The case of Raymond Davis is shrouded by complexity, no matter which angle one pursues. The incident has not only impacted the US-Pakistan relations but has also raised many questions related to diplomatic immunity and international law. Furthermore, the outcome of the event is likely to push US to evaluate its policy of using contractors to conduct government business. Nonetheless, at this crucial juncture of the Afghan war, both governments are searching for a face-saving exit.

The main pressure for US is to prevent another ‘Faisal Shahzad’ type attack in US, or Mumbai style incident in India, both of which had roots in Pakistan. In the aftermath of the devastating floods last year, the nations economic, social and political challenges are escalating. These difficulties are distracting it from taking on the extremists based on the American timeline. Additionally, there are questions regarding Pakistan’s strategic intent.

Meanwhile, mistrust between the two allies and their intelligence organizations, CIA and ISI, continue to grow. This article examines the evolution of overt and covert part of the war against terror in the region.

Analysis

Situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan Based Extremists And Mumbai Attack

The tactics and strategies related to fighting the war on terror evolved over time. It’s essential to consider the constant atmosphere of mistrust between US and Pakistan over each other’s intent in Afghanistan. Pakistan has remained concerned over not only Indian interference in Afghanistan, FATA and Baluchistan, but also with American attempt to build a strong strategic relationship with India. On the other hand, US continues to be wary of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), and the nation’s alliance with China.

It should be pointed out that former President Musharraf had for quite a while denied that extremists from Pakistan were involved in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s position at the time was that even if there was cross-border support, it was coming from Afghan Taliban and Afghan refugees based in the country, and not from its intelligence organization. On the other hand, Indian, Afghan, and Western officials widely blamed ISI for the worsening situation in Afghanistan, and contended that without out the elimination of extremist safe havens in FATA, situation in Afghanistan could not improve.

It was only in 2007 that Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) came in to being, representing an alliance of several other organizations. After the Red Mosque incident in late 2007, events took a turn for the worse and terrorist events spread across Pakistan, severely impacting its economy and the law and order situation of the country. The argument shifted from ‘there are no Pakistani’s involved in Afghanistan’ to if the country can on its own, and without foreign assistance, control the extremists responsible for the wave of terror in Pakistan.

Being a nuclear state, Pakistan could ill afford the negative publicity and the perception that extremists could take over its nuclear assets. Thus, it had to accept the offer of external assistance to manage American anxieties. However, all of this happened far from public knowledge or scrutiny of political leaders.

In late 2008, Mumbai attack definitively changed which groups had to be controlled by Pakistan. Subsequently, Kashmir related jihadi groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) also got lumped in to the broader definition of extremist groups, posing threats not only to India, but increasingly to Europe and North America. Furthermore, other neighbors of Pakistan, Iran and China, have also periodically raised concerns, regarding extremist groups operating from Pakistan that have threatened the stability of these respective countries.

Boots On The Ground And Drones

Drone attacks were US response to Pakistan’s slow pace of action in FATA. US had contended that Pakistan’s military either did not have the will or the capability to act against the extremists based there. On the other hand, Pakistan claimed it lacked capablity to take on countrer-insurgency operations and seeked US military assistance.

Although drone attacks started during the rule of Mushharraf, he was emphatic about Pakistan’s policy of ‘no boots on the ground’. Most observers believe this to mean that no NATO or US troops were allowed to cross border from Afghanistan in to the Pakistani tribal areas, in hot pursuit kind of scenario. Questions related to violating the sovereignty of Pakistan were often quoted in this regard. Additionally, coalition forces do not have the UN mandate to operate outside of Afghanistan.

In the case of drone attacks, they are widely believed to be flying from inside of Pakistan and therefore the questions about ‘violation of sovereignty’ are minimized. At this point, the government of Pakistan is widely believed to be complicit in the drone attacks while it publicly criticizes it.

Once Musharraf departed and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) led civilian government came in to power, and the typical approach to ‘boots on the ground’ changed. Instead, different tactics unfolded; if these ‘boots’ were already with in the country, then they do not have to come from across the border. They could be in the form of trainers or civilian contractors and thus eliminating the chances of public and political outcry, which could arise from the presence of American boots.

This method could not have been implemented without the approval of Pakistan’s government. However, the views of nations civilian, military, and bureaucratic leadership were likely divergent on how many people were allowed on the ground in Pakistan, and about the red lines. This eventually led to many of the visa problems that US personnel confronted and were widely discussed in the Pakistani media. Nonetheless, like the drone attacks, the public remained in the dark on the details.

Every time US crossed Pakistan’s red lines, the country reacted strongly. The most recent incident occurred on September 30th, 2010, when a NATO helicopter attacked a Pakistani check post in Kurram. The attack took place only a few days after rumors had surfaced regarding peace talks between warring factions in Kurram Agency. That helicopter attack eventually led to the temporary closure of the key supply lines for NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The Raymond Davis Incident And The Future

After careful deliberation, the Obama administration unveiled its new Afghan policy in early 2009, known by its controversial name, AfPak. The most noteworthy aspect of this review was the shift of US policy from military approach to a search for a political solution, with the emphasis on regionalism. There was recognition of the fact that the extremists were operating across borders and without regard to the nation-state classification, which the governments had to abide by.

To deal with the menace of extremism a two prong has been in works, one overt and the other covert. President Obama authorized to significantly increase the covert operations in Pakistan. Additionally, the New York Times disclosed in May 2010 that General Petraeus signed a secret order in late 2009, increasing secret operations to counter militants and other threats across the region. The order authorized Special Operations forces to operate in both allied and hostile nations in the Mideast, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa.

Although the Afghan policy remained a combination of both covert and overt operations, the Pakistan element has been largely covert. The public narrative of  some segments in Pakistan has consistently maintained that the larger goal of American boots in the country is to undermine it and ultimately neutralize the nuclear capability of the nation. As the country becomes consumed in self-survival, it would no longer be able to concentrate on Afghanistan. To counter this perception US approved $7.5 dollar under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act.  However, it  has failed to make significant headway due mainly to the security situation in Pakistan and the continued mistrust between the two countries. Many of the USAID workers were delayed from arriving in Pakistan, as the ISI would not give Pakistan embassy in Washington the speedy clearances for issuing the visas. Ultimately, the civilian government in Pakistan found a work around to this issue, which by passed the stringent procedures.

From the point of view of the US, use of contractors offers the buffer of plausible deniability but does not protect the assets in the long-term. The incident would inevitable lead to increase scrutiny of American personnel all over the world and risks denting the integrity of American diplomats. At the same time, US would want to avoid the results of this event to serve as a negative precedence. Furthermore, it would not like to jeopardize its pivotal relations with Pakistan on the issue of Raymond alone.

From Pakistan’s perspective, activities of Raymond Davis have validated the reasons for the hesitation of the country in accepting foreign support. Pakistan, on the other hand, is caught between its economic dependence on US and extreme anti-Americanism in the country. Economically strangled Pakistan can barely afford hurting US-Pakistan relations, which results in billions of dollars in civilian and military aid. However, the Pakistani media has elevated the issue to such a extent that the political government cannot hope to survive, if it lets Raymond Davis go with a slap on the wrist.

It is the above context that has led to the Raymond Davis incident and the complications that have followed regarding his status and role. From the posturing of both US and Pakistan, it seems that some red lines and the provisions of the secret agreements between the countries have been violated.

Although, the full details of the Raymond incident are not publicly available, the momentous question for Pakistan’s army would be if there is evidence suggesting US is actually trying to contain Pakistan and its influence in Afghanistan, once the US withdraws. Addtionally, if there is active ground level operational cooperation and intelligence sharing, between India and US, against Kashmir related jihadist groups in Pakistan. A recent Stuxnet operation against Iran’s nuclear program revealed there was such collaboration between Israel, UK, and US.

As the public outrage and rebellion against their governments spreads in Middle East, Pakistan’s government cannot risk treading too far from public opinion, while it supports the secret war against terrorism. From all indications, the country intends to perform some course correction in its relations with the US. In all likelihood, and after initial posturing is over, new red lines would result from the Raymond incident in the conduct of war against terror.

The post The Case of Raymond Davis And US-Pakistan Relations – The Evolution Of Political And Tactical Strategies Related To The War On Terror 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
Introduction

In a series of articles, PoliTact is examining the status of Taliban insurgency in each one of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. Any realistic assessment of this region has to rely on independent and first hand access to the facts on the ground, to draw any meaningful conclusions or projections. In our previous study, we have examined the dynamics of Orakzai Agency and this article looks at Kurram Agency.

Kurram Agency is one of the most strategic located Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. As with other parts of FATA, it has also been severely affected by the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgency during the last decade. Since the rise of Pakistani Taliban groups in the country’s Pakhtoon tribal belt in 2004, and as a result of gradual relocation of Al Qaeda leadership and rank and file from Afghanistan, Kurram Agency has seen numerous clashes.

These clashes have been between the Shia majority population of Kurram tribal district and the extremely anti-Shia, Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters backed by local Sunnis. The biggest tribe in the Kurram Agency, Turi, is predominantly Shia while there is also a sizable population of Sunnis living in the area. The Sunni tribes include Zazi, Chamkani and some clans of Bangash; most of the clans of Bangash tribe of Upper Kurram are Shia. According to one estimate the Shias of Kurram Agency represents 20% of the total Shia population of Pakistan.

Analysis

Background

The ongoing wave of violence in the tribal agency began in April 2007 and after a brief lull, resurged in November of that year. According to South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), in 2010 a total of 219 peoples have died in FATA due to suicide attacks. A total of 313 have died as a result of bomb blasts, of which 26 were related to Kurram Agency. A total of 28 people have fallen victim to sectarian violence in Kurram this year. The residents of the area have suffered a lot due to road closures. Violence in particular has made the road which connects the agency to Peshawar, through Hangu, Kohat and Darra Adam Khel, totally unusable.

A large number of Kurram dwellers have relocated to other areas to avoid harm while those still living there are deeply stressed due to the security situation. The violence in Kurram Agency has also caused material losses estimated to be in billions of rupees. This is the longest period of ongoing bloodshed the tribal agency has seen, lasting for more than a year; it was usual for spats of violence to subside within days.

In light of discussions with several inhabitants from Kurram, PoliTact has learned the following. According to public perception, majority of the clashes in Kurram Agency are not actually sectarian but given such a spin by Pakistani establishment. This is in stark contrast to opinions held in other parts of Pakistan that hold India, Afghanistan and the NATO coalition responsible for destabilizing FATA.

The violence in Kurram is triggered and sustained by the Taliban from the neighboring North Waziristan Agency. Importantly, the current Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) head, Hakimullah Mehsud, was previously the commander of Kurram along with Orakzai and Khyber tribal districts of FATA. Hakimullah succeeded TTP founder Baitullah Mehsud after he was killed in a 2009 US drone attack.

The reason for Taliban to move to Kurram Agency is to dislocate the Shia population from the strategically located border with Afghanistan, which the Taliban wanted to use. However, historically people of Kurram Agency have always resisted the attempts to use their territory. In order to marginalize Shias and stop them from preventing militants crossing into Afghanistan or providing NATO-US or Afghan government information about militants activities, Taliban-Al Qaeda nexus devised a strategy to kill and terrorize Shias in the region.

The ongoing violence in Kurram Agency and the subsequent closure of the road has left the Shias living in Upper Kurram, towards the border, facing an extreme situation and with feelings of abandonment and resentment. They are cut off from the rest of Pakistan and there is no real attempt by the authorities to reopen the vital roadway. According to former chief secretary of NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), Khalid Aziz, Shias of Kurram Agency on one occasion petitioned the Afghan government and NATO forces to enter their territory, as there was no writ of Pakistan in these areas while they they have been left at the mercy of Taliban. According to data collected by the Long War Journal, a total of 3 drone strikes have occurred in Kurram Agency from 2004 to 2010.

Strategic Distinction of Kurram Agency

The religious profile of Kurram Agency sets it apart from other tribal districts of FATA. Along with Orakzai, the districts are the only two places where there is a large Shia population. However, it is only in Kurram where Shias are in majority. The Pakistani Taliban and their Al Qaeda guest fighters have tried to stir up sectarian sentiments is Kurram resulting in violence against Shias. In this respect the local Sunni militants have been greatly supported by Pakistani Taliban militants from other areas of FATA, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province and the so-called Punjabi Taliban.

An important reason why the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda have concentrated so specially on Kurram Agency has been its immense geo-strategic importance from the insurgent’s standpoint. The tribal district is located on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and is just 100 kilometers from the Afghan capital of Kabul, and is also know by the name of ‘Parrots Beak’. On the southwest of Kurram is located the North Waziristan tribal agency, which is more or less ruled by Pakistani Taliban groups led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur. The base of the Afghan militant Haqqani Network is also located in North Waziristan. Presently the largest hub of TTP is in Orakzai Agency and is located to the Southeast of Kurram. Kurram Agency also provides easy strategic access to an important region of Afghanistan comprising Nangarhar and Kabul provinces. The Afghan and NATO forces have faced the stiffest resistance in the adjacent areas of Gardez and Khost. The insurgents can easily attack Coalition and Afghan forces in Afghanistan and also readily withdraw, making full use of the territory of the Kurram Agency and the strategic advantages it affords them.

However, unlike other tribal districts the local Shia population has greatly resisted the extremists, including using armed defiance. As a result the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda have not been able to maintain a hold over Kurram. In order to pressurize the Shia population to give up resistance, Taliban insurgents have blocked the main road that connects Upper Kurram with Peshawar, and thus exert economic strain on the local population.

Peshawar, the provincial capital, has been the health, education and business hub for most of FATA. Most of the province including FATA have traditionally been dependent on the city for the supplies of essential items and staples. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have successfully managed to keep the road between Kurram and Peshawar shut for almost three years. Although Pakistani authorities opened up the road after several military offensives in the recent past, Shia travelers have constantly come under attack from Taliban operatives.

Parties Involved in the Violence

The local Taliban are fighting the Shia under the name Mahdi Militia while the opposing Shia force goes by the name of Hizbullah, though without connection to the Iranian-backed group of the same name in Lebanon. However, to view the situation in the region in isolation from the larger Shia-Sunni tensions of the Middle East would be naive.

The second major element responsible for violence in Kurram Agency has been confrontation between Mangal and Tori tribes living near the Pak-Afghan border. Both the tribes often indulge in skirmishes with each other on petty issues like water, cattle-heads, wood-cutting and others. These kinds of disputes are often given a sectarian color but these are enmities and disputes which often result in violence . The non-sectarian nature of the Tori-Mangal disputes prompted the four main tribes of central Kurram — Para Chamkani, Ali Sherzai, Masoozai and Zeahmusht — to refuse to take part in the clashes, stating that they would not be a party to domestic-type issues between the Tori and Mangal tribes. However, there has been local suspicion that Pakistani intelligence agencies have been fanning the flames of sectarianism between the two tribes.

Peace Initiative

A peace initiative by the civilian political administration was started by the then Political Agent of Kurram Agency, Zahir-ul-Islam, which culminated in an agreement in January 2008 between warring factions in Kurram Agency. Under this agreement:

• Tal-Parachanar highway leading towards Peshawar and other roads would be opened.
• Both parties would come out of their trenches and the bunkers would be handed over to security forces.
• If any party violated the agreement, a fine of Rupees 40 million would be received from the faction.

The peace deal was finalized through a 50-member jirga of council of elders by the political administration. However the Taliban and two other militias have kept on carrying out activities in violation of that accord. Therefore, when there have been naked violations of the peace terms the government convened the same jirga in Peshawar to try and affix responsibility. The jirga included 25 elders each from the Shia and Sunni sects of Kurram Agency. However, the two sides could not reach a final decision after several rounds of government-sponsored deliberations.

There has been no improvement in the security situation of Kurram with the conditions going from bad to worse. According to various experts, Pakistani authorities have almost lost control and credibility in the area, making it very challenging to implement the existing peace agreement or attempt a new treaty.

Media reports indicate today that a fresh attempt towards bringing peace to Kurrum is being made. PoliTact will continue to monitor the dynamics of this key tribal agency of FATA, Pakistan.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post Status of the Taliban Insurgency in Kurram Agency appeared first on Politact.

Context
China-US competition and cooperation have coexisted until now; however, there are indications that competition and rivalry parts are gaining ground. The region of Asia-Pacific is particularly heating up with implications for the Af-Pak area, Indo-Pak and US-Pakistan relations. This article examines three recent incidents that have caused PoliTact to issue this alert.

Analysis

The following three incidents involve three countries that are increasingly part of US axis in the Asia-Pacific region and include India, Japan and South Korea:

• The most recent incident involves a collision between a Chinese fishing vessel and two Japanese coast guard boats in the disputed Senkaku islands, located in the East China Sea. The uninhabited islands are administered by Japan but claimed by China. Subsequently, Japan captured the Chinese vessel and  now plans to  prosecute the captain. The event has caused China to suspend high-level government ties with Japan.
• China recently denied 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 stand suspended. The occurrence is also associated with reported presence of Chinese troops in Gilgit-Baltistan part of Pakistan.
• The tension between North and South Korea has remained high as Seoul points the finger at Pyongyang for the sinking of the warship Cheonan on March 26. The US is backing Seoul, while Pyongyang is blaming the US. The event was followed by naval exercises by both China and US that have raised the tensions considerably in the region.

The US Commander for Pacific region (PACOM) Admiral Robert Willard had stated in August that increasing Chinese assertiveness in South China Sea is a cause for concern and the country would take steps to counter. He added:

“Our purpose there is to maintain security, when you consider the sea lines of communication that criss-cross this very strategic and important region of the ocean, they carry the majority of commerce for this part of the world,” he said, saying the U.S. Navy would work with “our partners in the region”.

In short there are economic and strategic interests at stakes for both US and China in the region, and if China is acting aggressively, US is not about to back down. The Chinese and US defense relations are not going well either and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been unable to visit China for sometime now. These events are taking place in the background of Chinese policy declaration that asserts ownership of South China Sea and that it represents its Core Interest.

As China feels the pressure from US and its allies in the Pacific, China is bound to push back as it appears to be doing. China’s partners and economic interests are coming under strain not only in the Pacific and Middle East but also in South and Central Asia region.

Based on these observations, PoliTact has concluded that both Kashmir and Afghanistan situation is about to take a turn for the worse, and meanwhile bring Pakistan under enormous strain. The present government of Pakistan already disillusioned from the flood devastation, appears ill prepared to deal with the emerging geopolitics, which would also be a challenge for the US-Pakistan relations.

The post Implications of the Advancing China-US Rivalry in Asia-Pacific appeared first on Politact.

Context

US Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen recently told reporters that Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) poses a “significant regional and global threat.” This statement significantly raises the stakes for Pakistan. PoliTact examines this statement by studying the historical evo
lution of LeT.

Analysis

The recent statements by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen regarding LeT have surprised many. He asserted that the LeT network was expanding into Afghanistan and other countries beyond the AfPak locality. Until now, LeT has been known to be operating specifically in Afghanistan and Indian held Kashmir. However, there have been indications that the militant organization has started establishing links with terrorist-in-the-making in Europe and America. The arrest of alleged LeT operative David Headley and his involvement in the Mumbai attack may also be the basis for Admiral Mullen to declare LeT not only a regional threat but also a global one.

Background

Form all accounts, LeT has been a growing regional threat. Reliable information attained first-hand in background interviews and discussions with Afghan and Pakistani journalists, including Pakistani officials, reveal that LeT has restarted its activities with renewed zeal in the region. The organization is particularly active in southeastern and eastern Afghan provinces namely Kunar, Nooristan, Nangarhar, Laghman, Paktika and Khost provinces. LeT has also been exceptionally active in the Afghan capital Kabul and has already conducted several attacks in the city.

PoliTact sources assert that LeT is presently coordinating its activities with the Al Qaeda leadership as well as with the Haqqani Network. Additionally, LeT is also conducting operations with Afghan Taliban in Kunar, Nooristan, Nangarhar and Laghman provinces. The Afghan Taliban have had little following in these Wahabi-influenced provinces previously as they are predominantly Deobandis. On the other hand, LeT has established links with the local Wahabist due to a shared religious ideology. LeT’s local links date back to the late 1980s when the group’s head, Hafiz Saeed was himself based in Kunar. LeT’s mother organization, Jamaat Al Dawaat wal Irshad played a significant role in Kunar and paved the way for Hafiz Saeed to establish extensive links in this part of Afghanistan.

LeT has always had influence in these areas. Abdullah Azzam had established a virtual Wahabi mini ‘state’ in Kunar in the 1980s and LeT’s head Hafiz Saeed was part of that state, providing a large number of militant to Azzam to act as ‘soldiers.’ During the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, LeT was running a militant training camp for Kashmiri Mujahideen in Kunar. It was Azzam and the influence of his followers, which converted a large number of militants in these provinces to Wahabism. LeT is now leveraging these established links and influence in Afghanistan and is increasingly engaging in fighting with US and NATO forces while providing much needed support to sustain the insurgency in the above mentioned regions of Afghanistan. This role of LeT is thought to be the primary factor in the decision of local Wahabi organizations in Nooristan and Kunar provinces to swear allegiance to Mullah Omar.

While LeT have been involved in the region for decades, the groups recent activities in Afghanistan have mainly focused on countering and attacking Indian interests. The two attacks on the Indian embassy in Kabul were widely reported as the work of the same organization. LeT is reportedly also responsible for  several attacks inside India, including on the Indian parliament in January 2002. Indians also blame the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November 2008 on LeT.

Conclusion

LeT’s past and current involvement in Afghanistan is well known. However, the timing of the warning by Admiral Mullen is intriguing. Pakistan is yet to begin the North Waziristan offensive aimed primarily against the Haqqani Network led by Sirajuddin Haqqani. In the pre-flood scenario, the statement regarding LeT was designed as a pressure tactic for Pakistan to mount the offensive in North Waziristan. LeT is widely believed to have strong links to the Pakistani intelligence agency. Thus Admiral Mullen’s statement was probably aimed at sending a strong message to Pakistan military that if they keep desisting from launching North Waziristan operation against the Haqqani Network, they could face allegations and criticism for protecting LeT. Given that Mullen has already declared LeT as having global terrorist links, puts Pakistan at risk of being labeled as a state sponsor of Terrorism. However, in the aftermath of the floods the situation has completely changed, and players have been forced to reevaluate their strategy.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post Regional and Global Threats from Lashkar-e-Tayyaba 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.