Context
Ethnic and sectarian violence is not new to the port city of Karachi. Over the last week, more than 100 people have been killed in various incidents of indiscriminate firing by unknown assassins, and in pitched gun battles between unidentified rivals. Since the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) came to power, these bouts of violence in Karachi recur when the PPP led coalition government, in Islamabad, finds itself in trouble. This article examines the various causes of unrest in Karachi, Pakistan.

Analysis

There are several explanations for the killings and chaos in Karachi:

• The Pashtoon dominated Awami National Party (ANP) or ethnic factions with affinity towards it, are involved.
• The Urdu speaking Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) is the cause.
• Foreign enemies of Pakistan are attempting to destabilize the commercial centre of Pakistan by insinuating ethnic and sectarian carnage.
• To shift the focus from its poor record of governance, PPP often uses the Sindh nationalist sentiments against MQM and other parties.
• Al Qaeda linked extremists want to accelerate chaos in Karachi and all through Pakistan.
• The gangs linked to the underworld (Lyari Gang) and mafia are causing this disorder.
• In the past, Pakistan’s Intelligence agencies have also been on the receiving end of the blame.

Political Implications

Without clear identification of the causes of unrest in Karachi, the remedies are short lived. ANP and MQM are the two most anti-extremist parties, however, due to their deep ethnic orientations, they have had strong enmity for each other. This leads to an unending process of accusations that MQM and ANP hurl at each other for causing violence in Karachi.

One prominent member of PPP who has since been reprimanded by the party leadership, and ANP party, have demanded to hand over the city of 18 million people to Pakistan Army to control the situation. However the party that recently requested the generals to take over the helms of the government and the anticipated revolution, MQM, is strictly against any such action involving its home turf. Apparently, the message was meant for the feudal from Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Baluchistan.

Due to differences with PPP and ANP, MQM is considering quitting Pakistani coalition government. However, the chances of this occurring  are minimal at this point. Judging from past behavior, MQM will only switch sides as the chances of the PPP government collapsing becomes a real possibility.

If the MQM quits government, the PPP-led coalition, would lose majority (without 25 members of MQM) in Pakistan National Assembly. In the 342-member National Assembly of Pakistan 171 members are required to attain majority. The PPP without MQM support would find itself four members short of this figure. This would shift the balance in favor of Pakistan Muslim Leaque-N.

Violence as part of Extremist Strategy

Some experts claim that the violence in Karachi is directly linked to Taliban and Al Qaeda strategy to destabilize Pakistan by creating ethnic tension. MQM party represents the Urdu-speaking community, whose ancestors migrated from India to Pakistan at the time of partition, in 1947. On the other hand, ANP is a Pashtoon nationalist party and heads the government in KP, the province most adversely affected by terrorism and Taliban insurgency.

Some independent sources and observers are of the view that Pakistani Taliban (TTP), in association with Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, are responsible for triggering violence. One of their reasons is to pitch their staunch opponents against one another. NATO pressure in Afghanistan, drone attacks in FATA, plus Pakistan’s military operations, have caused Karachi to become one of the primary retreating sanctuaries for various forms of extremists. The extremists also want to control Karachi, so as to disrupt NATO supplies, majority of which originate from the two ports of the city.

Conclusion

There appears to be two principal and parallel strings of causes for violence and instability in Karachi:

• One of these is linked to the party politics and its connection to the underworld. This pattern results in incidences such as the one that occurred in Shershah Kabari Bazaar, with the death of 12 innocent people and numerous other targeted killings.
• The other thread is associated with the extremists and could also have foreign origins. The events tied to this pattern are illustrated by the attack on Abdullah Shah Ghazi Shrine on October 8, which left about 8 people dead. The assassination of religious leaders and scholars, Deobandi and Barelvi tussles, including the Sunni-Shia violence, are associated with this stream.

There could be a slight overlap between the two strings of causation listed above, but for the most part, they seem to be mutually exclusive. Both streams depend on the ethnic and sectarian divides of Karachi for their benefit.

Tell Us What You Think

The post The Causes of Violence in Karachi, Pakistan appeared first on Politact.

Context

If there is anything that best defines the premise of the third round of US-Pakistan strategic talks, it is the November mid-term elections in US. America would be willing to give Pakistan some room, including military and economic aid; provided it can give Obama administration a boost before the election. This boost can come in no other form than the North Waziristan operation. These talks will be taking place just before Obama’s visit to New Delhi and NATO summit in Lisbon on November 19th. Thus, not only who controls US Congress is at stake but also the future of NATO. This article looks at the significance of US-Pakistan talks in the context of current regional and global geopolitical realities.

Analysis

US-Pakistan

Clearly, the American administration is at a crossroad when it comes to its stance on Afghanistan. This has been reflected by recent resignations of senior US officials. Both Pakistan and US will join the talks with a great deal of anger at each other. Pakistan recently demonstrated the use of one of its significant leverage when it blocked the Torkham supply route. On the other hand, US showed it can test Pakistan’s nerves through cross border aerial incursions, to include drones, helicopters, and possibly ground troops.

At this juncture, both parties need each other desperately. In the post flood conditions, Pakistan’s geopolitical stance is difficult to maintain absent US financial aid, and US would be relying on this more than any other variable, to gain the cooperation it needs in Afghanistan. Equally, Pakistan understands it holds the keys to an amicable Afghan solution, and in implementation of either the military or political approach adopted by the US. However, both allies give the general perception that they can do without each others help.

Both parties have tried to minimize the key leverage of the other party, but not with much success. The regional approach to Afghanistan has lead to the inclusion of India, and lately Iran, but it has also complicated the American dilemma. It appears as if US is willing to sit with one group of enemies to deal with another set of adversaries, and while the rivals are aware of it.

Another way to understand the US-Pakistan talks is the distinction; US is still the sole super power with global interests, while Pakistan at best is in aspiring regional power. The future of US global eminence is at stake in Afghanistan and this raises the criticality of Pakistan in this equation.

European Dynamics

PoliTact has previously claimed that the future of Afghan war is inextricably linked to what happens in Europe. Particularly the role of Germany and France, and their relationship with Russia. The emerging economic realities there have reformed and stratified the threat perceptions of European countries, where France and Germany do not necessarily share NATO’s vision in Afghanistan and other hot spots. UK and other European countries have also recently announced cuts in their defense spending. These pressures are playing an instrumental role in speeding up the peace talks in Afghanistan.

The heads of states of NATO are meeting in Lisbon on November 19 to explore a new strategic concept, which can keep the alliance together. Meanwhile, Germany and Russia were hosted by France on October 18 and 19 at the Atlantic resort of Deauville, to discuss European Security, before the NATO meeting.

The India Factor

The Americans are not aloof to the changing dynamics in Europe, and President Obama is scheduled to visit India in the first week of November, just before the Lisbon meeting. The three-day visit is expected to be the longest overseas trip of President Obama. The unpredictability of traditional European support, is also causing US to increasingly turn to India.

This is not all, China’s posture towards US in the in the pacific realm has become more assertive. American traditional ally Australia, is also hedging its bet, and recently conducted military exercises with China. In addition, NATO’s only Muslim member, Turkey, conducted surprise aerial exercises with China in September. India provides a counterweight to China not only in the Pacific realm but also in South and Central Asia. However, the role of India in Central Asia would be complicated, as it would have to weigh its relations with both Russia and US. Balancing Russian and US affairs would also complicate future Indian relations with Europe.

Conclusion

Given these circumstances, PoliTact has concluded that US has raised the priority of the Afghan conflict while putting the Iran tension on the back burner. Whether Israel will take this maneuver quietly, is yet to be seen. Iran’s help in Afghanistan can complicate the role of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. However, it can also speed up Iran and Pakistan economic cooperation.

The survivability of NATO alliance is strategically more pertinent to the American national security than the risks posed by the extremists. Gauging from recent European behavior, the threats from extremists, no longer seem capable to hold the alliance together.

US-India strategic partnership is a muiti-president initiative and is unlikely to change due to the present situation. In the global context described above, Pakistan will take what it can from US, but in the longer term, it recognizes its interests mesh better with China than with US. The US-Pakistan relations are more a consequence of global politics and less so of what happens between the two. As the air gets tense between China and US, US-Pakistan relations are bound to deteriorate. In addition to the economic leverage, US will increasingly use its India leverage over Pakistan.

PoliTact believes that unless some key compromises are made in accepting the realistic positions and interests of both parties, US and Pakistan, the war in Afghanistan can extend with worsening consequences. From Pakistan’s perspective if peace talks with Haqqani network and Quetta Shura are making progress, the objective and need for North Waziristan operation changes. Given the economic recession, US no longer has the privilege of time. History informs that ultimately, the party possessing the advantage of time prevails.

Tell Us What You Think

 
Feedback@politact.com

The post US and Pakistan Strategic Dialogue, Round Three – The Regional and Global Context appeared first on Politact.

Context
According to conflicting media reports, master-trainer of suicide bombers in FATA and one of the main commanders of Pakistani Taliban, Qari Hussain Mehsud, may have been killed in a US drone strike. PoliTact sources in South Waziristan were unable to confirm this news, however, the situation on the ground resembles that of the post Baitullah environment. As the NATO supported Afghan peace talks gain momentum, associated with the news of the release of Mullah Bradar, and the potential death of TTP hardliner presents exclusive risks and opportunities. This article looks at the implications of the possible elimination of Qari Hussain.

Qari Hussain was known as Ustad-e-Fidayeen (Instructor for Suicide Attackers) and has been the principal architect of Taliban terror strategy in FATA and Pakistan. He had a firm grip over the affairs and operational strategy of TTP, and his death will have serious consequences for the entire Pakistani Taliban (TTP) movement. Qari Hussain recently gave a rare interview to Reuters in which he had vowed to ‘soon’ launch attacks in US and Europe. Although Taliban capability for launching such attacks is questionable.

Qari Hussain was the mastermind behind numerous attacks on Pakistani security forces and civilians. His death is expected to reduce the number of terrorist attacks inside the country and potentially alter TTP strategy. It should be pointed out that one of the original motivation for Taliban insurgency in Pakistan has to do with the country lending its support to NATO forces, fighting against Afghan Taliban. In the changing geopolitical situation, in which Afghan Taliban are themselves involved in negotiations with the Afghan Peace Council; the very rationale for TTP existence appears to be vanishing.

This pressure in itself would cause some soul-searching within the TTP ranks, as ruthless attacks inside Pakistan have severely damaged its image. US recently added TTP to the State Departments list of terrorist organizations. Under these circumstances, TTP may be forced to take a political line. The peace talks being facilitated by coalition forces through Karzai government are primarily aimed at warring Afghan factions of Taliban. Some of these Afghan groups, are widely believed to be under considerable influence of Pakistan Army.

One of the key preconditions declared by US, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia for the peace talks to continue, involve Afghan Taliban factions to distance themselves from Al Qaeda. Under the present scenario, Pakistani Taliban may soon find themselves fighting for relevance, and as a consequence may move closer to Al Qeada and other Kashmir jihad related organizations.

This development poses serious challenge for Pakistan and other international stakeholders. In this context, the elimination of dominant and hardline TTP leadership could result in a moderating impact on the organization. Particularly, if Afghan Taliban also choose a more pragmatic approach to end the Afghan quagmire.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post The Implications of Possible Elimination of Qari Hussain – The Future of TTP appeared first on Politact.

Context

During his visit to Pakistan on Wednesday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan offered to expand defense cooperation with the country. There are also media reports that Chinese and Turkish fighter jets conducted joint exercises in mid-September, while Israel and American forces were ominously absent. Chinese planes apparently flew over Pakistani and Iranian territory to reach Turkey. Turkey has also been extending its influence in the Middle East, as witnessed during the Flotilla incident. On its part, Pakistan recently shut down one of the supply routes for NATO forces in Afghanistan. Turkey and Pakistan appear to be gradually moving away from a NATO centric foreign policy posture. This article looks at the broader realignment of alliances taking shape in the Islamic world.

Analysis

Turkey and Iran

The first sign of Turkeys shift appeared in January 2009 at the Economic Development Forum held in Davos. Turkish Prime Minister and Israeli President Shimon Peres squared off on matters related to Israel’s aerial bombing campaign of Gaza. The leader of Turkey commented:

“I find it very sad that people applaud what you said. You killed people. And I think that it is very wrong.”

Since then the Turkish and Israeli defense relations have suffered. The ties between the two countries reached a breaking point as a result of the Flotilla incident in May of this year. Israeli’s perceptions of Turkey had altered since Turkey played a leading role in negotiating the nuclear swap with Iran. PoliTact had projected in an earlier analysis,

“the incident may prove to be a 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.”

For the most part the ties between Turkey and Iran are socio-economic in nature. For example, in October 2009 the two countries signed an agreement for the joint exploration and production of gas from Iran’s South Pars field, with a total investment of $4 billion and a future prospect of Iran becoming a supplier to the Nabucco energy project. An Israeli website had reported at the time that these relations have expanded to include military and intelligence cooperation. The development came at a peculiar time, when Iran remains worried about the threat of an Israeli attack targeting its nuclear installations.

At the same time, Iran and Turkey are also jostling with each other for the limelight in the Middle East. Other Arab nations are becoming increasingly alarmed at the role these two non-Arab nations are playing in the region. Arab-Turkish and Arab-Iranian relations are historically fraught, while Turkish-Iranian relations have been getting warmer, and the Arab states are not at all happy about it. So much so, that according to media reports, Saudi Arabia allowed Israel to use a narrow corridor of airspace over the Kingdom, to better facilitate the bombing of Iranian nuclear installations.

Israel must be looking on aghast at the rise of these two nations in perception in the region, and their growing alliance-although it has not yet made a move to take Saudi Arabia up on its offer of a fly-over corridor for more ‘persuasive’ action against Iran. Furthermore, the developing Turkish-Iranian alliance represents a new Sunni-Shiite bridge-one that Arabs have been unable to create. Analyzing the Flotilla incident, PoliTact had noted in May that the development poses far-reaching consequences for the AfPak conflict in particular and the Islamic world in general. 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 the lead.

In the game of public perception, the Arab states have appeared more and more pithy, especially when compared with the daring of the Turkish-led flotilla, in stark contrast to the compliant attitudes of the Arab states regarding Palestine-not that the other Arab states don’t care for the Palestinian cause, but their reliance on the US, prevents them from taking any actuating steps against Israel in the name of the Palestinians. This is definitely not the case with Iran, and nor, would it seem, with Turkey.

Pakistan, Turkey and Iran

In November 2009 Pakistan and Turkey signed the Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA). Furthermore, the trial operation of a freight train service connecting the Pakistani and Turkish capitals via Iran has also begun. The train service is 6,506 kilometers long, 1,900 km of which passes through Pakistan, 2,570 km through Iran and 2,036 km through Turkey.

On the other hand, the Iran-Pakistan relations have gone through some turbulence. Soon after the two countries signed the $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project, the deadly Jundallah attack (October 18, 2009) occurred in Iran.

Iran had become increasingly frustrated with Pakistan for not cracking down on Jundallah, a Sunni separatist group whose leadership (Abdol Malek Regi) was believed to be operating from Pakistan, with support from Saudi Arabia, US and UK. India was originally part of the proposed Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline project, and dropped out latter due to security concerns for the pipeline passing through Pakistan. However, the relations between the two countries have improved ever since the cooperation provided by Pakistan in the capture of Abdol Malek Regi.

China and NATO

The mishandling and aggressive posture of NATO alliance in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with unconditional US support for Israeli policies in the Middle East, have resulted in moving these Islamic countries closer to each other and China.

At this point PoliTact expects Pakistan and Turkey to progressively move away from NATO Alliance and tilt closer to China. However, the autocratic countries of the gulf region are expected to shift closer to NATO, complicating matters for Pakistan.

As previously pointed out by PoliTact, the pulls and tugs of the Turkish, Persian, and Arab civilizations impact Pakistan and also complicate the solution for Afghanistan. From an Israeli perspective, and setting aside US-Russia-China tussles, any notion of regional synergy developing between Iran, Turkey and Pakistan is a risky proposition.

Tell Us What You think

The post The Gradual Realignment of Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan appeared first on Politact.

Iran and the US have a long history of political animosity, mistrust and a war of words worthy of a couple of bound volumes. Recent statements from Washington say that the military option in the case of Iran is still on the table. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised the hackles of Israel and the US with his upcoming two-day visit to Lebanon, beginning October 13. This article presents the impact of the visit on the AfPak Theater.

Analysis

In responding to American threats, Ahmadinejad promptly prayed that the “undertaker bury…your table” making a new chapter in the war of words, but how serious is the US about a military undertaking, and what would be the costs of such a move, the benefits?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised the hackles of Israel and the US with his upcoming two-day visit to Lebanon, beginning October 13. The visit will include a trip to the Israel-Lebanon border in the south of Lebanon, where the president plans to throw stones, as a symbolic gesture, across the border into Israel.

Ahmadinejad met privately with Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, who reportedly urged his Iranian counterpart to call off the ill-timed visit, which will only serve to increase tensions in the region. Al Assad may have had other motives as well, given that he and Saudi Arabia recently moved to reassert Sunni dominance in Lebanon with a State visit, so the move by Ahmadinejad is stepping on his toes as well.

Iran and Syria have long been considered friends, however in the past months Syria has positioned itself a few degrees away from Iran, probably in a bid to counter Iran’s growing presence in the region; certainly the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are feeling the increase of Iranian influence with a measure of uneasiness. This restlessness has caused the Gulf States to go on an arms-buying spree. Kuwait, Oman, Qatar the UAE and Saudi Arabia have recently ordered arms worth $123 billion from the US.

Ahmadinejad’s brazen call that he considered Lebanon a part of its ‘security belt’ along with Iraq and Afghanistan has raised alarm bells in neighboring countries, but nowhere more so than in Israel.

With a hostile northern border with Lebanon, the last thing Israel wants to hear is that this is considered Iran’s security belt. Israel will be watching the border very closely in the days leading up to the visit, but with the recent settlement issues in the West Bank and the uncertain future of continued peace talks with the Palestinians, the timing of Ahmadinejad’s visit couldn’t really be worse. Ahmadinejad’s strong anti-Israel voice in the vicinity will only increase the tensions between Israel and her neighbors.

The US has expressed their disapproval of the visit, privately asking Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman to cancel the trip. While the Lebanese authorities may not be overjoyed about the upcoming visit, they are nevertheless reluctant to go head to head with Iran, and so have said they are preparing for Ahmadinejad’s arrival.

With temperatures running high in the AfPak Theater and the Pacific realm, US can hardly afford affairs worsen in the Middle East. US would prefer tackling these global hot spots in an order of its liking. The country needs Iran’s help in settling Afghanistan and as a counterbalance to the Sunni Jihadist threat. Therefore, it would want to keep matters related to Middle East and Israel, on a low burner for the time being. However, Iran by visiting Lebanon is signaling otherwise.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post The Connected Geopolitics of AfPak and Middle East -The Upcoming Visit of Ahmadinejad to Lebanon appeared first on Politact.

Context

Iran and the US have a long history of political animosity, mistrust and a war of words worthy of a couple of bound volumes. Recent statements from Washington say that the military option in the case of Iran is still on the table. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised the hackles of Israel and the US with his upcoming two-day visit to Lebanon, beginning October 13. This article presents the impact of the visit on the AfPak Theater.

Analysis

In responding to American threats, Ahmadinejad promptly prayed that the “undertaker bury…your table” making a new chapter in the war of words, but how serious is the US about a military undertaking, and what would be the costs of such a move, the benefits?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised the hackles of Israel and the US with his upcoming two-day visit to Lebanon, beginning October 13. The visit will include a trip to the Israel-Lebanon border in the south of Lebanon, where the president plans to throw stones, as a symbolic gesture, across the border into Israel.

Ahmadinejad met privately with Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, who reportedly urged his Iranian counterpart to call off the ill-timed visit, which will only serve to increase tensions in the region. Al Assad may have had other motives as well, given that he and Saudi Arabia recently moved to reassert Sunni dominance in Lebanon with a State visit, so the move by Ahmadinejad is stepping on his toes as well.

Iran and Syria have long been considered friends, however in the past months Syria has positioned itself a few degrees away from Iran, probably in a bid to counter Iran’s growing presence in the region; certainly the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are feeling the increase of Iranian influence with a measure of uneasiness. This restlessness has caused the Gulf States to go on an arms-buying spree. Kuwait, Oman, Qatar the UAE and Saudi Arabia have recently ordered arms worth $123 billion from the US.

Ahmadinejad’s brazen call that he considered Lebanon a part of its ‘security belt’ along with Iraq and Afghanistan has raised alarm bells in neighboring countries, but nowhere more so than in Israel.

With a hostile northern border with Lebanon, the last thing Israel wants to hear is that this is considered Iran’s security belt. Israel will be watching the border very closely in the days leading up to the visit, but with the recent settlement issues in the West Bank and the uncertain future of continued peace talks with the Palestinians, the timing of Ahmadinejad’s visit couldn’t really be worse. Ahmadinejad’s strong anti-Israel voice in the vicinity will only increase the tensions between Israel and her neighbors.

The US has expressed their disapproval of the visit, privately asking Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman to cancel the trip. While the Lebanese authorities may not be overjoyed about the upcoming visit, they are nevertheless reluctant to go head to head with Iran, and so have said they are preparing for Ahmadinejad’s arrival.

With temperatures running high in the AfPak Theater and the Pacific realm, US can hardly afford affairs worsen in the Middle East. US would prefer tackling these global hot spots in an order of its liking. The country needs Iran’s help in settling Afghanistan and as a counterbalance to the Sunni Jihadist threat. Therefore, it would want to keep matters related to Middle East and Israel, on a low burner for the time being. However, Iran by visiting Lebanon is signaling otherwise.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post The Connected Geopolitics of AfPak and Middle East -The Upcoming Visit of Ahmadinejad to Lebanon appeared first on Politact.

Context

The supply route for NATO forces in Afghanistan, passing through Khyber Pass and border town of Torkham, remains closed. Two increasingly reluctant countries of the Afghan coalition and NATO, France and Germany, are on an alert for possible Mumbai style terror events. The attackers are reported to have trained in FATA. However, on October 6th came the word of Afghan peace talks, which are well underway, and the associated debate about the key positions of various stakeholders. This article looks at pressures of the end game in Afghanistan. The outcome of the present US and Pakistan showdown will determine who has the upper hand at this stage.

Analysis

Only a week ago news media was reporting that Afghan Taliban remain unwilling to negotiate until and unless coalition forces give a date of their withdrawal from Afghanistan. Nonetheless, now the same media sources are presenting a different perspective that senior Taliban are eager to initiate the peace talks, under pressure of being left out. The information and psychological warfare have become a critical component of the larger strategy at this juncture of the Afghan war.

Following are the key positions of the main parties involved in the Afghan conflict:

US and Pakistan Leverages

Pakistan has suffered immensely from the recent devastating floods, which has gravely impacted its economic outlook. At the same time, economically distressed Pakistan is under tremendous pressure to reevaluate its position as it relates to Afghan Taliban, especially the Haqqani network. US believes the Haqqanis are extremely radical in their orientation and too close to Al Qaeda, to be part of any reconciliation. The cross border incursions by coalition forces thus serve as a pressure tactic on the country, to reconsider its position. The underlying message is; if Pakistan does not change its position and act in North Waziristan, the number of cross-border incursions in FATA could increase.

The tactical escalation would range from drone attacks to hot pursuit and ground troops. Such a strategy is meant to put pressure on Pakistan, which can in turn shift to Afghan Taliban, to change their hard line positions and be more amenable to peace talks and settlement.

On the other hand, through closing of NATO supply route, Pakistan is demonstrating the advantages it holds. No doubt, longer the supply route remains closed, and if the attacks on the fuel containers spread in Pakistan, the US operations in Kandahar (Dragon Strike) and other places would be impeded. The Chaman border crossing has remained opened for NATO supplies, however, if relations were to deteriorate further, it could also face closure. Pakistan’s help is also essential in negotiating peace with different Pushtun factions taking part in the Afghan conflict.

There are indications that US is beginning to show receptiveness to Pakistan’s interests. The Guardian newspaper reported on October 6th that US has been in contact with Haqqanis via intermediaries. Furthermore, the US apology offered to Pakistan over the helicopter incident in Kurram Agency, demonstrates there is a willingness to calm the waters for the time being.

Based on media analysis, PoliTact believes US has started to prepare counter leverages that would threaten Pakistan’s military aid. The US is unlikely to touch the civilian economic aid, as it would only increase its negative perception in Pakistan. This also implies the country will continue to back the civilian leadership in Pakistan. At the upcoming strategic dialogue between US and Pakistan on October 22, the economic leverage US holds over Pakistan would increasingly come in to play. In the post floods economic environment, this dynamics will only exasperate the civilian-military relations in Pakistan. To counter US economic leverage, Pakistan will in all likelihood depend on its traditional allies, China and Saudi Arabia.

These events represent the beginning of the first phase of political approach to the Afghan conflict and many hurdles are yet to come. If Pakistan emerges stronger as a result of the Afghan conflict, it would also enhance China’s role in the region, and this is where the prospect of long-term US-Pakistan strategic partnership weakens.

Tell Us What You think

The post The Pressures of the End Game in Afghanistan and Leverages of US and Pakistan appeared first on Politact.

Context

In this article PoliTact takes a look at the events of last couple of days, which have culminated in to closing of one of the supply routes for the coalition forces in Afghanistan, passing through Khyber Pass. NATO and Pakistan have initiated a joint investigation in to repeated incursions by coalition gunships. Details of what unfolded remain murky, as has happened during similar events in the past. However, one or some of these cross-border incursions appear to have turned in to attacks on two Pakistani outposts, resulting in the death of three Frontier Constabulary (FC) soldiers and wounding of several others. These incidents have to be understood in the larger context of the tussles of global balance of power.

In our more recent analysis, PoliTact had pointed out that US-Pakistan relations were likely to deteriorate. However, now that is indeed what has happened, we want to present how this conclusion was reached, and what to expect next. We will refer to a number of PoliTact assessments to help understand the nature of Afghan conflict and to decipher the interests of key stakeholders. Moreover, as is our methodology, to demonstrate how the geopolitics of the AfPak region, is greatly impacted by what happens in other areas of the world. Therefore, it’s critical to interpret these global events and their significance for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Analysis

It remains PoliTact’s contention, at this point in time, Afghanistan conflict can be better understood by the dynamics of the tussle between US, China, and Russia. PoliTact just released a status report on the balance of power in Central Asia where Russia and US are vying for the control of strategically located Kyrgyzstan. The report on the balance of power in Middle East was published on August 26. These assessments caused us to issue an ‘Entropy Alert’ on September 21, 2010. In this alert, the Implications of the Advancing China-US Rivalry in Asia-Pacific were examined while in ‘Vantage Point Analysis’ of September 6th, the reported presence of Chinese troops in Gilgit Baltistan, was evaluated.

These studies led us to the deduction that we can expect the US-Pakistan relation to deteriorate, including the situation in both Afghanistan and Kashmir. Similarly, PoliTact’s Issue Brief pointed out on September 28th the asymmetric nature of the tactics being used and the significance of the surge in drone attacks, which are indicative of the divergence of interests amongst the key stakeholders.

For example, The Afghan national security adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta was recently visiting US. In an article published in Washington Post on August 23, he blamed the role of Pakistan, in addition to corruption inside the Afghan government, for the predicament facing the country. He advised the US to re evaluate its strategic alliance with Pakistan and classified it to be a strategic mistake. He claims in the article Pakistan has continued to support the extremists, which is leading to the erosion of support for the Afghan war.

Furthermore, as reported in Bob Woodward’s new book ‘Obama’s Wars,’ CIA has operated a 3,000 strong Afghan counter-terrorist pursuit teams for long-range reconnaissance and surveillance missions since 2002, and which operates in the border areas of Pakistan as well. This disclosure is bound to ruffle some feathers in Islamabad considering the nature of Pakistan-Afghanistan differences. In fact, the timing of the release of the book appears to carryout this intent deliberately and thus widening the distances between the two countries. The book has appeared in the aftermath of the leaks of Wikileaks, which had also pointed the finger at the role of Pakistan and its Army. Such publications from well connected journalists and sensitive reports from western think-tanks are often timed and released at crucial junctures, to achieve a particular foreign policy goal.

Obama’s Review of the US Foreign Policy

Soon after Obama came in to power, he initiated a comprehensive review of the US Afghan strategy, which turned in to an an meticulous evaluation of its foreign policy. PoliTact devoted a series of articles, that remained pertinent, to understand the American premises relating to its foreign policy and Afghan Strategy. These are listed as follows:

US National Security Strategy Document – May 2010

America at a Cross Road – The Quest for New Afghan Strategy, September 21, 2009

The New Afghanistan Strategy and Obama’s Reappraisal of US Foreign Policy November 10, 2009

Escalation as the New US Afghan Strategy – and a Reality Check – Part I, December 3, 2009

The Roles of Europe and NATO in a Successful Outcome in Afghanistan – Part II, December 21, 2009

Can Afghanistan be Saved?- Part III, January 19, 2010

US Conducts Strategic Dialogue

US followed up the strategy discussions with strategic dialogues with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India. PoliTact devoted a whole series to the much-celebrated US-Pakistan strategic talks initiated in March. The following articles provide an analysis of the expectations, leverages and global dimension around the US-Pakistan, US-Afghan, and US-India ties:

US-Pak Strategic Dialogue – Part I – The Expectations, March 24, 2010

US-Pak Strategic Dialogue – Part II – The Leverage Game, April 2, 2010

US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue – Part III – The Status of US-China Relations, April 28, 2010

US-Afghan Strategic Talks – Karzai’s Washington Visit, Reconciliation Process and US-Pakistan Track, June 10, 2010

US-India Strategic Dialogue, June 3,  2010

As a result of this extensive review, PoliTact developed the following key positions that Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India have stressed upon US:

Political or Military Solution and Pakistan’s Role

These previous analyses help us understand the current situation, and how we got here, however, the most pertinent questions relate to where do we go from here. At an elementary level, the trouble remains the divergence of threat perceptions of US and Pakistan. As the Afghan war enters a decisive stage, a number of tectonic shifts are taking place, represented recently by the departure of General McChrystal. Apparently, the reason was disrespecting the civilian authority, but appearances are often misleading. The fundamental tension boils down to whether the Afghan conflict will require a predominately military or a political solution and Pakistan’s role in it.

Meanwhile, Pakistan and its economy has been utterly devastated by the ravaging floods and this may further push the country towards political approach and reconciliation with the extremists. Additionally, the political landscape of the country has also changed overnight as a result of the floods. There were media reports earlier that Pakistan’s ISI may have been been facilitating the reconciliation between the Haqqani network and Karzai. US, at this stage, still opposes any talks with the Haqqani’s, and in fact, wants it to be targeted. There are also pressures within the Afghan Taliban groups not to be left out of the reconciliation, be it the Hekmatyar led Hizbe Islami or Mullah Omar faction representing the Afghan Taliban. The real goal ultimately is the isolation of Al Qaeda from its supporting network, and the question of if this can be best achieved at this stage through the use of force or a political approach, and Pakistan’s role.

At present the US military and political strategy appears to be working hand in hand, along side with emphasis on a regional approach. Evaluating the geopolitical environment last year PoliTact had noted: “One can see that each international actor is testing multiple strategies, some perhaps contradictory, as part of an effort to check and counter the moves of the other actors prior to eventual peace talks.” However, that was last year, continuing with the same strategy will only prolong the war and its reach, and develop further doubt regarding US objective, amongst the stakeholders.

The Future of NATO

NATO’s credibility and future are clearly on the line in Afghanistan. The preservation of the alliance appears to be the most serious US interest at stake in Afghanistan. If NATO fails in Afghanistan, the security structure of Europe that has existed since World War II will also be threatened. NATO is under strain not only in Afghanistan but also in Europe, and the reasons are connected. Are the threats related to the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, coupled with Iran and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, enough to keep the coalition together? Or, is it the European dynamics that include the resurgence of Germany and Russia, determine the fate of NATO?

In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’ breakup, the emergence of the EU has complicated NATO’s role. Perhaps the best strategy for NATO is the one envisioned by Zbigniew Brzenski: adding NATO-SCO and NATO-CSTO Councils to the already existing NATO-Russia Council. For the time being, however, France and Germany do not seem comfortable with this.

While the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has carried out several joint military exercises, it nevertheless denies that it has a military orientation. A statement issued at the time of its creation emphasized that SCO “is not an alliance directed against other states and regions and it adheres to the principle of openness.” However, some observers still call it the NATO of the East, describing it as a traditional military alliance and a possible counterweight to NATO’s perceived threat to Russia and China. Furthermore, a force that would contain potential conflicts in the region, which could otherwise allow the United States to intervene in neighboring states.

Pakistan or India?

Summing up the above discussion, US-Pakistan relation continue to be plagued by lingering thorny issues which both would like to avoid entirely but have no choice but to confront: first, what to make of the long-term role of China. In addition, As PoliTact has noted in earlier articles, the tactical interests of the two countries via Afghanistan are similar but diverge when it comes to India. Thus, if the US proceeds with its intentions of supporting Pakistan’s security and economic interests in the region, especially as they relate to Central Asia’s energy resources and in dealing with Lashkare Tayyiba (Kashmiri Jihadist), India is bound to feel shortchanged.

On the other hand, if the US continues on its present path towards strengthening its strategic ties with India and no progress on Kashmir issue, Pakistan will be uncooperative, since it is against Indian hegemony in the region. The latter view gains support from General Kiyani’s statements in Brussels earlier this year, which revealed a negative attitude towards any compromise on the part of Pakistan regarding India’s role. Thus, ultimately, the two burning questions regarding the strategic dialogue between the US and Pakistan is: will either country give way on the subject of India? And how much leverage can the two counties employ to achieve their objectives?

In an attempt to satisfy all or dillydallying over whose interests it wants to preserve in Afghanistan, in the present zero-sum environment of the region, US risks alienating India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Ultimately compromises will have to be made, and the delicate act of balancing different leverages and interests cannot go on indefinitely.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post US-Pakistan Relations at a Cross Road – The Current Status and Outlook for the Future appeared first on Politact.

Context
PoliTact has been keeping a watchful eye on events unfolding in Kyrgyzstan, and this week’s meeting of Kyrgyz President Rosa Otunbayeva with US President Obama at the UN has proven the balance of power in Central Asia hinges on who controls Kyrgyzstan. First and foremost, it must be noted that the meeting between the two presidents is in itself a strong statement. This was no per-chance meeting, but a scheduled event which sends out a clear message that Kyrgyzstan, the small country of 5 million people, is a core part of US foreign policy, and of strategic importance to the US. This article examines the significance of US, China, and Russian tussles for influence in Kyrgyzstan.

Analysis
 

US and Russia

Every message has an intended recipient, and it is all-too-clear that this meeting was conducted for the benefit of the Russians. While Russian and US relations are entering a stage of ‘mutual cooperation’ or so we are repeatedly told, the old tensions are by no means vanished and the small but important Central Asian republic is a key point of contention between the two great powers.

M K Bhadrakumar of the Asia Times Online goes so far as to call the events this week paradigm shifting, and in some aspects, this is indeed the case. The most obvious shift is that Kyrgyzstan, who has been flirting with both powers, has clearly signed on with Obama. A case in point is the cancelling of a visit by Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov to Kyrgyzstan on Friday, as well as the pushing back of a mutual defense agreement between the two countries that was all but signed before the intervention of the US. It appears that Russia is loath to touch where Obama has clearly demarcated territory, with the newly reset US-Russia relations still a fragile creature.

Interestingly, while the US makes inroads into traditional Russian territory, it is simultaneously claiming unparalleled levels of cooperation with Russia, which Moscow has not disputed, but also not confirmed. But this places Russia, and indeed Central Asia in somewhat of a pickle, because Russia is the region’s only real security umbrella and with the resurgence of violence in Tajikistan on Sunday, this raises serious concerns, especially as other heavyweight in the region, China, is reluctant to get its feet wet in Central Asia.

Russia and China

Both Russia and China are increasingly concerned over the US push into Central Asia, which is seen as a consolidation of the US military network in the region, beginning with Afghanistan and Pakistan. While Kyrgyzstan is central to the Afghan supply routes for the US, the increasing US presence in the region is also seen in terms of preparation for an uncertain future with Iran.

While the Afghan war drags on, many expect the US to establish itself as a permanent fixture there, much like in Japan and South Korea, which would make the Kyrgyz influence even more important. The US is clearly intent on dispersing any attempts by either China or Russia alone, or a combined effort, to establish a security axis in the region through Chinese centric Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or Russian influenced Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

While the politics of the region are fragile, with each great power doing the utmost on the outside to appear accommodating, for all the bowing and scraping it appears that the chips will eventually fall something like this:

Russia and China are increasingly seeking closer ties; this Sunday Russian president Dmitri Medvedev was in Beijing at the express invitation of China’s president Hu Jintao. While the US and Russian ‘reset’ is still underway, if the US encroaches further into traditional Russia-dominated territory, a chill may enter the relationship.

US and China

China and the US are at a crossroads in their relationship, with the China-Japan tensions creating a diplomatic nightmare between the two countries. China and Japan are gearing towards all-out opposition over the fishing boat incident and the US will no doubt side with natural ally Japan. This further complicates US-China politics, as the precedent will be set that the US will side with the country who hosts its bases, and so China will be even more cautious about the bases in Afghanistan and the US presence in Kyrgyzstan.

For the AfPak region, the extent of US influence and accommodation in Kyrgyzstan can either increase, or decrease its strategic importance. If the US is able to increase access to Kyrgyz bases and air space, Pakistan will be relieved of some of its importance as the main channel of supplies into Afghanistan. If the reverse is the case, if say Russia managed to convince the Kyrgyz government to oust the US, then Pakistan’s importance would treble overnight. At present this may seem unlikely, but it must be remembered that Rosa Otunbayeva is not the hot favorite in the upcoming October elections, despite obvious endorsement by the US.

Russia has one card yet to play in Kyrgyzstan, and that is ex-soviet general Felix Kulov who is a popular favorite to win the elections. Kulov has Russia’s blessing and if he gets into power the dynamics of the Central Asian republic will change rapidly. The US have also been taking a bit of a gamble in Kyrgyzstan, because the country is so deeply entrenched with Russia already: most Kyrgyz adults speak Russian, and Russian television makes up the majority of viewing in the country.

The other scenario, which may be the most likely outcome in the Kyrgyz elections, is that no party wins a clear majority and a coalition government is formed. In this case, the influence of the US and Russia and their bid for covert authority in the country will be played out in the floor of Kyrgyzstan’s parliament.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post The Balance of Power in Central Asia and Kyrgyzstan. The Status of US, Russia, and China Relations appeared first on Politact.

Context
The controversial tactics of unmanned drones, hot pursuit, and boots on the ground have continued to bedevil the relations of US, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These tactics used by the coalition forces have not only acted as leverages in getting better cooperation from the Pakistan Army, but are also examples of how to counter the asymmetric warfare being waged by the extremists. Over the weekend, Apache helicopters crossed over in to upper Kurram twice to carry out raids against insurgents, who had earlier conducted an attack on an outpost near Khost. A similar helicopter raid was reported on Sunday against Al Shabab in Somalia. This article studies the politics and complications around these new tactics, which have evolved to deal with extremists that operate across borders.

Analysis

politics Unmanned Drones

PoliTact has recently examined the resurge of drone attacks in Pakistan, and earlier the politics surrounding these highly contentious military actions. From all accounts, there exists a tacit agreement between the US and Pakistan which allows these attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) attacks at this point have become more or less point joint operations, although, they were quite unilateral initially.

The drone attacks are a result of the inability and frustration of US and NATO forces to act in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), due to challenges of international law and US image in the Islamic world.  At the same time, the tactics are also a consequence of Pakistan failing to control the tribal areas and the extremists that have operated from these sanctuaries.

The drones also reveal the underlying premise of the US strategy that unless and until extremist sanctuaries are eliminated with in FATA, insurgency in Afghanistan could not be brought under control. This assumption is the same as the one propagated by Karzai government and India. However, this is in contrast to Pakistan’s original view, which stresses that as long as Afghanistan remains unstable, it would be extremely difficult for Pakistan to control the militants on its territory.

Troops on the Ground

This option is considered more dangerous than the drones by both Pakistan and the US because of the consequences involved. Drones are unmanned so even if a mishap occurs, the potential risks are minimal. However, ‘boots on the ground’ carry significant penalty for Pakistan. It reinforces the weakness of the Pakistan government and the perception that it’s being used against its own people, and not for defending them against foreign intruders. This negative impression could be  extremely useful for the extremists when they conduct their recruitment drives.

Ever since Pakistan joined the war against terror its decision appears to be based on the logic of, ‘if you cannot stop them then might as well join them’. The minds of Pakistan’s American trained generals understand particularly well the enormous practical disequilibrium between the military prowess of US and Pakistan. However, it also demonstrates an approach based on an inherent weakness, and is quite unacceptable to the bravado of average unsophisticated Pakistani citizen.

Hot Pursuit

Both ‘drones’ and ‘boots on the ground’ are thus techniques to deal with the inability of Pakistan, Afghan, and the coalition forces to stop the insurgents from crossing over in to Afghanistan, to launch attacks there, and then retreat to their sanctuaries in tribal areas.

This presents a twofold problem for the security forces in Afghanistan. First, what to do once they are attacked in Afghan territory? Usually when coalition forces initiate a hot pursuit, the extremists slip over in to FATA. Moreover, a difference of opinion has existed between US and NATO/ISAF forces on how they consider their mandate in Afghanistan. NATO and ISAF forces have wanted to restrict their activities to Afghanistan alone, as per UN mandate, while US has taken the lead on most of the overt and covert activities in Pakistan.

According to media reports, U.S. rules of engagement permit ground forces to go a little over six miles into Pakistan territory when in hot pursuit, and when forces are targeted or fired on by the enemy. Additionally, U.S. rules allow aircraft to go 10 miles into Pakistan air space.

The second question is how to deal with the planners and strategists working from FATA where the writ of Pakistani government is minimal.

The New York Times had reported in May that General Petraeus signed a secret order in late 2009, increasing covert operations to counter militants and other threats across the region. The order authorizes Special Operations forces to operate in both allied and hostile nations in the Mideast, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa. This order, in fact, represents modified ‘boots on the ground’ option.

US has worked with both Pakistan and Afghanistan to beef up the training and capabilities of their counter-terrorism commandos, reducing the need for direct intervention and use of its own troops. As reported in Bob Woodward’s new book ‘Obama’s Wars,’ CIA has operated a 3,000 strong Afghan counter-terrorist pursuit teams for long-range reconnaissance and surveillance missions since 2002, and which operates in the border areas of Pakistan as well.

These tactics in short represent a workaround to the challenges posed by the international law and the nation state system. Islamic extremists neither believe in the present world order nor abides by its rules. Therefore countering the extremist required unconventional means. However, these unconventional means also appear to weaken the nations-state system.

An additional factor that complicates these tactics is the idiom that ‘all is fair in love and war’. In the age of Internet, people have come to believe the stated intents and positions of international players to be true. The real intent and policies of global players are the most highly guarded secrets and are not meant for public consumption. Publicly disclosing the nations real intent, strength and vulnerabilities would be tantamount to surrendering. Nonetheless, when the statements and actions of stakeholders repeatedly don’t match, it creates many conspiracy theories as well as mistrust amongst allies.

Tell Us What You think

The post Pak-Afghan Border and Asymmetric Warfare – Hot Pursuit, Boots on the Ground, and Drone Attacks appeared first on Politact.