to speedup the $7.6 billion four-country pipeline project.

The pipeline which was shelved last December in Ashgabat, was expected to run through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. The two leaders announced that direct air links would be started between Pakistan and Turkmenistan to boost economic cooperation.

The TAPI pipeline would also be set up to provide energy security. Major issues including drug and weapons trafficking, illegal immigration, regional and international stability were also discussed. President Zardari praised the Joint Inter-governmental Turkmen Pakistan Commission for its role in strengthening the relations between the countries.

The post Pakistan, Turkmenistan Agree To Speedup Energy Projects appeared first on Politact.

Political analysts warned on Thursday, US military presence in Afghanistan could perpetuate the war. At a day-long seminar at the Mahr Media Centre in Kabul, various political theorists discussed the impact of continuing US presence in the region. Wahid Muzhda, one of the participants, said Afghanistan’s neighbors would not tolerate the Western powers interference much longer. Chairman of the centre, Hussaini Madani further alleged the United States had done nothing to stabilize the war torn nation. Experts also argued the cooperation agreement signed between the US and Afghan officials which allows for US bases to be set up in the country, will increase instability in the region.

The post Afghan Analysts: US Presence Seen As Perpetuating War appeared first on Politact.

Context

Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari travelled to China’s restive Xinjiang province on August 30th for a regional tour as well as for the China-Eurasia Expo held at Xinjiang’s capital Urmuqi. On September 2 he was in Dushanbe, Tajikistan’s capital for a high-level meeting with the Russian, Afghani and Tajik Presidents. Pakistan is aggressively pursuing linking up with the Eurasia trade and energy corridor and these visits are laying the foundation for that vision. However, the peace and stability in Afghanistan is essential if these dreams are to come true.

Analysis

China-Eurasia Expo 2011

With the fasting month of Ramadan over, President Zardari spent Eid celebrations abroad as he embarked on his seventh visit to China since coming to office in 2008. Zardari was touring the Xinjiang region of China, which borders Pakistan and was the first foreign head of state to visit the region’s capital, Urmuqi.

Urmuqi was playing host to the China-Eurasia Expo, which the President attended and which set the theme for his visit. Zardari met with numerous trade leaders to discuss increased business ties with Pakistan on numerous fronts, with the energy sector a key area of interest. Zardari also used the visit to air his hopes that one day China and Pakistan could enjoy passport-free movement of people between the two countries, comments which, according to Chinese media reports, were vetted and approved by Beijing before Zardari uttered them.

Zardari was equally keen to push for Pakistan to stand as an energy corridor for China, providing a gateway for energy resources, namely crude oil and gas to flow from Pakistan into China. Pakistan offers a number of possible avenues for funneling energy into China, through its ports as well as over land in pipelines or by rail.

President Zaradri supported road-rail-air networks connecting Pakistan’s northern areas with Xinjiang and energy (oil and gas pipelines) and communication (fiber optic) corridors between Pakistan and China connecting Shanghai to Urumqi to Gwadar to the Strait of Hormuz.
“These new economic arteries will transform the destiny of the region and usher in a new period of peace and stability”, he stated.

While Pakistan is placed in a very geo-strategic position for providing China with energy resources, all options are as yet prospective because of regional security issues as well as internal instability in Pakistan. However Zardari made it clear to China that he wants China to see Pakistan as a viable option, which necessitates a greater investment by China in Pakistani infrastructure and in regional security issues to provide a stable platform for delivery of energy.

Pakistan and China have a mutual interest in stability in the region, particularly as Xinjiang province has been plagued by a low-level insurgency from elements of its Muslim Uyghur population, with accusations that militants from the Uyghur insurgency have trained in camps in Pakistan. Despite this underlying tension, Zardari expressed his dismay to the Chinese media over terrorism in Xinjiang, saying that the violence has pitted “neighbors against neighbors and friends against friends,” perhaps alluding to the neighborly dispute over the issue between China and Pakistan as well as within Xinjiang itself.

The Dushanbe Four

Following his visit in China, Zardari met with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon in Dushanbe on September 2, for a meeting of the so-called “Dushanbe Four.”

Hot on the agenda in Dushanbe was the issue of Afghanistan’s security as the US continues its phased withdrawal from the country. In two separate press conferences, Medvedev stressed that the security of Afghanistan and the greater region had to be dealt with by countries in the region, and that the US should focus the remainder of its time in Afghanistan on training and readying Afghan security forces so they are able to “provide for the defense capabilities of the state, and combat extremist groups and drug traffickers.” He further stated that “Responsibility for everything that happens and will happen in the region … will lie with our countries – Russia, Tajikistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

The focus on regional control has been growing stronger, especially since the SCO meeting held earlier in the year. While the fallout from the Arab Spring was the main topic of discussion at the SCO meeting, most notably how to contain its spread so that Central Asia remain unaffected, the angle of focus was clearly on ways to strengthen regional ties to contain unrest, and Medvedev’s sentiment that security in Afghanistan was a concern for the region as expressed in Dushanbe was reminisce of similar comments made at the SCO.

The four leaders also discussed the possibility of gas pipelines that traversed their countries and the region, as well as a possible rail line.

Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan especially welcomed Russia’s interest in a gas pipeline project across the countries and the leaders of the four countries called for accelerated construction of the CASA-1000 power project. President Medvedev stated Russia was ready to invest “hundreds of millions of dollars” into the CASA-1000 project to send power from Tajikistan to Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. “But for it to happen, necessary organisational decisions should be taken first, we have to be invited,” Medvedev told reporters.

The post Pakistan And The Eurasia Trade and Energy Corridor appeared first on Politact.

A spokesman for the Taliban, Zabiullah Mujahid has raised doubts about the identity of a key interlocutor the US officials say they have engaged with. Washington had recently disclosed that senior State Department and Central Intelligence Agency officials have had secret ‘exploratory conversations’ with Tayyab Agha, believed to be a close aide of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar in Qatar and Germany. The Taliban spokesman believes the Americans had been taken in by an imposter, and that Tayyab Agha has never met with US officials.

The post Reconciliation Talks: US Duped By Fake Interlocutor In Talks, Says Taliban appeared first on Politact.