The Return of ‘Spheres of Influence’ Politics

Context

While there are different angles to interpret the fast-moving flux in the global political, economic and security situation, the great power rivalry perspective is clearly ascendant.

There is usually a period of calm when one power dominates or when there is stability in the balance of power equation. The rapid economic rise of China and infringement into the traditional American spheres of Influence, like Europe, has clearly been a cause of alarm. Moreover, Trump administration took certain actions that were seen as weakening the Western alliance – deemed essential to deal with emerging global rivals, to include Russia. Europe is critical to American power projection, and it was becoming progressively tied to Russia and China via trade. The present European energy dependence is a case point. Trumps admiration for Putin, and other authoritarian rulers, was seen as a vulnerability. Accompanied by his threats to NATO members to increase defense spending confused the Europeans on American reliability.

Under Biden, US is actively countering the expanding influence of China and Russia – and to reverse the Sino-Russian penetration in different regions. And one of the casualty of this reversal will be the phenomena known as globalization. Security concerns arising from aggressive Chinese posturing in the Indo-Pacific, events unfolding in Ukraine, and COVID-19 related supply chain disruptions have further weakened the case for globalization.

Additionally, these factors have helped eliminate American ambiguity on who is benefiting most from free trade presently. Going against laissez-faire principle is not an easy undertaking when the capitalist system is anchored around the very premise and has tremendously benefited the multinational corporations.

This context begs the question of what future security and trade system is the world shifting towards – and what phase of this transfer the present circumstances represent. It was WWI and II that moved the world to the nation-state system and the creation of United Nations. The answers are not readily available.

Analysis

New Cold War and Spheres of Influence

As these global rivalries escalate, they are being classified as related to the new Cold War. The previous one being between US dominated Western Sphere of Influence – with USSR mostly influencing Eastern Europe. China at that time was not as close of an ally of Russia as it is now.

The Sino-Soviet ties have had their ups and down historically. For example, during the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 Chinese Beiyang government had supported the Whites, like the West, and sent in forces to fight the Reds. Conversely, in 1923 Soviets provided support to groups opposing the Beiyang government. In 1949, with Soviet backed communists won the Chinese civil war leading to the creation of People’s Republic of China. Soviets and Chinese were even involved in a brief border conflict in 1969.

Irrespective, as the new Cold War gets underway, and no near-term Ukraine solution on the horizon, what will this emerging Cold War look like?

The first thing is obvious, the Spheres of Influence was the key character of the old Cold War – dividing the world into communist USSR and capitalist America. The Soviet system was associated with autocratic closed security states, with strict regulations controlling the lives of the citizens. On the contrary, the hallmark of Western democratic states was freedom of expression and trade that led to creativity, innovation, and greater economic prosperity. And these attributes ultimately became the reasons for the success of West against the closed Soviet system.

The new Cold War would likely create similar spheres of influence between US and China-Russia aligned states. While some would argue that this new Cold War is only between US and China. To understand these alignments – how the spheres of influence evolved after the Soviet Union collapsed need to be understood.

NATO’s Evolution

As Soviet Union dissolved during the period of 1988-1991, 15 Soviet republics opted for independence with the Baltic states leading. The former Eastern European states applied and became members of Western security alliance, NATO. A trajectory that has continued to this day – and one of the reasons for Ukraine conflict to erupt, which is also causing Finland and Sweden to move towards NATO.

Another element of this post-Soviet period was that Russia and China both adopted policies that has made Western system stronger, for example allowing foreign investments and free trade. But they did not embrace the democratic political system. So, while China and Russia benefited from free trade, their respective restricting political governance models remained in place. This has been a cause of continuous friction when it comes to for example, state controlling the currency values, protecting minorities and human rights etc.

Conclusion

Moving forward, the roles seem to be reversing. The US and West are shifting away from globalization and altering the supply chains that were created for maximum profitability. On the other hand, China is championing globalization. In May, Chinese Xi Jinping had urged the organization of emerging nations BRICS to, “reject Cold War mentality and bloc confrontation, and work together to build a global community of security for all”.

Two properties of the new supply chains are: they have to be from friendly nations and pose no economic and security implications for the dominant power of the alliance. In other words, the concept that evolved after WWII that economic interdependence can resolve security issues – is being put to rest.

While China has been attracting states through Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and associated large infrastructure projects, the US, EU, and Japan have begun to counter with their own infrastructure projects. At the recently held G7 conference in Germany, President Biden announced US will help finance $200 billion from public and private sectors to counter Chinese projects.

The question then is how will the emerging respective spheres of influence be monitored and policed. The energy supply lines provide one example where sanctions are playing a critical role. In this, US using its influence in moving Europeans away from Russian energy dependence and building trade relations with China. Meanwhile, it is allowing India flexibility to acquire cheap energy from Russia, however, coercing weaker nations to stay away.

US is also resetting its ties with Saudi Arabia to use the enhance its energy leverage and to keep energy dependent states in-line. President Biden is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia in July and ask for increase in oil production to compensate for Russian oil shortfall. He will also be attending the meeting of Gulf Cooperation Council. Meanwhile King Abdullah of Jordan has supported the idea of Middle East version of NATO. It’s not clear though what threat perception would the NATO of Middle East counter, Iran, Russia or China? Clearly, it cannot be Israel.

In other words, the balance of power tussles now involve use of economic influence to attract and discipline states. During the previous Cold War, USSR did not have the type of economic prowess that the US and West enjoyed, but in the emerging Cold War the case of China is different.

Thus, there will likely be a China-Russia dominated supply lines and economic zone and the US-Europe controlled one. Ultimately, China and Russia will likely use tactics similar to the West i.e., if the new Cold War persists and matures. The Domino Theory and the associated dynamics that were the underpinning of the old Cold War, will become relevant once more. This will fundamentally alter the way present global trade is conducted, and this will significantly impact the working of the UN Security Council.

The post Emerging Great-Power Rivalry; How Will The New Cold War Unfold As Ukraine Simmers? appeared first on Politact.

Context

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) held its head of state summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan on September 17. The conference took place in the backdrop of the collapse of Ashraf Ghani government in Afghanistan as Taliban took over. This was accompanied by the complete withdrawal of US and coalition troops – that has raised alarmed bells across the region and beyond.

The future of the US presence in the South and Central Asia, and increasingly Middle East region, have remained the focus of SCO. As early as June 2010, the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had commented that the future of Afghanistan was directly relational to security and stability in all SCO countries and most observer countries, and that the SCO must endeavor to increase cooperation and involvement in Afghanistan to try and ensure stability in a post-US scenario.

The withdrawal of US troops and NATO from Afghanistan represents a significant shift in the regional and global balance of power – and while Taliban are in the process of establishing their government – they have not formally been recognized by any other nation yet. This is reflective of the wait and see approach. As Taliban get established and their domestic and foreign policies become more apparent – that is likely when the recognition process and financial support starts.

As SCO matures, other questions regarding its vision and capabilities also come in to play. The Dushanbe Declaration stated, it aspires:

“a more representative, democratic, just and multi-polar world order based on universally recognized principles of international law, cultural and civilizational diversity, mutually beneficial and equal cooperation of states under the central coordinating role of the UN.”

While the US has insisted that it will continue ‘over the horizon’ operations in Afghanistan as needed – the withdrawal from Afghanistan represents an attempt towards obtaining strategic clarity – and re-prioritizing its national interests. While US has been striving to Pivot towards Asia for a while, other global distractions have come in the way, and continue to pull US towards the War and Terror related hot-spots.

As the War Against Extremism was being waged, American sway in the Islamic world has been considerably reduced, and other than the Gulf Arab nations, its ties with Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan remain tense. It is interesting to note that Pakistan and India are already full members of SCO. Interestingly, Iran attained full membership, while Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt also achieved the observer status during the SCO 20^th anniversary convention.

Nonetheless, US and NATO withdrawal increases pressures on SCO, and the member states, to maintain stability in Afghanistan. If it not managed well, it could escalate the regional tussles.

NATO, QUAD, and AUKUS

While SCO contemplates with how it can safeguard its interest in other parts of the world where it carries significant stakes, like Afghanistan or the Pacific, a growing concern for the US is how much it can depend on NATO and other allies to counter threats emanating from global adversaries – such as China and Russia.

European nations have increasingly been seen dealing with both – building trade relations with China and Russia at the expense of US. Moreover, the European allies are increasingly acting as go-betweens – to mitigate ties with those nations with which US has less than amicable relations. For example:

• Under US pressure, UK banned Huawei from developing the 5G networks in 2020 due to security concerns, resulting in strong criticism from Chinese officials. Huawei had been operation in UK for at least 20 years and was an integral part of its 4G network.
• In 2015, France backed away from selling two high tech Mistral warships to Russia, a deal worth $1.6 billion, reportedly due to Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. The deal was highly criticized by US since France is a NATO member and supplying of the ship would have augmented Russian military capabilities.
• Then there is the controversial Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline that goes from Russia to Germany. Merkel government averted sanctions and reached a deal with the Biden Administration in July. The agreement involved investing more than 200 million euros in energy security in Ukraine and sustainable energy across Europe. US-Germany ties were strained considerably when Trump administration decided to pull out 9,500 US troops based in Germany.

“Should Russia attempt to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive acts against Ukraine, Germany will take action at the national level and press for effective measures at the European level, including sanctions to limit Russian export capabilities to Europe in the energy sector,” a senior State Department official told a CNBC reporter in July.

• Other NATO member, Turkey, bought S-400 missile defense system from Russia in 2017. This resulted in Countering American Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAASTA) kicking in, claiming the deal would threaten NATO alliance and F-35 fighter jets in Turkish fleet. Enacted in 2017, CAASTA urged American allies and partners to not engage in transactions with Russia, Iran, and North Korea or risk sanctions. This has also prevented Pakistan from moving forward with Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project.
• Another American ally, India, is also in the process of acquiring the S-400 air defense system at the cost of $5 billion. According to some reports, India will receive the system by the end of the year.
• In December 2019, US gave a waiver to India to jointly develop the Chabahar Port with Iran, which is seen as a counter to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port – being erected with Chinese investment. It can serve as an alternative supply route for Afghanistan and to help the country diversify its export opportunities. While the US strategic partnership with India has been evolving, it has remained reluctant in talking stronger role against China or getting engaged in the security realm in Afghanistan. Not only that, it is also ironically a full member of SCO. And thus, serious questions continue to be raised about the efficacy of QUAD alliance.

And this is where the trilateral alliance AUKUS, announced on September 15, comes into play. From the American perspective, one can observe what is the use of alliances or strategic partners that have significant divergent interests – as has been demonstrated from the behavior of European allies, that have to be cajoled to contribute more towards their defense spending – and cut down their dealings with adversarial powers. The quality of the alliance is more critical than the quantity of partners.

Managing the Rise of China

For US the question has remained how best to counter China which since its admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001, has gotten fully intertwined in global trade. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement signed in February 2016, and dumped by Trump in 2017, represented the economic approach to deal with China. The recently formulated AUKUS pact between Australia, UK, and US is a security-oriented alliance.

The best approach would involve more economic dimension – according to Fareed Zakaria’s Washington Post column, titled: To contain China, joining the Pacific trade pact might be more effective than new submarines. But there is another dimension to this debate that was last heard prominently during the Obama administration – and has to do with coexistence. Speaking at the Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) event in July, the White House coordinator for Asia Pacific, Kurt Campbell, admitted that coexistence is still possible but expect a period of uncertainty and raised tensions.

Speaking at the inception ceremony of ASPI in 2014, Henry Kissinger had stated while the Russian aggressiveness in Europe is clearly worrisome, it’s China that has the size and the economic wherewithal to challenge US. Moreover, this challenge does not appear to be a military one but perhaps more of an economic one. However, ever since, Chinese military capabilities are increasing by leaps and bounds.

Speaking at the same ASPI event in 2014, then Chinese Ambassador to the US, Cia Tiankai, had insisted they are not against the US presence in the Pacific; after all they have been there for a while. Furthermore, US businesses have large presence within China as well. What they (Chinese) are worried about is the US intent when it is building alliances in the region and conducting military exercises. When asked about what Kissinger’s advice would be for the Chinese and the US in the present circumstances (2014). He stated that he would tell China to not let the military issues overhang in their ties, while he will tell US not to get involved in military provocations, exercises in the region, or develop bases.

The post Status of Global Alliances: US Afghan Withdrawal, Evolution Of SCO, And Creation Of AUKUS appeared first on Politact.

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.

Context

The theory of balance of power maintains that as long as there is stability of power between various international actors, the conduct of international relations would be relatively smoother. However, the present disturbances in this balance have created tremendous turmoil in global politics. Consider, for example, the fast moving change in the Arab world that has completely altered the balance of power in the Middle East. Any sound decision and policy is dependent on conducting a proper and often time-consuming assessment of the situation. However, the world events are moving at such a startling pace that most governments, analysts, and policy makers are at best catching up.  

Analysis

The question that is boggling the minds of many a political and business leaders is how to plan in an environment that is increasingly unpredictable. The modern day challenge has shifted from striving for stability and status quo and towards how best to manage change that is constant. It is the business world that provides some of the best methods to deal with change.

The obvious question is; what are the tools and strategies that can help cope with the world of constant flux? Conventional wisdom holds that in the absence of equilibrium in the ecosystem, adaption is the best way i.e., the ones who sense what is changing around them and respond quickly will succeed.

According to an article by John Hagel III, John Seely Brown, and Lang Davison that appeared in Harvard Business Review, titled ‘Shaping Strategy in a World of Constant Disruption,’ changing times present an opportunity to shape the environment. This in business terminology requires learning to shape the instability in the environment by effective management and steering it beyond adaptation to shaping aspiration, and more rewarding future. In other words, this means moving from a reactionary mode of being adaptive to a proactive mode of being a shaper.

To be a shaper, a different kind of leadership and strategy is needed. One example quoted of this in the technology world is how, for example, Bill Gates revolutionized the computer industry in times of immense uncertainty, by having a clear perception on the direction of its future, which Microsoft was itself helping frame. In doing so, Bill Gates not only changed the behaviors of the users towards personal computers but also the entire computer industry. The most crucial element of being a shaper is to be able to envision during times of crisis how the future might look like, and challenging the conventional assumptions about what is needed for success.

What does this business jargon imply for a politician or a political party? It means that a political leader that intends to play a shaping role has to provide a clear direction and focus based on deep insight of the political landscape. Furthermore, it requires altering the risk-reward calculus of the people. This is usually done by a better connection to the aspirations of the masses via a platform, and making it easier and rewarding for them to contribute towards the vision of the shaper. A shaper has to convey to the voters a potential benefit in the future for their contributions, as comparison to the risks if they do not join. The risks for the contributors are not threats, but a feeling of missing the boat. Lastly, a shaper has to demonstrate seriousness and commitment that he/she can reshape the ecosystem, in a way that others will find themselves in a reactive-adaptive mode. In short, the shaper involves the public as a stakeholder in the system. On the other hand, the masses believe that by helping the shaper, they can change their own destinies as well.

Another approach a shaper can employ is to view a given environment via the lenses of the Blue Ocean Strategy of W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne. This method is in contrast to the traditional way of developing a strategy and evaluating a competitive business environment that is based on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) or Porter’s Five Forces Analysis. Blue Ocean theory alters the landscape based on the discovery of new oceans that the competitors fail to perceive, and thus are compelled to continue challenging each other in the red oceans, while improving only marginally. The basic tenant of what is required for the discovery of blue oceans is structured visualization, and reordering of the existing realities in a fundamental new way.

For example, if political parties of Pakistan keep debating each other and contesting on limited sets of points, their positions at best only marginally improves. This would be called contesting in Red Oceans. None of the parties are looking to alter the order of the existing realities and look at them in a fundamental new way, and thus creating a real opportunity, a key differentiator, and a Blue Ocean. Any political party that successfully accomplishes this will create an unbeatable value in the eyes of the public and an expanding voter bank.

So, adapting may be a useful technique but is not sufficient to deal with change, according to these concepts of the business world. The requirement of taking an initiative and becoming a shaper craves a different outlook. Adapting means reacting to the shifting environment while the shaper alters the ecosystem itself and requires others to adapt, while the ecosystem cannot remain a constant.

For shapers, essential skills include anticipating, critical thinking, creativity and envisioning. Renowned contemporary futurists claim the increasing unpredictability implies the demise of the information age left-brainers and the arrival of the right-brainers. They assert, to deal with non-linearity and chaos of the present day, requires people who can see and synthesize the larger patterns and trends and understand the big picture, or, the holistic view. As oppose to aspiring for the state of stability, shapers have the nerve to strive for the edge of chaos, which lies between the state of order and complete anarchy on a continuum.

Surviving in these turbulent times means mastering the art of managing change. In the emerging world, there is no place for the forces or systems seeking stability or status quo. The choice is either to become a shaper or merely adapt.

The post Managing Unrest – Leading From The Edge of Chaos appeared first on Politact.

Context

The NATO Lisbon meeting, held 20th November is only the third such strategic meeting since the end of the cold war for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This meeting was aimed at setting the strategic direction for the NATO Alliance for the next ten years. Apparently one of the core areas of focus for the meeting was transition in Afghanistan, and managing the Alliance’s presence there in the coming years, however, deep down the partnership is struggling. This article looks at the evolution of the Alliance and its implications for the future of Middle East and South Asia.

Analysis

NATO and Afghanistan

The official stance of NATO as far as its role in Afghanistan is “to assist the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance”.

This assistance has grown from a force 5,000 strong in 2003 to one over 130,000 strong, with representatives from all of NATO’s 28 members today. Throughout this year leading up to the Lisbon summit there have been a number of meetings with NATO members and Afghan officials aimed specifically at dealing with the sticky issue of ‘transition’ in Afghanistan. This essentially is a way for the NATO and other forces in Afghanistan to exit without leaving the country in chaos, or open to being overrun by Taliban or other extremist elements.

NATO has estimated that some areas of Afghanistan are ready for transition at a local or even regional level, however there are grave concerns that the country as a whole is a long way from being ready for complete transition to Afghan control for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Afghani security forces are in their fledging phase, still targeted by militants and all in all simply not ready for the task. Politically there is a lot yet to be done before the country is able to sustain a coherent polity which has the faith of the people, the support of the Afghan security forces and the ability to govern effectively. This is not to say that transition will not be pushed before these elements are in place, because they almost certainly will, given that it will likely take decades for these elements to be present in Afghanistan after such a long and complex conflict.

The summit this year went off without a technical hitch, no high-profile disagreements or protestors, and officially everything went according to plan, however there is still a huge uncertainty over the future of the Afghan conflict, even though a 2014 exit date was set for NATO forces. Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan have labeled the withdrawal date as “irrational” because there is no discernable reason for the withdrawal date being set for 2014, other than that it is hoped that the situation will be more contained by then, at which time transition will be easier. In the mean time, according to the insurgents, there will be more needless bloodshed, more civilian lives lost, more years of conflict. In a statement released by the insurgents after the Lisbon summit, they commented that “they [NATO] should not postpone withdrawal of their forces even be it for one day.”

Russian Reset

It is commonly accepted that US and NATO forces will not exit immediately from Afghanistan, because there needs to be some form of  ‘success’ narrative to sell to the public before withdrawal can be done in a way which will leave a semblance of political integrity, especially for President Obama in the US. Obama faces an increasingly disgruntled public, over many issues, including Afghanistan, and now the future of new START treaty.

The Russian reset was also high on the agenda at the Lisbon summit, and the treaty is being pushed hard through the lame duck session of Congress in the US. One of the key issues faced at Lisbon was how to allay Russian fears about new proposed NATO missile defense systems, and the START treaty is seen as an important factor in this. The Russian reset will also have implications for the efforts in Afghanistan, especially related to supply routes for NATO’s forces there. Improved US-Russian relations would lessen tensions between US and NATO forces using bases in Central Asia, such as the much-contested Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan. Using these bases, US and NATO forces bring in most of their sensitive equipment that is too dangerous to send through the main supply routes in Pakistan.

Since the end of cold war and the demise of Soviet Union, NATO has extended its reach an influence most notably in Eastern Europe and Central Asian republics. Furthermore, since 9/11 NATO has entered in to areas previously considered being out of its traditional sphere of authority, creating tensions amongst the powerhouses of Central Europe and most directly related to the threat perceptions of these countries. In an environment of global recession, strong support for NATO is shifting to Scandinavian and former Soviet republics. An Eastern and Central Europe correspondent for The Economist described it this way in November:

“The people who work at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and NATO HQ may not know it, but it is well past closing time in the “Last-Chance Saloon”. Their well-padded Cold War lifestyles will soon be history, withering and vanishing just as the elephantine and luxurious French, UK and US “military governments” in West Berlin did in the early 1990s. When the US needs help, it will seek it from the handful of European countries with real soldiers willing to kill and be killed in foreign wars. It does not need NATO for that.”

The NATO summit in Lisbon has really helped to solidify lessons for conflicts in the 21st century which have already been experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan. These include lessons around the fact that military means are no longer sufficient for dealing with conflicts in this century, where entrenched societal, cultural, and economic aspects of struggles play as big a role as military conflict, and need to be dealt with side by side in order to achieve a successful outcome.
NATO and the Islamic World

NATO’s relations with the Islamic world can be divided in to cold war era and the post-cold war period. During the cold war, the forces acting upon the region of Middle East, South and Central Asia were divided in to Soviet dominated Warsaw Pact, American led NATO alliance, and the Non Aligned Movement (NAM).

Protracted conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have created an alarming levels of negative perceptions for the US and NATO. As has been pointed out by PoliTact previously, the core of Muslim world appears to be on a trajectory away from NATO and US, and becoming increasingly Chinese centric. Furthermore, the recent events in the Middle East related to Flotilla incident, have decisively shifted the balance of power there from Saudi block and in favor of Turkey. These changes would have dramatic implications for the politics of the Islamic world.

As a result of these political drifts in Middle East, US has heightened its diplomacy with the Muslim countries of the Asia Pacific with growing reliance on Turkey for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in dealing with Iran. These changes would result in a decrease of influence for Saudi supported religious groups and create new tensions in the AfPak region. PoliTact has also noted that gradual alignment of Pakistan with Iran and Turkey has already strained its relations with Saudi Arabia.

In essence, the threat from resurgent Russia alone is not sufficient to shape the threat perception of NATO. While the danger from extremists is still real, economic realities are forcing European members to search for more than just military means to tackle the challenge. However, it is China that has the potential for becoming the real motivating force for the Alliance. The mounting prominence of India in NATO’s realignment, further justifies this estimate. The review of US Afghan strategy, to be announced this week, would be reflective of the realities outlined above.

Tell Us What You Think

The post The Significance NATO’s Lisbon Meeting appeared first on Politact.

Context

The Orakzai tribal district of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) has been in the news for the last several months, as it has become the key stronghold of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other Al Qaeda affiliated groups.  After the Pakistan Army and Frontier Corps launched an operation in South Waziristan, militants in large numbers slipped in to Orakzai tribal agency. The agency is the home district of TTP founder Baitullah Mehsud and his successor Hakimullah Mehsud, including Waliur Rahman Mehsud and the TTP master-trainer Qari Hussain Mehsud. This analysis evaluates the status of militancy in Orakzai agency.

Analysis

Orakzai is the only tribal agency of FATA that does not have a border with Afghanistan. Kurram Agency is located in its west while on the north lies the strategically important Khyber Agency. North Waziristan is situated in the south and in the lower southeast is the Frontier Region (FR) Kohat. The provincial capital of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, Peshawar, is to the northeast of the Orakzai agency. The shifting of TTP and Al Qaeda militants to Orakzai has serious strategic implications. Because of its size launching a large scale military offensive in Orakzai agency has been difficult and thus the decision to relocate there appears to be well calculated by the TTP and Al Qaeda strategists. Being away from the border also provides protection from the reach of the American drones as majority of these strikes have occurred in North and South Waziristan.

There are 14 different tribes residing in Orakzai and the Taliban have set up their organization based on this tribal structure. A Taliban commander covers each one of the larger tribes. The overall commander of the Taliban in Orakzai is Saeed Hafiz. Orakzai agency has been divided into three zones for military offensives. These include:

Upper Orakzai: The military operations particularly targeted the Dabori and Ghiljo areas. Ghiljo is the headquarters of Upper Orakzai and was under complete control of the Taliban for some time, along with Dabori.

Security forces have been able to take back the control of Dabori and Ghiljo from the Taliban. But apart from those areas, the Taliban are in full control elsewhere. For instance there are some 40-42 villages surrounding the Dabori while the security forces only have influence of 4 villages. It is important to note that during the military offensive the Taliban remained the major authority in the area, with Taliban ‘courts’ publicly handing down punishments, including chopping off the hands of a few criminals.

Central Orakzai: Meshti Mela and its surrounding localities were targets of the military operations. In Central and Upper Orakzai, Sunnis are the majority ethnic group and Al Qaeda and the Taliban enjoy popular support. The main town of Meshti Mela has been taken back from Taliban control and is now secure. However, in the rest of Central Orakzai the Taliban and their affiliates are still present.

Lower Orakzai: The areas that form the border with Khyber Agency to the north and Peshawar to the northeast have been the targets of military operations. Kalaya located in Lower Orakzai is the overall agency headquarter. The rest of the Lower Orakzai has not been targeted by the military as it is mostly populated by Shiite ethnicity who are strongly anti-Taliban and against the Wahabist ideology propagated by Al Qaeda. Therefore, there have been fewer sanctuaries and strongholds for the Taliban and Al Qaeda in this area due to the lack of local support.

Lower Orakzai is to a large extent is in the control of the security forces. However, this by no mean implies that the militancy is over. In fact, in the areas of Lower Orakzai, which border FR Peshawar and FR Kohat, the militants have a strong presence but whenever they are pursued they cross over in to other areas. The mobility of the militants is one of their more frustrating assets for the authorities. As a result of the pressure in Orakzai a large number of militants have shifted to the neighboring Khyber Agency, particularly to its northernmost Tirah valley. The valley borders Afghanistan and the infamous Tora Bora mountains.

The Pakistani military declared victory against the militants in Orakzai agency in early June 2010, citing the capturing and destroying of some of their bases and training facilities as well as killing important insurgent commanders. However, such claims have been made in the past while the militancy has proven to be resilient and is in one way or the other connected to the fresh wave of terrorist attacks across the country. Accounts by Orakzai tribesmen reveal that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters were once again holding their old fortes in Ghiljo, Daburi and they were not defeated as the military claims. These tribesmen further inform that although the military operation might have dislodged the parallel governance structures, like Taliban courts and jails in some areas, the militant presence is still very much there.

Before fully completing military operations in the Orakzai it would be difficult for the army to take on another undertaking in North Waziristan, as the US has been demanding. North Waziristan is considered the hub of the dreaded Afghan Taliban affiliated militant Haqqani Network, led by Sirajuddin Haqqani. The Network has inflicted heavy damage on US-NATO forces in Afghanistan using North Waziristan as its base.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post The Status of Insurgency in Orakzai Agency of FATA appeared first on Politact.

Context

The floods in Pakistan have given birth to two controversial geopolitical issues. One of them is related to anarticle that first appeared in the New York Times on August 27, where the author Selig Harrison has claimed the presence of about 11,000 Chinese troops in Gilgit-Baltistan area of Pakistan. The second event is associated with flooding of western Balochistan allegedly as a consequence of the efforts to save the Shahbaz airbase, located in Jacobabad, Sindh. This base according to media reports is used to conduct drone strikes in FATA and also hosts Pakistan’s modern attack aircrafts. This analysis explores the geostrategic linkage of these developments if they are indeed true.

Analysis

Shahbaz Airbase

Jacobabad airbase is located 300 miles north of Karachi, 300 miles southeast of Kandahar and approximately the same distance from the Pak-Iran border. Due to its strategic location it was chosen as one of the key bases used by US for supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Reportedly, the site has also been used for conducting research and development for drone related programs as well as strikes in FATA.

A controversy was triggered recently when some Pakistani politicians made official remarks pointing out that the airbase could not be used for rescue and relief efforts since it is under lease to US and for conducting drone strikes. Subsequently American ambassador to Pakistan clarified that this is not the case. However, both unofficially and via media reports, the U.S. maintains that the drone strikes are carried out under a secret tacit agreement with the government of Pakistan. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) who is also the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had claimed in 2009 that the drones are actually based in Pakistan and are launched from there against their targets. In short the base has an immense regional geo-strategic importance for the US as it relates to Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and to counter Chinese policies in the region.

Gilgit-Baltistan

In an article published in the New York Times, author Selig Harrison has claimed that Pakistan recently handed over the control of its Gilgit-Baltistan region to China. The Pakistani authorities have subsequently denied that this has occurred but accepted Chinese presence there to conduct rescue, relief and reconstruction of the Karakorum highway, including work related to other energy and development projects. Pakistan gave the area full province status in 2009, a move criticized by India, which considers the region as occupied territory. Nonetheless, Gilgit-Baltistan has become critically important in establishing a rail as well as an energy link between Pakistan and China, and stretching all the way to the port city of Gwadar.

Since the report of Chinese presence in the area, India has been in a state of alarm about what this means for the future of Jammu and Kashmir. China also recently denied a visa to an Indian general whose command includes the region of Jammu and Kashmir. According to media reports, since the incident, the defense relations between the two countries have been suspended.

In the aftermath of the devastating floods many areas of northern Pakistan have been cut-off from the rest of the country. Moreover, the road link between China and Pakistan had initially been interrupted as a result of an overflowing lake, created by an avalanche near village Attabad. Fearing an aggressive move on part of India as a consequence of the vacuum, its possible that Pakistan may have requested China to send its forces, as its own military is already preoccupied with fighting extremists and providing rescue and relief efforts. The following scenarios would have also be on the mind of Pakistan’s military to have invited the Chinese:

Dr. J. Bruce Amstutz, the U.S. Charge De Affairs in Afghanistan from 1977 to 1980, in his book Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation has this to say regarding the administrative takeover of the Wakhan Corridor by the Soviets in the fall of 1980, during its occupation of Afghanistan:

• By annexing the Corridor the Soviets could directly control the 37 mile-long Afghan-Chinese border and reduce any chance of the Chinese supplying arms to the Mujahidin.
• They would be able to control the 4,923 meters-high Vakhjir Davan Pass, which provided the only access from the Soviet Union to China along the long and mountainous China-Soviet border. This pass was of strategic importance if the Soviets wanted to cut off the China-Pakistan all-weather Karakoram Highway, further towards the east.
• The Chinese interpreted the Soviet takeover of Wakhan and their establishment of a military presence there in the 80s as an attempt to penetrate the northern areas of Pakistan and to disturb the security situation in Pakistan.

Presently, Afghanistan is under the control of NATO alliance and thus the chief worry would not have been from the Russians. From all indications, Chinese and American rivalry is heating up in the region as well as in the pacific realm. As a result Pakistan is being pulled in different directions and having to cover more than one risk. The tussles which were previously peripheral to the country are now moving inward, and perhaps escalated by the ruinous floods.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post Alleged presence of Chinese troops in Gilgit-Baltistan and Americans at Shahbaz Airbase appeared first on Politact.

Context
The UK is set to announce an increase in aid to Afghanistan to the tune of 40 percent. This is on top of the 500 million pound aid budget already sanctioned by parliament for use in Afghanistan. The move comes just weeks after the US announced aid cuts to Kabul, citing government corruption as the reason. Meanwhile, Japan has announced a dedication of $1 billion of aid in 2010, earmarked for improving security, development and reconciling former Taliban in to the mainstream.

The status of development in Afghanistan and its overwhelming reliance on international aid are course for concern for long-term stability and reconstruction efforts. These issues will definitely on the minds of foreign leaders as they meet in Kabul today for the International Donors Conference. Foreign Ministers of 40 countries are attending. However, aid is foremost a foreign policy tool to achieve the interests of the donor in the recipient country.

Analysis

The United Kingdom is pledging a 40 percent increase in aid to Afghanistan to help with the reconstruction efforts in the war torn country. The injection of funds is largely seen as an ‘insurance policy’ for the British government, who aim to have combat troops out of the region by 2014. The theory is that extra money will mean greater development, increased public support for the rickety Kabul government and ultimately a stable-enough environment for British troops to withdraw from without feeling like they are leaving a job half done. It’s a very hopeful, some might say naive, policy.

The UK, who have been fighting in Afghanistan alongside the US and other coalition forces since 2001 are finding it harder and harder to justify the continued presence of combat troops in Afghanistan, especially after the announcement last year of a planned US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011. After withdrawal, both countries will still maintain a military presence in Afghanistan, but in a training and reconstruction capacity. Many are wondering why, after 322 British servicemen have lost their lives in Afghanistan, more money is being directed to the country.

Afghanistan’s government is reliant on foreign aid for more than 40 percent of its development budget, yet with widespread allegations of corruption and liberal ‘pocket-lining’ by officials, and with the development progress in Afghanistan crawling at a snail’s pace, it must be asked, how effectual is all this aid?

The US has been asking these same questions as it cut it’s aid budget to Afghanistan, amidst fears that the aid is ending up in the hands of those who the US are fighting against. Nita Lowey, the US congresswoman chairing the subcommittee on aid appropriates was quoted by the BBC as saying “I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that US taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords and terrorists.” She may be withholding a lot of ‘dimes’ for quite some time.

The barriers to development in Afghanistan are widespread, and come not just from internal instability, insecurity and corruption, but also the misplacement of aid dollars, and the uncoordinated way in which aid is metered out and projects are implemented; international donors have by and large failed to comprehend that bucket loads of cash dumped on a capacity-less government will either sit there, or be appropriated by the corrupt elements within government.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has strenuously denied allegations of corruption within his government, but the fact remains that over 2.5 billion US dollars was paid by Afghan citizens in bribes to local officials in 2009, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Bribing officials is a day-to-day reality in Afghanistan, and is not uncommon in the region at large, with neighboring Pakistan receiving its fair share of accusations in this manner.

The UK’s announcement of a boost in aid to Afghanistan came with the clause of ‘well spent aid’, which the UK intends to oversea carefully. The basic problems still remains, however, that without a coherent aid deployment strategy, and without legitimacy on the part of the Afghan government, aid will continue to be funneled into ineffectual programs, or more likely into already full official pockets.

The aid story in Afghanistan is beginning to mimic the so-called ‘ghost school’ scenario in Pakistan, where thousands of school buildings were built, pictures taken at the ‘opening’ to show aid donors, but teachers and students were never to step foot inside-worse still, local officials pocketed the money for teacher’s ‘salaries’ equipment and in some scenarios, school buildings were never even built-they existed only on paper.

The US is also conducting an internal deliberation of how to administer aid to Pakistan, and according media reports, the country has decided to inject money through the Pakistani’s as oppose to using the USAID bureaucracy. However, US will maintain a strict oversight of how the projects are selected and also on how the money is spent. Before heading to Kabul, Hillary Clinton was in Pakistan as part of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, and announced an additional aid of $500 million. Most of the projects announced yesterday attempt to deal directly and visibly with the problems being faced by the people of Pakistan. According to US officials, this approach best helps counter the negative US perception in Pakistan. The projects include: the first phase of a water project to cover seven locations at a cost of $270 million, the second phase of the U.S. Signature Energy Program at the cost of $60 million, the first phase of a three-year, $28 million Signature Health Program, and several other projects.

While the Afghan scenario differs from Pakistan in the minutiae (i.e. they’re not running non-existent schools) the underlying problem is the same-aid beneficiaries with not-so-egalitarian agendas quickly learn that donor money will keep flowing if so-called ‘Quick Impact Projects’–ideally with a good picture op–are undertaken, rather than the not-so-glamorous undertakings that will have more tangible long-term results for the people of Afghanistan.

Another grave area in need of attention for the aid flows into Afghanistan to have any real impact is government capacity building. At present, Kabul is not only dependent on foreign aid, but also on foreign minds to reconstruct the dilapidated country. To further the problem, aid development is by no means undertaken in a cohesive, planned manner, and increasingly aid is being metered out by donors to private institutions to try and circumvent the corruption in the government. The less capacity the government has to deal with the aid effectively, the more likely it is to misappropriate aid.

Aid dependency is another critical concern in Afghanistan, as dependence on foreign aid has shown in places like Africa to undermine societal structures, reduce pressure on governments to reform, encourage rentier behavior and undermine democratic progress, according to Dambisa Moyo, author of Dead Aid. All of this combines to give a scenario where the credibility of the government (wrongly or rightly) is also severely undermined, both at home and abroad, which further alienates the government form the people and donors alike.

Conclusion

Like most other donors, UK will have a hard time, accounting for the increased funds into Afghanistan, unless of course they undertake development projects themselves. It should be noted that foreign aid, for the most part, is a tool for furthering the foreign policy interests of the respective countries in Afghanistan. The donors have a big say in how the assistance gets used, and thus where the money is spent is an indicator representing the future policy of these countries in Afghanistan.

To counter these moves, Mullah Omar has already announced to capture or kill Afghan civilians working for foreign forces or Afghan government. By doing so, he is attempting to offset not only the political resolution of the conflict with the use of foreign aid, but also the recently created civilian village forces for maintaining security. The Afghan Taliban want to make clear they are the real wheeler-dealer in Afghanistan and without them there can be no political or military solution to the conflict. It is quite possible, sooner rather than later, Pakistani Taliban and Jihadist might resort to similar tactics. The Pakistani Taliban have targeted a number of local militias, raised with government help to fight the extremists, with deadly results. We can now expect to see more of this in Afghanistan as well.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post The Donor Conference and the Politics of Aid for Afghanistan appeared first on Politact.

Context

The world was in shock on May 31st, after Israeli troops boarded a flotilla carrying around 700 activists bound for Gaza, and over 10,000 tons on aid for the poverty-stricken Gaza strip, killing at least ten on board. Although Al Qaeda has served the purpose of destruction and fissures in the Islamic world, Israeli attack has caused some sense of unity in the Islamic world, with Turkey taking charge.

This Analysis of Perception and Perspective looks how the Israeli attack has been viewed in the Islamic world and its wider implications.

Analysis

The lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, of the Turkish ‘Freedom Flotilla’ which left Cyprus with six ships carrying much-needed medical supplies, food and building materials was boarded early Monday morning, while still in international waters, by armed Israeli soldiers. Communication lines were blocked on the ship, and mobile phones of the passengers were confiscated. There are two accounts as to what followed:

Israel claims that their soldiers were attacked by the passengers aboard the ship, and acting in self defense, the Israeli commandos opened fire, killing ten people by some reports, 19 by others.

Passengers of the Freedom Flotilla tell that the Israeli soldiers operated a ‘shoot to kill’ policy, according to reports in the UK Guardian, and the findings of the autopsies carried out on the Turkish men killed are rather in support of this:

“A 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.”

The UK Guardian, June 4, 2010

The fallout from the Freedom Flotilla incident is still reverberating in the international arena. Israel maintains that it acted in self defense, and has even released video footage of the boarding, showing close ups of a sling shot and jars of marbles, as proof that the passengers were armed. Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel Danny Ayalon was quoted as saying: “We do not need to apologize for defending ourselves. The armada of hate and violence is merely one manifestation of the constant provocation Israel faces.” Israel clearly sees itself as the victim in this situation.

The international community by and large has condemned the Israeli actions as extremely unnecessary and contemptible use of force against civilians, whether armed or unarmed. Every country has been forced to take a very hard introspective look at their relationship with Israel, as public outcry has turned markedly against the Jewish state. Let’s take a look at how the chips have fallen:

The US

The US is a long-standing supporter of Israel, and is generally very quiet or circumspect when it comes to issues of Israeli breaches of human rights in Gaza and the West Bank. The May 31st Security Council Presidential statement condemning the attacks and calling for an independent investigation has been supported by the US, however they have not joined the other members of the Security Council in calling for an immediate end to the Gaza blockade. Hilary Clinton, in a statement on June 1 further stated that the US supports an Israeli investigation that ‘meets the criteria’ laid out in the UN Security Council statement. Supporting the perpetrator conducting its own investigation into its own crime has raised more than a few eyebrows internationally. The US has been careful to make plain that it regrets the loss of life, but offers no other censure than that, and will remain a supporter of Israel’s.

Turkey

Israel’s actions have rent asunder the good relationship it had developed with Turkey over recent years, and many people are still puzzling over why it would perpetrate an act that would so obviously result in souring relations with Turkey. Turkey and Israel share military and economic ties to the tune of more than 3 billion annually-the Freedom Flotilla incident has put an absolute end to that. Turkey ordered home its diplomatic representatives in Israel, and Israel similarly recalled the families of diplomats in Turkey. Perhaps the Israeli’s perceptions of Turkey had altered since Turkey played a leading role in negotiating the nuclear swap with Iran, and so the relationship no longer mattered, but all, at this stage, is still conjecture as to why Israel destroyed such a beneficial relationship. This incident may be the nail in the coffin for Turkey’s western-looking orientation, with a shift in policies centering around fellow Muslim nations in the Middle East, as well as Russia and further east to China a distinct possibility.

Egypt

Egyptian relationships with Israel have come under the public eye once more, as Egyptian policies were complicit in the Gaza blockade that prompted the Freedom Flotilla in the first place. The only border not under total Israeli control around Gaza is that with Egypt, and Egypt has cooperated with Israel in maintaining the blockade against Gaza by sealing its border. While the border blockade is deeply unpopular with the Egyptian public, the government kept it in place partly because it feared the Hamas leadership in Gaza, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood group that originated in Egypt, and has caused considerable trouble for the Egyptian government. Bowing to public pressure since the Freedom Flotilla incident, Egypt has opened the Rafah border to Gaza, allowing select food and medical items to go into Gaza, and Palestinians with special permits, such as students and those in need of medical attention, to use the crossing. Any closing of the border is expected to spell political disaster for the Egyptian government, as the public ire from the Freedom Flotilla incident has been enormous.

Iran

Iran is perhaps an overlooked beneficiary of the Israeli attack on the Freedom Flotilla. The government has of course decried the attack on the aid ships as ‘despicable’ and ‘unjustifiable’ but in quiet is surely breathing a small sigh of relief, as it has also taken the international focus off of Iran and the looming new round of sanctions, and squarely onto the situation in Gaza. Both Israel and the US have been the strongest voices calling for action against Iran, and now both states are somewhat discredited by the Flotilla incident-Israel for undertaking it in the first place, and the US for being so unwilling to actually take a stance against Israel in the face of such behavior.

AfPak Region

The Israeli actions have of course created great public outcry in the AfPak region, where sentiments against Israel are strong. Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s Foreign Minister shot back at the international outcry against the Israeli action by saying “in the past month alone, 500 people were killed in various incidents in Thailand, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and India, while the international community remained silent and passive, and generally ignored the occurrences, while Israel is condemned for unmistakably defensive actions”. India was of course upset to be lumped in with Pakistan in this statement, which was later amended by Mr Liebermen: “Israel stands hook, line and sinker behind India in its struggle in South Asia…We hold nothing against friendly countries like India for criticising us. The mention of India is a human error.” However, it should also be mentioned that the Indian Ambassador had earlier attended the session of Turkish Parliament in which Erdogan commented on the flotilla incident.

This show of support from Israel to India is very likely to only inflame enmity between India and Pakistan, who have in recent days likened the Taliban’s indiscriminate killing of civilians in Pakistan with the Freedom Flotilla incident.

Conclusion

The Israeli army is now set to award one of the soldiers, reportedly responsible for seven of the deaths aboard the lead ship of the Freedom Flotilla, with a medal of valor. This in every way speaks of the strong conviction Israel holds that it was in the right in its actions aboard the aid ship. Israel have very much drawn a line in the sand, and shouted in Bush-like rhetoric, “You’re either with us, or against us.”

PoliTact believes that the May 31st incident and its aftermath represents a decisive shift in the Middle East balance of Power and Turkey has gained over the Arabs. The arrival of another aid ship Rachel Corrie on June 5th, proves it’s the beginning of events that would not conclude with end of Gaza blockade. Israeli actions have caused an irreversible moral dent to the perception of Islamic world for the war against terror. Additionally, the use of indiscriminate force against civilians have lead to parallels been drawn between Al Qaeda and Israel, discrediting both.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post Israeli Attack on the Aid Flotilla – A Decisive Shift in the Middle East Balance of Power appeared first on Politact.