Diplomatic Perspective

A Russian oligarch challenges 'Putinism'

2011-06-26T01:29:00.000-07:00

Moscow is buzzing with excitement. Eight years after the disastrous challenge to Vladimir Putin's regime by the now-jailed oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky, another oligarch entered Russian politics on Saturday - Mikhail Prokohorov, third richest man in Russia, who heads the Onexim group, an investment firm with big interests in mining, new technologies, media and banking. MP will be heading a 'pro-business', 'reformist' party Pravoe Delo [Right Cause], which has a programme suspiciously reminiscent of President Dmitry Medvedev’s own policies.

Russians will find MP hugely attractive - hopelessly handsome 46-year old bachelor, 6'8" tall, listed 39th richest man in the world by Forbes with assets estimated at 18 billion dollars. And of course he owns the top US basketball team, New Jersey Jets and has a dazzling range of interests including masterminding the production of Russia's first hybrid car, the Yo-mobile. Some of his remarks:

* "The model of management (of Russia) which had an effect for the last 10 years has simply exhausted itself. This is not surprising. The world is changing fast."
* "Do we have multi-party politics (in Russia)? Of course we don't. There is need to have at least two parties of power. Any political monopoly is our main opponent. It's even clear in school text books that a monopoly is the enemy of all development."
* "Our country is called the Russian Federation, but by structure it is an empire. Only presidential power works here, and this kind of governance cannot provide stability let alone development,"
* "Our whole country is systemically degenerating: our industry has collapsed, and we are nothing but a supplier of raw materials, although quite a powerful one."
* "The education, healthcare, and culture sectors are degenerating now. Expenses on these should be higher than the expenses on security, law enforcement, and defense."

MP is making the right noises for Russia's audience in the West, where he is a celebrity. MP even called for the release of Khodorkovsky, who is locked up in a Siberian prison for the past 7 years. “As a person, I express deep sorrow that such trials happen in this country,” MP said. All this has convinced some people to say MP has a secret deal with Medvedev - that MP is Medvedev's torpedo against Putin's submarine. They even say MP could be keeping a spot warm for Medvedev as the leader of Pravoe Delo. To spur speculations further, Medvedev's chief economic advisor, Arkady Dvorkovich, wrote on Twitter, "Most of Prokhorov's ideas in his speech are close to me".

The western press has gone berserk. The champagne bottles are out: It is the Gorbachev - Yeltsin dogfight all over again which brought the Kremlin's Soviet roof come down crashing. Leon Aron even wrote that Russia is approaching another "perestroika moment".

Aren't they going too fast on the track of wishful thinking? The Medvedev-Putin 'tandem' is an enigma. What if MP is a Kremlin creation designed partly as a lightning rod and partly to attract opposition-minded voters? Even stranger things can happen in Russian politics. Incidentally, MP has investigations on tax invasion pending against him. And his pet hybrid car project was also Putin's brainwave. MP can turn out to be what Russian cynics call a 'PR counterweight' to offset the bad name Russia earned as a foreign investment destination due to the case of Khodorkovsky case, who was once Russia's richest man but jailed on charges which the West alleges to be politically motivated after he funded opposition parties and threatened to sell off major assets to American companies.

On the other hand, MP holds big assets in the West and has powerful connections. To be sure, Russian politics is hotting up - parliamentary elections are scheduled for December where Putin leads the ruling party and his popularity will be tested ahead of the presidential election due in March next year. The western interference in Russian politics will be cascading in the coming months since this is a high-stakes game for US' global strategies (and for China) - who rules Russia from next year.

SCO Faces the Afghan Challenge

2011-06-23T08:19:00.000-07:00

There is stillness in the Central Asian steppes as the policymakers quickly huddle in their respective capitals to do stocktaking. The plain truth is that the Central Asian region’s interests do not coincide with Obama’s. They probably never really did but now onward they glaringly diverge. A collective effort becomes necessary, which of courses presupposes a regional initiative at some stage that can subsume regional rivalries and reconcile the contradictions in the inter-regional situation. Read my article published by Strategic Culture Foundation, Moscow-based think tank.

Losers and winners in Obama's Afghanistan

2011-06-23T04:34:00.000-07:00

The shift in Afghanistan from "combat to support" and from the military track to the political track is now well underway with President Barack Obama's announcement of a timetable for troop withdrawal. India will feel badly let down. Iran will be pleased to no end and so may Russia. China's dependence on Pakistan increases by leaps and bounds, while Pakistan itself has some unpalatable truths to digest. Read my article in Asia Times on the dramatic day's happening in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2011.

A summit in Tehran trumps the US

2011-06-22T04:01:00.000-07:00

An Iranian diplomatic thrust to bring Afghanistan and Pakistan onside against the United States - benefiting already from the countries' fury at US efforts to isolate them from Taliban talks - lends greater significance to an anti-terrorism summit in Tehran being attended by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari. The nations could frustrate US visions of regional dominance and a partitioned Afghanistan. Read my article in Asia Times on the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan bonhomie.

Turkey cools down tempers over Syria

2011-06-21T06:36:00.000-07:00

Turkey grudgingly accepted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's vague reform pledges on Monday, warning however that they are "not enough". Though Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has blasted the crackdown by Damascus as "savagery", Ankara's diplomats are ramping down tensions over the crisis. Turkey knows Assad's position is not as threatened as the West suggests, and that it will be left carrying the can should anarchy erupt. Meanwhile, Russia's categorical opposition to any foreign intervention in Syria introduces a major dimension. Read my article in Asia Times on the regional developments.

Why Karzai lashed out at the US

2011-06-20T02:33:00.000-07:00

Rapid-fire snubs from Hamid Karzai to the Barack Obama administration should serve as a warning that the Afghan president refuses to be the United States' donkey as it dangles a strategic partnership in its drive for permanent military bases in Afghanistan. Karzai knows he can always turn to regional powers, including Iran. Read my article in Asia Times on the extraordinary happenings in the Hindu Kush where Afghan sense of honour is resurfacing with a vengeance.

Why is Saleh so unhappy?

2011-06-19T12:33:00.000-07:00

The Americans tried their utmost to build up Amrullah Saleh, Afghan intelligence chief whom Hamid Karzai sacked last year. It wasn’t an easy thing to make a spook seem a statesman within a year. But it is an interesting wheel within the wheel, as they say. Saleh is Panjshiri strongman Mohammad Fahim’s protégé but then, these lines blur in today's Afghanistan. ‘Have dollar, will travel.’

Saleh oozes anti-Karzai venom. He can’t get over that he lost a great job in Kabul with perks and privileges. So he puts everything that is wrong with today's Afghanistan at Karzai’s doorstep. American think tankers love to listen to him do that. The US intelligence community sees him as a reservoir of information about Taliban. Saleh wrote recently in impeccable American English an opinion piece in Bloomberg laying claim to an “alternate vision to Karzai’s”. He said: “It entails a complete disarming of the Taliban, an end to Pakistan’s practice of giving sanctuary to Taliban militants and a truth-and-reconciliation process for Afghanistan.” How charming!

But his vision is not like Nelson Mandela’s. It cannot be. If ever there is a truth and reconciliation commission, Northern Shura 'warlords' who ran Kabul in the halcyon days of the Mujahideen takeover in 1992 will have to go into exile - or face suicide bombers; their wanton rape and looting of the Hazara district in Kabul and their subsequent massacres of thousands of Pashtun teenagers ('Talibs')in Kunduz and Mazar-i-Sharif may come to haunt them. Saleh’s 'vision' is riveted on scattering the Taliban from the face of the earth and forcing Pakistan to lay off. It is a recipe for endless strife. Taliban, too, are Afghans and Pakistan has legitimate interests in an Afghan settlement. Obviously, Saleh is enamoured of US' surge and “brilliant special operations” and wants them to roll on. He wouldn't hear about the war crimes. Nor, intriguingly, has he forthright view on US plans for permanent military presence, although Afghans feel strongly about foreign occupation.

Former foreign minister Abdullah will feel proud of Saleh's 'diplomatic skill' to walk the tight rope. The problem with people like Saleh - or 'warlords' like Mohammed Mohaqiq, Mohammed Atta, et al, - is that they thrive in civil war conditions. Things couldn’t be better if there is a ‘great game’ with regional powers putting big money on the table. Everyone has a jolly good time - 'warlords' and couriers who bring in money from foreign intelligence agencies (and the Dubai-based banks, of course). A broad-based government in peace time Kabul will spoil everything.

Turkey toughens its stand on Syria

2011-06-19T03:50:00.000-07:00

No sooner than the Turkish parliamentary elections were out of the way, a more robust intervention by the reelected leadership of Recep Erdogan in Ankara in Syrian upheaval has begun. Turkish press has been highlighting a steady flow of Syrian 'refugees' across the border - obviously, building up a case for intervention. For the first time, Turkish government is encouraging journalists to meet the refugees in the 5 camps (less than 10000) set up in the border region. An orchestrated campaign has begun to mould the public opinion against the Syrian regime.

The Turkish officials have noticeably racheted up anti-Syrian rhetoric, including the top leadership in Ankara. Turkey claims it is going to deliver humanitarian aid to displaced people inside Syrian territory and that Damascus has been consulted. No confirmation from Damascus so far, though. A demonstration in front of the Turkish embassy in Damascus last week protesting against Turkish interference has been widely projected in the Turkish media as a hostile act. Turkish nationalist feelings would be aroused.

On Sunday, a Turkish military helicopter crossed into Syria on a reconnaissance mission. The Turkish TV speculated on the possibility that Ankara will create a 'buffer zone' in the border region on Syrian territory for providing shelter to displaced people rather than accept them as 'refugees'. Damascus has alleged that weapons are being smuggled into northern Syria, hotbed of current violence, from Turkey. Interestingly, Iranian media have picked up the Syrian allegation. Meanwhile, Turkish PM Recep Erdogan is planning to visit Cairo and has had consultations with Qatari emir who is, paradoxically, a charioter of the Arab Spring in Libya and Syria although a dictator himself.The heightened level of Turkish diplomatic activism has to be on the basis of some foreknowledge of US strategies in the coming period.

SCO steps out of Central Asia

2011-06-17T03:08:00.000-07:00

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization's 10th anniversary summit in Astana, Kazakhstan, saw confident steps taken towards integrating the entire Eurasian landmass. While the planned induction of India and Pakistan will create a pan-regional reach that supersedes the United States' "Great Central Asia" strategy, SCO efforts to assume responsibility for post-2014 Afghanistan are a direct challenge to US plans to establish permanent military bases there. Read my article in Asia Times on the future directions of SCO's development as a regional organisation.

US-Russia 'reset' symphony giving way to jazz

2011-06-16T01:56:00.001-07:00

Dmitry Rogozin, Kremlin's envoy to NATO, is a rare weapon in Russia's diplomatic armoury. Having been a politician - and a gifted politician who may still choose to retake his original vocation in a top position after next year's presidential election in Russia - Rogozin can get away with murder. Generally speaking, diplomats are afraid of the very sight of blood, but Rogozin insists on a latitude drawn from his previous avatar to use his power of language lethally like a razor with the purposive intent to maim, kill, silence the adversary - and in turn preserve Russia's interests.

How far he is doing it as own enterprise and how far he represents a collective enterprise is often hard to tell - and leaves the NATO adversary guessing. In diplomatic jargon, Rogozin becomes for Moscow a 'Non-Paper'. Which makes him a rare asset for Russia, and Vladimir Putin indeed spotted the infinite scope by asking him to cross over from the poltical arena to the world of diplomacy.

This week has been a memorable one for Rogozin-watchers. Speaking in London, he compared Russia to a bear in its lair, which the US/NATO hunter approaches with the tantalising proposition to go hunting for rabbits. Thereupon, the bear happens to notice that the barrel of the gun the hunter holds is actually meant for bear-hunting, not rabbit-hunting.

He was referring to the US' plea that the components of the missile defence system it is planning to deploy in Poland, Romania, Turkey, etc. are directed against the 'rogue state' of Iran and not against Russia. Rogozin seems to be in great mood. Yesterday, on a podium which he shared with NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Rogozin said Russia saw Resolution 1973 passed by the UN Security Council on Libya as a "slender, harmonious symphony" while the NATO seems to interpret it more like jazz.

Rogozin says it all so beautifully. It does seem increasingly that the slender harmonious symphony of US-reset is giving way to trumpets and jazz. Something like '1812 Overture' by Pytotr Illyich Tchaikovsky and 'Hello, Dolly!' by Louis Daniel Armstrong? Viktor Ivanov, Kremlin's troubleshooter par excellence on Afghanistan, left Moscow this morning and is heading for Tehran. This comes within a day of the SCO summit in Astana - and, again, Rogozin spotting that NATO has interrupted its eastward expansion and has instead begun slouching southward. Indeed, something is changing in the 'voice of Russia', to use the name of the Moscow Radio station.

The tone of the MFA statement on the presence of the USS Monterey cruiser in the Black Sea makes that very clear. The battle group entered the Black Sea in the weekend to ostensibly hold an exercise with Ukraine on anti-piracy, but Moscow happened to notice that the barrel of the cruiser battle group is meant for hunting Slavs - not Somalis.

Neutral Afghanistan serves regional stability

2011-06-15T18:41:00.000-07:00

The Anglo-American project to craft an Afghan endgame that ensures long-term western military presence in the South and Central Asian region has entered a critical phase. The United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) now acknowledge that a complete withdrawal from the region by 2014 is not on the cards. Several stages of diplomatic and political deception concealed this “hidden agenda.” Regional powers — Pakistan and India, in particular — are sadder and wiser today. Read my article in The Hindu…

Erdogan leads the Turks - and the Middle East

2011-06-14T02:24:00.000-07:00

It's been a long journey for Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan from his rabble-rousing Islamist past to the global statesman and three-time election winner he is today, a transformation as compelling as Turkey's emergence from instability to unprecedented economic heights. With little need of Europe, Erdogan can mould the Middle East in a better fashion than Suleiman the Magnificent. Read my article in Asia Times on the extraordinary story of an Islamist leader.

Syria on the boil, US warship in Black Sea

2011-06-13T02:40:00.000-07:00

The United States warship floating in the Black Sea is a clear threat to Russia to curtail its obstinance over Syria's bloody uprising. While Washington wants pro-Western regime change in Damascus to break Israel's regional isolation, this would spell the end for Russia's last naval base in the Mediterranean. With Saudi, Israeli and Turkish interests aligning against it, the Kremlin seems in deep water. Read my article on Asia Times on the US pressing ahead with regime change in Syria.

Nawaz Sharif challenges Kayani's leadership

2011-06-10T22:12:00.000-07:00

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's speech in Islamabad Friday becomes a notable moment in the country's tortuous path to democracy. Sharif is not above rhetoric, grandstanding or politiking and he understands the national mood. But Sharif also knew he was speaking within a day of the Corps Commanders Conference in Rawalpindi suggesting that he and his party should stop directing further criticism of the military. Yesterday's was no doubt a most defiant speech.

Sharif accused the military leadership of warped mindset; deception; intrusive behaviour and undermining rule of law; messing up Afghan policies and Kashmir issue(read relations with India); hogging the country's budget; responsibility for Abbottabad and Mehran incidents. Sharif threatened that he would launch a 'long march' to force the military to return to the barracks and stick to its vocation.

Sharif tore into the military leadership and the ISI in a way that makes it difficult for army chief Gen Parvez Kayani to ignore. A flash point arises if Sharif continues on this track. What a splendid irony that Washington did all it could to keep him out of power!

Peace doves hover over Islamabad

2011-06-10T02:37:00.000-07:00

Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrives in Pakistan on Saturday amid a huge wave of expectation that the process of reconciliation with the Taliban is finally on a track that could lead to peace. Most important, Islamabad's longstanding demand for reconciliation now finds almost complete acceptance in the United States establishment. This puts the onus on Pakistan to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. Read my article in the Asia Times on the broad sweep of of an Afghan peace process that struggles to be take off.

Where is India heading?

2011-06-10T01:58:00.000-07:00

Let me reproduce a report which a friend sent to me this morning. It speaks for itself:

QUOTE

NEW DELHI: In the first ever audit of any intelligence agency in India, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has unearthed a Rs 450-crore purchase scam of Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) lying as junk with the Hyderabad-based National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), a technical arm of the external intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

Efforts were mounted to prevent the probe the CAG sought on the basis of a complaint from a whistle blower, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh allowed the inquiry overruling all objections as he felt such a serious charge on an agency providing technical intelligence capabilities to the country with huge budget to fight the cyber piracy is too serious to be overlooked.

The CAG submitted the report to the government in February second week marking it as "top secret" since its release in public domain can blow off the secrecy of the operations of NTRO created in 2004, primarily for strategic monitoring of satellite, terrestrial and Internet communications.

The government decided to keep the report in the wraps and did not table it in Parliament, accepting the CAG's "top secret" label, but the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has now ordered an internal inquiry into the 2007 purchase.

The budget and expenditures incurred by the intelligence agencies are treated sacrosanct as they are not allowed scrutiny by CAG or even Parliament, but such a scandal has made the Prime Minister think of making them accountable, the PMO sources said. The next meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) may take a view on all intelligence agencies subjected to the CAG scrutiny.

The CCS had sanctioned Rs 300 crores in 2007 for purchase of UAVs from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). The NTRO, however, purchased additional satellite link and electronic intelligence equipment worth Rs 150 crores from the company without keeping the CCS in the loop.

Then NTRO chief tweaked the rules that empower him to spend up to Rs 20 crores without clearance from the CCS by paying the additional Rs 150 crores in several smaller instalments to show he is not overstepping his financial powers.

Then National Security Adviser (NSA) M K Narayanan, who is now West Bengal governor, had tried to scuttle the inquiry the CAG wanted to carry out in December 2009 on the complaint by a whistle blower, pointing out that the intelligence agencies are kept out of scrutiny to maintain secrecy. The NTRO reports directly to the NSA and the RAW chief and hence Narayanan's refusal of permission meant a dead end.

The CAG, however, felt the whistle blower's tip-off was too serious to be ignored and hence it approached the Prime Minister who overruled Narayanan's objections and allowed the CAG sleuths get cracking in January last year.

NTRO chairman KVSS Prasada Rao, a scientist who retired last October, and its current adviser M S Vijayaraghavan, have been indicted in the CAG report. Dr Prasada Rao had also served the Space Department and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) earlier.

As part of the inquiry ordered by the PMO, some major generals, who were on deputation to NTRO, as also some senior finance officials involved in the deal are being questioned. Once this internal inquiry is over, the government may hand over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a case and proceed against the suspects, sources said.

The CAG has noted that the UAV machines are lying grounded as the satellite link purchased was not at all meant for dedicated transmission and the military personnel in NTRO put brakes on putting them in the sky as anybody could have downloaded the sensitive data sent from these UAVs.

The NTRO top brass not including the satellite link and electronic intelligence equipment in the proposal put before the CCS is itself intriguing as the UAVs bought at the high cost without them could be nothing more than the electronic-controlled aircraft children play.

The CAG has faulted the NTRO officials engaged in the dubious purchase for taking the Israeli vendor on his word that the "satellite link was successfully tested in Australia."

UNQUOTE

We have an old saying in Kerala: “When the fence starts encroaching on the property, beware, the doomsday is nearing.” Is there anything more reprehensible than what the above report claims? Shame on all of them!

India, China leave Lagarde guessing

2011-06-09T06:50:00.000-07:00

Even without waiting for the West’s candidate for the post of Managing Director of International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, to emplane from Beijing, Xinhua announced the uncertain outcome of her visit. Chinese FM Yang Jiechi told her the race is "open".

On Tuesday, Lagarde got an almost-identical response in Delhi. Most significantly, while reporting China’s stance today, Xinhua took note of the Indian stance. It does seem Delhi and Beijing are in active consultation on the issue.

Yang explained to western journalists in Beijing in English: "We had a good discussion. She explained to me the purpose of her candidacy. I listened very carefully. It's an open field now. There are quite a few people campaigning. China of course gives serious thought to this very important issue." Just before Yang spoke, MFA spokesman in Beijing repeated China’s stance that choice of a new IMF chief should be based on "openness, transparency and merit, and better represent emerging markets and better reflect changes in the world economic structure". He added, “China hopes relevant parties will make the final decision through democratic consultations.”

Of course, Lagarde pitched hard in Beijing, estimating that if she secures China’s support, it becomes a done deal. What does Lagarde herself make out of this unhappy journey to Delhi and Beijing? She put a brave face and admitted it is up to Beijing to decide whether it supports her bid to lead the IMF. Curiously, she agreed with the Chinese statements that said the selection should be “open, transparent and merit-based”. As for her overall prospects, Lagarde said, "I'm confident. I'm very positive about the meetings that I've had so far. My sense is that it's too early to count the chickens, if I may say."

Even as Lagarde arrived in Beijing, Lagarde tried a charm offensive. The AFP quoted her saying China's share in IMF should be boosted to 6.4 percent. China's voting share in the IMF was increased last year to 6.19 percent from the previous 3.65 percent. But Beijing kept a big picture in view.

Is it absolutely crucial Lagarde secures China’s backing? No, even without it, she can get the job. But the issue is of legitimacy. China’s backing legitimises her election. Lagarde’s chances of winning are even because even at this point, with just a day ahead of the key deadline on Friday, the emerging-market nations have failed to coalesce around a consensus candidate. The nomination process closes Friday. Two candidates are officially on the field at this point aside Lagarde: Mexican Central Bank Governor Agustin Carstens, and Kazakhstan National Bank Chairman Grigory Marchenko.

A consensus candidate of the emerging economies has to be Carstens. His candidacy will put the United States in a fix. Carsten arrives in Delhi Friday.

US views Afghan war without blinkers

2011-06-09T03:43:00.000-07:00

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Wednesday on the appointment of Ryan Crocker as the new ambassador to Afghanistan was a mere formality insofar as the ambassador-designate enjoys prestige on account of his successful stint in Baghdad and his professional credentials are not in doubt.

But Crocker's testimony still mattered: how would this veteran diplomat estimate the challenging assignment that lies ahead? Is he cocky about pulling it off, repeating his success in Iraq during a transitional period? I got the sense that Crocker was neither grim nor gung-ho, maybe NYT got it right that he gave the senators an 'unvarnished assessment' of the war.

I found it significant that he didn't fulminate against the Taliban but instead outlined the raison d'etre of the war exclusively in terms of preventing al-Qaeda from gaining an Afghan base for future operations and, secondly, ensuring America's homeland security. No tall claims about making Afghanistan a model country or guaranteeing South & Central Asia's stability and security.

Crocker was also modest about David Petraeus's surge. He spoke of surge having "stolen momentum from Taliban" rather than vanquishing or weakening the insurgents significantly. The surge made “significant progress but, "this progress is still fragile and reversible”.

Spot-on. This was what Barack Obama said. Again, he refrained from exuberantly asserting the Kabul government's capacity to handle the transition; on the contrary, he was guarded about the challenges ahead, which he said are "hard but not hopeless". Crocker was not expected to say anything about US' contacts with Taliban. Equally, he routinely expressed US' backing for an 'Afghan-led' peace process.

But let events speak for themselves. It needs to be noted, though, that Crocker spoke of the insurgents in the same breath - not as 'good, bad and the ugly'; he stressed a "durable, responsible settlement" as the desired outcome of peace process. Crocker was categorical that US isn't seeking military bases in Afghanistan and explained that the strategic partnership declaration under negotiation aims to 'normalise' USG's relationship with Kabul government and "provide a roadmap for our long-term political, economic and security cooperation".

Most significantly, he held out an assurance that the US is not seeking a "presence that would be a threat to any of Afghanistan's neighbors". Afghan NSA Dadfar Spanta is on a visit to Washington and, curiously enough, he is drumming up American support for an Afghan plea that US shouldn't leave Afghanistan in the lurch. Seems Spanta's wish will be granted. Crocker recalled during Q&A that US' exit soon after defeating the Red Army in 1989 had "disastrous consequences", and, "We cannot afford to do so again."

Obviously, US has drawn close to Karzai lately even as tensions in US-Pak ties got exacerbated. Spanta's demarche smacks of the new bonhomie, which, in turn, suits Karzai as well, as it gives him space to negotiate when he arrives in Islamabad Saturday on a historic visit to formally kickstart the run-up to the Afghan peace process.

Turkey's not-so-subtle shift on Syria

2011-06-08T02:45:00.000-07:00

Turkey allowed Syrian opposition figures seeking to overthrow the Assad regime to meet in the Mediterranean resort of Antalya on Monday, simultaneously declaring "ties of trust" with the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. The conclave adds to signals that Ankara is rapidly shifting stance. While this clearly stokes Assad's ire, Turkey has strong reasons to play with fire, and would prefer a weak neighbor. Read my article in Asia Times on Turkey's trapeze act over the snowballing Syrian situation.

A low-key interaction

2011-06-06T20:24:00.000-07:00

The scheduled visit by the Afghan defence minister Abdul Wardak to Delhi last week took place in a period of acute contradictions in the regional security scenario. One has to be incredibly audacious to build sinews of military content into India-Afghanistan relationship at the present juncture of extreme fluidity. Read my article in Deccan Herald on the parameters of any Afghan-Indian defence cooperation in the changing regional milieu....

Caveats in the Yemeni narrative

2011-06-06T08:51:00.000-07:00

The Arab Spring has finally become beastly, marching stealthily and devouring a third dictator in the Middle East when it all but seemed that the region was lapsing back to its bad old ways of autocratic rule. In the event, President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s exit turned out to be even more dramatic than that of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators. He was attacked while actually praying in a mosque...
Read my article on the turmoil in Yemen and its geopolitical implications, published by the Moscow think tank Strategic Culture Foundation.

US breathes life into a new cold war

2011-06-06T03:24:00.000-07:00

The gathering storms presage that a new cold war will be largely fought in the South Asian region. Just as the Greek Titan god Prometheus was released from captivity, the United States is being "released" from the chains of Afghanistan and is pursuing with renewed vigor its Eurasian energy strategy. A Russian-Chinese initiative to embrace Pakistan and India could deal a devastating blow to the US' drive, coupled with tapping into Turkmenistan's massive gas reserves. Read my article in Asia Times...

Gates's farewell call on Afghans

2011-06-05T03:07:00.000-07:00

Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defence, paid his farewell call Saturday on Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul before he demits office next month. Amongst the entire AfPak team in Washington, Gates acquitted himself the best. He was conscious of Afghan traditions and sensitivities and never talked down like a viceroy, and he kept out of controversies and ego clashes with the Afghan eladership. He tried to look at problems from the Afghan viewpoint as well.

Gates' visit took place against a dramatic backdrop - killing of Osama bin Laden and Ilyas Kashmiri, Taliban-US direct contacts, Pak-Afghan bonhomie, and US drawdown in July. The press conference with Hamid Karzai threw up a few salients. One, neither Gates nor Karzai would be drawn into any criticism of Pakistan. Obviously, US is in 'damage control' mode and Karzai is preparing for his next visit to Islamabad. Pakistan is manifestly courting Karzai.

Two, Gates took a 'wait-and-see approach' when asked about the impact of the killing of bin Laden on Taliban. He spoke about a 'personal relationship' between bin Laden and Omar rather than an al-Qaeda-Taliban nexus. Karzai, on the contrary, was hopeful that Taliban would be more open to reconciliation.

Three, Gates repeatedly claimed that US operations have reversed Taliban momentum, but Karzai remained silent. On the other hand, Karzai forcefully complained about excesses of NATO operations. Karzai insisted that the transition should be through mutual consultations and it is not only a matter of transfer of security responsibility, but also an obligation to dismantle the parallel power structures the western powers created in the provinces bypassing Kabul's authority. A sharp observation, indeed.

Finally, it seems the draft strategic partnership agreement Kabul has handed over to Washington regarding long-term US presence would require more negotiations to meet US expectations. Karzai called it nicely as a 'mutual document of interests'. He justified its raison d'etre somewhat curiously as providing for Afghanistan protection from 'any far or close interferences'. But he didn't insist on seeking Afghan parliament's approval for it or on consultations with regional powers. He put his weight behind the strategic agreement and saw it as in the mutual interests of Afghanistan and US. Gates' silence was deafening.

Russia's Libya role irks China

2011-06-03T02:57:00.000-07:00

Russia's u-turn in support of the United States claim in Libya that Muammar Gaddafi must go shows United States-Russia discourse is becoming distinctly conciliatory. While the change of heart leaves China frustrated that Russia has effectively dumped a "joint cooperation" project on the Middle East, on final reckoning, Libya is just a blip in the relationship. When you draw the balance sheet, Barack Obama is the sure winner. Read my article in the Asia Times...

Don't lose sleep over Sino-Pak bonhomie

2011-05-31T22:44:00.000-07:00

Watching China's rapid rise has become a national pastime for the media and strategic community in India and a range of complex feelings plays out against a vast backdrop of adversarial sentiments overlapping with admiration, an inadmissible sense of envy bordering on unspoken rivalry and indeed inchoate apprehensions. China is not the first country in history to stand up and start walking brusquely toward greater destiny and it is marvellous to watch such contemporaneous moments but it is critical China's rites of passage are properly understood. Something that troubles us is China's relationship with Pakistan...
Read my article in Mail Today on the transforming 'all-weather friendship' between China and Pakistan and its implications for India.

France BRICS up emerging economies

2011-05-31T02:06:00.000-07:00

Russia, India and China, core members of the BRICS grouping also comprising Brazil and South Africa, have joined with Western countries that have closed ranks and staked their claim in unseemly hurry to keep the top International Monetary Fund job as their exclusive preserve, in the form of French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde. The saga has badly bruised BRICS and dented its credibility. Read my article in Asia Times on how the BRICS countries easily capitulated when confronted with the western challenge for the top post in the International Monetary Fund...

Two US visions of Sunni-Shia politics in Middle East

2011-05-28T11:18:00.000-07:00

The failure on the part of US President Barack Obama to press ahead with the agenda of his Cairo speech of 2009 distracted attention from his singular contribution to rescuing the US regional policies from the intellectual tyranny of Bernard Lewis. Obama did open the doors and windows and has been receptive to new thinking regarding Islamism and the problems of the Muslim world. That was how Vali Nasr walked in. When I wrote the article in Asia Times last week titled Decoding Obama's Bahrain Puzzle, frankly, I was having Nasr's classic work The Shia Revival as my compass.

Lewis of course did great damage to the US's Middle East policy by advocating that America's geopolitical interests lay in exploiting Shia-Sunni sectarianism in the Middle East by putting together a phalanx of Sunni Arab states, which would be natural allies of Israel, and thereupon to confront Iran. Lewis wove an entire thesis toward this political end by portraying the Iranian Shias as essentially Persians who by being Indo-Aryans are inherently hostile to Jews - unlike the Arab Sunnis including the Wahhabis. The edifice that Lewis erected was on weak foundations and it lies in complete ruins today -- and alongside the debris of US regional policies -- and the Arab Spring will ensure that the edifice can never be made habitable again.

Today, much of what Nasr wrote and spoke about over the years stands vindicated. There is great validity in Nasr's assessment that:
A) Since 1991, Sunni militancy, and not Iranian Shi'ism, has been the ideological force animating Islamic activism.
B) Militant Sunni forces are growing in prominence as the expression of Sunni frustration.
C) Sunni miltancy and Wahhabi activism pose the greatest danger to US interests.
D) Shia revolutionary activism, on the other hand, is essentially a spent force.
E) Iraq - and not Iran - will be the first country to become openly Shia.
F) The Shia revival in Iraq may well lead to other regime changes in the region.
G) The US cannot, perhaps, afford to openly embrace the Shia revival without alienating many in the Arab world.
H) However, the challenge of Sunni militancy coupled with the promise of change brought about by the reemergence of Shia political influence in the Middle East demands new US thinking and policy toward Islam and the challenge of Islamic activism.

Many of Nasr's ideas, it was apparent to the initiated, were struggling to surface in Obama's great speech in Cairo. (Remember Obama's historic 'apology' for the overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddegh in the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat in Tehran in 1953?) But everything went astray in the period since then due to the realities of power politics in Washington. It seems highly unlikely that in his first presidency at least, Obama, being an astute politician, will push the envelope.

Nonetheless, there are occasional flashes of Nasr's thinking on US - like a lighthouse on a stormy sea that is malfunctioning. An important template here concerns the Shia-Sunni strife in the Middle East. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece last week tangentially touching on this. It analyses how continued Saudi efforts to rally Sunni countries to form a bloc against Iran (by rallying countries as diverse as Pakistan and Malaysia) "signal increasing friction with the Obama administration".

Alas, the WSJ piece was more on the lookout for the trees and may have missed the woods, but nonetheless it makes a few points of interest for Indian geo-strategy - such as this, for example: "The Saudi overture in Pakistan is a sign of how diplomatic friction in two distinct regions — the Middle East on one hand and Afghanistan and Pakistan on the other — could make it harder for the U.S. to pursue its goals of ending the conflict in Afghanistan, stabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan, limiting Iran's power and keeping a lid on violent turmoil in the Mideast."

Of course, the Saudis are not going to be deterred by the Obama administration's lack of enthusiasm for resurrecting the discredited regional strategy based on Muslim sectarianism. The US needs to factor in that the new Iraq, which is arguably its legacy in many ways, is destined to play a lead role in the politics of the region sooner rather than later. Indeed, Iraq is raring to go and the Shi'ite empowerment in Iraq constitutes the cornerstones of the country's democratic system and, as Bernard Shaw would say, its "life force" itself.

Equally, the new Egypt will not have a relapse, either, as it moves on to a new plane of secular politics built on Arab nationalism and non-alignment. Last week, Saudis extended a 4 billion-dollar soft loan to the military leadership in Cairo as "inducement" for not accelerating the improvement of Egypt's relations with Iran -- and for not being too hard on Hosni Mubarak, who, of course, was a votary of Lewis.

Elaraby brings the new Middle Eastern narrative

2011-05-28T01:07:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it can happen in life or in politics that a little aside in the heat of the moment gives the game away -- the fog lifts leaving a clear 100-metre stretch ahead visible. One such moment came up in Cairo on Friday when Omar Suleiman broke down and 'confessed'. Imagine the poignancy of the moment when you betray the man to whom you owed everything. Like Assadullah Sarwari betraying Hafizullah Amin or Lavrenti Beria and Josef Stalin.

Suleiman, Egypt's dreaded spymaster, told the prosecutors in Cairo yesterday that he didn't do a thing that was out of turn and all those killings on Tahrir Square were undertaken at the instance of Hosni Mubarak. He said Mubarak knew of every bullet that was fired and that he gave him hourly accounts of what impact those bullets had.

It is an ancient game - the blame game. Suleiman can't account easily for all the blood on his hands that the waters in the Nile river can't wash away, and the sensible thing to do is to pass the buck to Mubarak. He also knows that there is an extraordinary revolutionary storm building up outside the cell where he is detained with the masses insisting that the military, the arch-reactionary segment of any society, must obey the will of the people and must craft policies so that Egypt's tormented soul is calmed.

And the fact of the matter is that the military is obeying. The Rafah crossing with Gaza is being permanently opened today. The Palestinians are no more under blockade! And Israel can't do anything about it. The Egyptian military is pressing ahead with the Palestinian unity pact despite protests by Israel, and ignoring Barack Obama's strictures.

Without doubt, Nabil Elaraby, Egypt's foreign minister - who is choreographing Egypt's new 'partnership' with US, is untying the security ties with Israel and re-engaging his country with Arab brotherhood, and is forging ties with Iran - arrives in Delhi today. Elaraby is a rare scholar-diplomat and will have many heart-throbbing, intellectually stimulating, utterly spell-binding things to narrate to the Indian leadership. And yet, our media and think tankers seem unaware who Elaraby is. They are full of the US Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Not a word about Elaraby! Aren't they like frogs in a well croaking at the sliver of sky above and thinking that is all that the firmament is about? The Indian foreign policy establishment which reached out to Elaraby is once again outstripping our intelligentsia and making the latter appear rather pedestrian.

IMF job: China stoic, India cagey, Russia acrobatic

2011-05-27T11:06:00.000-07:00

Dominique Strauss-Kahn cannot become the president of France. But, equally, his contribution to the making of the world order will exceed Nicolas Sarkozy's. The manner in which he quit his job at the IMF triggered the scramble that followed, which, in turn, has brought into focus the fault lines in the international system. But for Strauss-Kahn, the birth pangs of a multipolar world struggling to be born wouldn't have surged.

The heart of the matter is that despite the universal homilies that the world order needs to be democratized, when the crunch time came, the western countries rapidly closed ranks and staked their claim in unseemly hurry to keep the IMF job as their exclusive preserve. It is, literally, the West versus the Rest. The US traditionally headed the World Bank and Europe the IMF. The West simply can't contemplate any other way the world financial system can be run.

But the crudity of the western attempt to hustle the election to the IMF post by June 10 and to draw up the schedule of election almost unilaterally in a weekend meeting without even giving time for all executive directors to assemble in Washington indeed came as a rude shock for the "non-Western" countries, BRICS countries in particular. Thus followed their joint statement on Wednesday calling for abandoning the "obsolete unwritten convention that requires that the head of the IMF be necessarily from Europe" and for observing the commitment made in 2007 at the time of selection of Strauss-Kahn by the Euro group that "the next managing director will certainly not be a European" and that "in the Euro group and among EU finance ministers, everyone is aware that Strauss-Kahn will probably be the last European to become director of the IMF in the foreseeable future".

Within BRICS, all eyes are on China and India. (Japan is indifferent despite holding the second largest shares.) Can China and India tango although they have shared interests? That's the big question. China has taken an unusually noisy stance. All three major Chinese newspapers carried editorials/commentaries. The Xinhua commentary which was carried by People's Daily and China Daily expressed satisfaction that the statement is "a much-needed example of coordination among these leading emerging economies". It exhorted the BRICS countries to be "more confident in asserting their common position, even if that may annoy others". The commentary was in a self-congratulatory mood and appeared more about the BRICS having come of age than about the IMF becoming senile.

In comparison, the Global Times featured a forceful editorial attacking the "backroom deal between Europe and the US to respectively head the IMF and the World Bank". It said: "Dominating the global financial layout, the US and Europe are grabbing colossal benefits in international labor division." It explained candidly that China has been pragmatic to join hands with the BRICS as alone it lacked the clout to put up a fight against the western dominance. "Besides, due to historical and practical reasons, BRICS countries still have misunderstandings and divergences among themselves, which may be taken advantage of by the US and Europe to disintegrate the group. However, by issuing the joint statement, the BRICS have initiated a protracted battle to oppose Western financial dominance."

In sum, China recognizes that "It may take a few decades before the BRICS are able to bring substantial changes to the ingrained financial order... It is still early to stress the status of the BRICS members in the IMF... Their latest joint statement is but the beginning." China is not even cautiously optimistic about a candidate from the emerging economies making it to the top job in IMF at this juncture. China is obviously playing for the long haul and, meanwhile, thrilled that BRICS finally put its hat in the ring on a major international issue.

Is it that China is waiting for India to take the lead? Contrast this with the Indian Indian optimism. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in New Delhi on Thursday, "I am in touch with some of the finance ministers of developing countries and emerging economies… We are trying to consolidate our position where we can take a view."

But then, India is also speaking in many voices. India’s executive director in the IMF Arvind Virmani said on Wednesday: “Unless the voting shares which various countries hold in the IMF are changed to reflect new economic realities, it is going to be extremely difficult for any non-European candidate to win the election." Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seems to concur with Virmani's note of resignation. Singh told the India-Africa summit in Addis Ababa that developing countries must stand united in pushing reforms at the World Bank and the IMF to change the power structure in Bretton Woods institutions. However he admitted, "Those who wield power do not wish to yield ground very easily,” and bringing about change in these two institutions was a long drawn process.

Manmohan Singh and Virmani seem to agree with the hard-nosed Chinese assessment. So, is Mukherjee grandstanding? It is all becoming a bit confusing. The confusion is further compounded by the report that India’s commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma met Christine Lagarde, French finance minister, in Paris on Thursday and during the meeting she raised the issue of her candidature for the post of IMF chief. Sharma apparently made it clear that “India looks at it as part of the larger process of reforms at IMF. The selection process has to be transparent, consultative and participative”, an Indian official travelling with him has been quoted as saying.

Some may deduce from what Sharma said that India probably has a candidate in mind. After all, Mukherjee is a veteran diplomat who never says anything out of place. Is it that Delhi doesn't consider Lagarde's candidature as a done thing yet? Indeed, there is some justification to hold back endorsement of the European candidate. There are lots of dissonant voices even in the western opinion calling into question Lagarde's candidature. Some very pertinent questions have been raised about the implications of Lagarde heading the IMF.

Lagarde hopes to visit Delhi as soon as she gets a date. The intriguing part is that Sarkozy himself refused to bring up Lagarde's candidature at the G-8 summit that he hosted on May 26-27. Sarkozy not only parried but spoke somewhat impatiently. Rather uncharacteristic of the up-front personality who simply grabs anything he sets his sights on, isn't it?

Confusion galore! Russian President Dmitry Medvedev claimed subsequently that the G-8 summit at Deauville indeed reached a "consensus" on the IMF election. He didn't divulge details. More important, was Russia part of that "consensus"? If so, where does it leave BRICS, whose most ardent advocate is of course Russia? Maybe, the Chinese who are a wise people could foresee all this happening. Maybe, the Indians, too. Both are ancient peoples. But I still think the last word hasn't yet been said. Mukherjee seldom goes wrong.

Middle East rift mars US-Russia 'reset'

2011-05-25T03:21:00.000-07:00

Russian moves to reassure an embattled Syrian leadership and enthusiasm for the Hamas-Fatah pact are further damaging a United States-Russia "reset" already deadlocked on missile defense. Moscow has watched aghast as the Western desire for regime change that it effectively sanctioned unfolds in Libya, and it cannot allow a similar fate to fall upon Damascus. The rift over the Arab Spring underpins the retreat of the "reset" that is already visible. Read my article on the prospects of the US-Russia presidential diplomacy at the G-8 at Deauville om Thursday.

How can Osama bin Laden ever die?

2011-05-24T22:24:00.000-07:00

In all the annals of the savage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this hasn't happened before -- a former United States Congresswoman reporting right from the Inferno on the war crimes by the western powers against the hapless peoples of the Muslim Middle East. Cynthia McKinney happened to be in Tripoli when the NATO aircraft carried out their heaviest bombing on the Libyan capital in the 2-month long war.

At least 19 people were killed in the attack on Tuesday. Libyan news agency Jana said targets hit by NATO included a Tripoli mosque called Nuri Bani. A NATO official described the Tuesday's early strike as "the most concentrated to date". Unsurprisingly, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that the NATO bombing campaign was making progress and should achieve its objectives within months. France had said earlier that it would deploy attack helicopters along with Britain to ensure more precise attacks.

But this is how McKinney saw the "most concentrated attack" by NATO:

"A civilian metropolitan area of around 2 million people, Tripoli sustained 22 to 25 bombings last night, rattling and breaking windows and glass and shaking the foundation of my hotel.

"I left my room at the Rexis Al Nasr Hotel and walked outside the hotel and I could smell the exploded bombs. There were local people everywhere milling with foreign journalists from around the world. As we stood there more bombs struck around the city. The sky flashed red with explosions and more rockets from NATO jets cut through low cloud before exploding.

"I could taste the thick dust stirred up by the exploded bombs. I immediately thought about the depleted uranium munitions reportedly being used here--along with white phosphorus. If depleted uranium weapons were being used what affect on the local civilians?

"Women carrying young children ran out of the hotel. Others ran to wash the dust from their eyes. With sirens blaring, emergency vehicles made their way to the scene of the attack. Car alarms, set off by the repeated blasts, could be heard underneath the defiant chants of the people.

"Sporadic gunfire broke out and it seemed everywhere around me. Euronews showed video of nurses and doctors chanting even at the hospitals as they treated those injured from NATO's latest installation of shock and awe. Suddenly, the streets around my hotel became full of chanting people, car horns blowing, I could not tell how many were walking, how many were driving. Inside the hotel, one Libyan woman carrying a baby came to me and asked me why are they doing this to us?

"Whatever the military objectives of the attack (and I and many others question the military value of these attacks) the fact remains the air attack was launched a major city packed with hundreds of thousands of civilians.

"I did wonder too if the any of the politicians who had authorized this air attack had themselves ever been on the receiving end of laser guided depleted uranium munitions. Had they ever seen the awful damage that these weapons do a city and its population? Perhaps if they actually been in the city of air attack and felt the concussion from these bombs and saw the mayhem caused they just might not be so inclined to authorize an attack on a civilian population.

"I am confident that NATO would not have been so reckless with human life if they had called on to attack a major western city. Indeed, I am confident that would not be called upon ever to attack a western city. NATO only attacks (as does the US and its allies) the poor and underprivileged of the 3rd world...

"I was horrified to learn that NATO allies (the Rebels) in Libya have reportedly lynched, butchered and then their darker-skinned compatriots after U.S. press reports labeled Black Libyans as "Black mercenaries." Now, tell me this, pray tell. How are you going to take Blacks out of Africa? Press reports have suggested that Americans were "surprised" to see dark-skinned people in Africa. Now, what does that tell us about them?"

Is this happening under Barack Obama's watch? Can't believe he ever penned a sad memoir titled "Dreams from My Father". Did he really grow up in Indonesia? Can't believe he is the son of an extraordinary woman. Most certainly, he can't be half-African himself? And, indeed, how can he ever kill Osama bin Laden? Barack Obama was lying: Bin Laden will never die. Bin Laden resurrected himself in Tripoli last night. Amen. Read McKinney's Dispatch from Tripoli.

Beware of the crocodiles in Africa

2011-05-23T23:28:00.000-07:00

All Indian eyes are on Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh –- as if he fills the whole of Africa with his towering presence. But Africa is a huge continent and no one can be the monarch of all he surveys. The distance between Addis Ababa in the heart of Africa and Abidjan on the west coast alone makes about 7000 kilometers, which is twice the travel route from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram. Africa could contain quite a few colonial powers at the same time in the 19th and 20th centuries – Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Holland.

But Dr. Singh has no pretensions. To borrow an expression from an Indian official accompanying Dr. Singh, there is “enough space” for many outside powers to simultaneously pursue their agenda in Africa. While Dr. Singh’s prime ministerial aircraft was descending on Addis, another distinguished visitor was taking off from Abidjan – French president Nikolas Sarkozy. Their missions present a study in contrast and give a timely warning to the Indian policymaker. Sarkozy went as a conquering hero who deployed French forces to effect a transfer of power in Cote d’Ivoire. What an irony -- military power to enforce the outcome of a democratic election! Dr. Singh, on the contrary, arrived in Addis showering petals of goodwill in a continent where Gandhiji understood the magical powers of non-violence.

To go back to the Indian official, what he said is absolutely true – “The West is setting up Africa as a zone of contention. They want to pit India against China. They want us to be at each other’s throat. But this is not the 1885 Congress of Berlin where European powers decided to scramble for African resources.” From the tenor of his intellect, one can identify the Indian diplomat as someone with a scholarly sense of modern history. The point is, history never quite ended in Africa with the national liberation struggles of the 1950s. The flow of history merely got punctuated and the struggle for outside domination merely took new forms as Cold War picked up. The rivalries somewhat eased when the bipolar world gave way. A respite followed but in retrospect it hardly lasted for a couple of decades.

Today, the big power rivalries are picking up. China’s rise and its growing profile in Africa has given a new dimension to the continent’s politics. For the first time in modern history, western world is facing a real “challenger”. Conversely put, the dreaded moment is fast arriving for the West when the African countries may insist on negotiating for optimal deals and equitable partnerships. China increasingly presents a “strategic option” for the countries of Africa to diversify their partnerships that the West hitherto arrogated as its monopoly. This is the quintessence of the big power struggle building up in Africa.

The remarks by the Indian official suggest that Delhi grasps the geopolitical realities in good measure – and, more important, India is crafting its “non-aligned” path. He noted that the large Chinese presence in Africa was mostly focused on infrastructure, raw materials and extractive industries and was concentrated in major projects and ventures. Whereas, India’s main strength lies in another domain. “We feel there is enough space for India and what it is good at, especially capacity-building, skills development and training”. He punctured the western attempts at “divide-and-rule” by underscoring that the West and its Indian pundits (who are either infected with the “anti-China" virus or smitten by the “pro-American" bug) are barking up the wrong tree by caricaturing that China is “outsmarting” India in Africa. On the other hand, the reality, he said, is that China and India are adopting different approaches in their engagement with Africa. “Africa has tremendous economic potential. It’s a continent on the move. For us, it’s an opportunity, and for the rest of the world also it is an opportunity.”

Well said. The heart of the matter is that the prosperity of the western world has crucially depended through the entire period since the industrial revolution in Europe on the transfer of wealth from the colonies and this paradigm has merely taken new forms today. Cheap raw materials and captive markets in Africa are integral to the sustenance of prosperity of the stagnant western economies. Delhi will do well to sense that it may even have shared interests with China insofar as India is bound to come up against the very same western pressure tactic that China is facing today when its upward progression on the ladder of economic growth continues at the present rate. Make no mistake about it that there is no question of the western world graciously making way for India all because it is a functioning democracy. History is replete with the carcasses and bleached bones of imperial ambitions.

A telling example is just unfolding right in front of us with Europe feverishly insisting that there is no way it will hand over the top executive position in the IMF to some upstart from India or China. The tacit understanding in the euro-Atlantic discourse through the past few decades has been that World Bank would be headed by an American and IMF by a European. Period. The brusqueness with which Europe is now asserting its claim testifies to the reality that when it comes to holding the main levers of economic power – be it in the Middle East or in Africa – the West will never willingly share in a spirit of partnership.

What should really worry India is that if the push comes to a shove, the West may use military power to assert its prerogatives. Libya is an unfolding scenario. The African swamp is full of crocodiles, indeed. Sarkozy was fairly explicit that the West will not hesitate to interfere in Africa’s internal affairs if its interests are in jeopardy. Sarkozy’s vision is diametrically opposite India’s. A pattern is emerging. In the Middle East and Africa, through the Cold War era, the West gave an ideological veneer to its agenda of dominance by pitting communism as the antithesis. Today, what is unfolding is the banner of “democracy” – and in the name of advancing freedom and human rights, the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” is being dusted up. Sarkozy is a no-nonsense type statesman and he bluntly said, “This is the new Africa policy that we shall adopt, and it’s an international policy”. Was he speaking on behalf of Dr. Singh as well? I doubt it.

Decoding Obama's Bahrain puzzle

2011-05-23T02:22:00.000-07:00

Put the puzzle of Barack Obama's selective contemplation of the Arab Spring together and Iran comes into sharp relief. The mild rebuke for the crown prince of Bahrain is part of a bigger picture that, with other pieces, suggests the United States president believes democratic Shi'ite empowerment in Bahrain and Iraq could create a "fusion" to overthrow an Islamic regime in Tehran that even now is circling its wagons. Read my article in Asia Times on the geopolitics of Shi'ite empowerment in Baghdad.

Catching American spies makes good politics

2011-05-22T08:46:00.000-07:00

The announcement in Tehran Saturday that the "skillful and faithful forces of the Intelligence Ministry have arrested 30 American spies in a strong confrontation with the CIA agents" has an ominous ring about it.

The statement said: "Due to the massive intelligence and counter-intelligence work by Iranian intelligence agents, a complex espionage and sabotage network linked to America's spy organization was uncovered and dismantled. Elite agents of the intelligence ministry in their confrontation with the CIA elements were able to arrest 30 America-linked spies through numerous intelligence and counter-intelligence operations. The network used a wide range of data bases and U.S. embassies and consulates in several countries, specially in the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia and Turkey, to collect information on Iran's scientific, research and academic institutions in the fields of nuclear energy, air and defense industries and biotechnology." Fars news agency subsequently quoted 'sources' that the detainees included government officials and top executives of state-owned companies.

Spy trials in Iran often get intertwined with the Byzantine politics in the corridors of power in Tehran and Qom. Influential politicians from the Majlis (parliament) have rushed to congratulate the Intelligence Ministry.

The Majlis is fast emerging as a counterpoint to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's authority. What lends piquancy is also that the Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi, a senior cleric, is himself the focal point of what appears to be a grim power struggle within the regime. Ahmadinejad sacked him last month as part of government infighting, but the minister was immediately reinstated by supreme leader Ali Khamenei. A cat-and-mouse game ensued with Ahmadinejad boycotting Cabinet sessions and Khamenei’s loyalists warning Ahmadinejad he was skating on thin ice by challenging the ruling system dominated by the religious establishment. Moslehi used to be Khamenei's representative to the Basij, Iran's 13-million strong volunteer army.

And catching the American spies brings Moslehi into limelight as a faithful guardian of the regime. The political implication is at once obvious. The conservatives and hardliners of the regime have turned against Ahmadinejad and in a series of moves, the religious establishment has launched pinpoint strikes at the president with the intent of weakening him before next year’s parliamentary elections and the vote for his successor in 2013.

This has been a rough Saturday for Ahmedinejad. His trusted vice-president Hamid Baqaei was removed from office by the constitutional court. Another of his closest aides was arrested. The Guardian Council ruled on Saturday that Ahmadnejad was not empowered to hold charge of the oil ministry, which is a treasure house of perks and patronage (and a vast cesspool of corruption and sleaze). Evidently, the clerics want to regain control of the oil ministry from where the president systematically ousted them during the past 4-5 year period.

At least 25 people loyal to Ahmadinejad, including his close confidant Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei (who is also the president's chief of staff), have been arrested in recent weeks and half a dozen websites allied to them have been blocked. Mashaei and Baqaei have been summoned for questioning twice in recent days by Iran’s intelligence services to respond to questions on financial and security matters. Hardliners and conservative clergy have been campaigning in recent months that Ahmadinejad has a master plan to weaken the the ruling Islamic system - Velayat-e Faqih - and shape politics on secular lines. Earlier this week, an ultraconservative publication urged Mashaei’s arrest.

Now, it is against a turbulent backdrop of political infighting that the spy trial will take place. The night of the long knives may be beginning all over again. At the root of it all lies the paradox that Ahmadinejad is Iran's first non-cleric as president. But the roots of the schism run deep and can be traced to the early days of the revolution in 1979.

Ahmadinejad is a follower of Ali Shariati, the brilliant non-cleric Iranian revolutionary and sociologist who propagated “red Shi’ism” in the tumultuous years leading to the revolution in 1979 – a curious amalgam of Marxism, Third Worldism and Islamic puritanism – which opposed the unrevolutionary “black Shi’ism” or Savafid Shi’ism of the Iranian religious establishment. Shariati who was trained in Sorbonne and was a friend of Jean-Paul Sartre, was murdered in 1975 under mysterious circumstances, most likely by the Shah's intelligence, when he was undergoing medical treatment in UK. Indeed, Shariati was the true ideologue of the Iranian revolution who fired up the Iranian youth (like Ahmadinejad) with his emphasis on social justice and egalitarianism and his progressive analysis of the problems of Muslim societies with the tools of modern sociology and philosophy. It was his name that the multitude of Iranian students pouring out into the heaving streets of Tehran chanted in unison in those chaotic weeks leading to the revolution. But in the event, with his early death (at the age of 42), the Iranian clerics in league with the bazaar hijacked the revolution from its leftist moorings.

Without doubt, the power struggle in Tehran will have profound significance for both Iranian and regional politics. Ahmadinejad instinctively warmed up to the revolution in Egypt. The conservatives and hardliners, on the other hand, would feel more comfortable with the Saudi regime. But at the end of the day, ideology becomes secondary to the lure of power and privileges and the Shi'ite clergy is notorious for intriguing. Don't be surprised if tomorrow we wake up hearing that the spy ring that Moslehi unraveled has since exposed that the government headed by Ahmadinejad secretly worked for the Americans and "Zionists".

Obama tries to harness Arab revolution

2011-05-21T03:08:00.000-07:00

If one were to describe United States President Barack Obama’s long-awaited policy speech on the upheaval in the Middle East, it is best done in the hackneyed phrase – ‘old wine in new bottle’. The US hopes to harness the Arab Spring to perpetuate its geopolitical dominance in the Middle East. Obama’s speech betrays that the US’ interests invariably trump its professed ‘values'. The Arabs will see through the high-flown rhetoric and comprehend that the US is desperately trying to wrest control of their revolution. Read my article published by the Strategic Culture Foundation, Moscow think tank.

Incremental progess in India-Sri Lanka ties

2011-05-20T01:12:00.000-07:00

The mission by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister G. L. Peiris to Delhi this week had the primary objective of seeking India’s support for Colombo’s rejection of the controversial UN experts’ report on war crimes. India, however, seems inclined to take a holistic view of the Sri Lankan situation and is counselling an expeditious approach toward national reconciliation on the basis of a genuine give-and-take and a long-term vision that leads to a just settlement of the Tamil problem. Colombo seems receptive. Peiris drew satisfaction that India showed ‘empathy’ and ‘understanding’. Read my article on India-Sri Lanka relations in today’s Deccan Herald newspaper.

Syria's future hangs by thin thread

2011-05-18T23:11:00.000-07:00

At his press conference in Moscow Wednesday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev put up a ring of "constructive ambiguity" on what Moscow would actually do faced with a western-sponsored resolution in the UN Security Council on Syria similar to Resolution in 1973 on Libya, which the Kremlin today says has been unilaterally misinterpreted by the West for intervening in the North African country. According to the Russian press, Medvedev said: "I will not back this resolution even if my friends are going to beg me to. It is sad that these resolutions can be manipulated."

What is pertinent is that Medvedev parried the fundamental question: Will Russia go the extent of vetoing a resolution on Syria (which is being mooted by Britain, France and Germany and with US support) or will it repeat its previous show of abstention on R-1973? This is going to be a litmus test of the state of play in Moscow's policies towards the West - and indeed of the lay of the land in world politics. Russia today says it was caught unaware by R-1973's scope for "manipulation". But will that rich experience of hindsight about western perfidy guide the Kremlin to point blank say 'nyet' to a vote on Syria? Or, will it again choose to be pragmatic - and simply moralise? Other non-western UNSC members such as India and Brazil too will be taking stock of Russia's example.

Medvedev is meeting Barack Obama at the G-20 later this month. The US will certainly propose some trade-offs for accommodating Moscow's grievances regarding deployment of ABM systems in Europe. Will Syria be a big-ticket item in the basket of trade-offs? For Russia, selling Syria down the drain of a western-sponsored "regime-change" route will be a bitter pill to take. Russian interests go quite deep in Syria. The entire Middle East will be watching since Syria is also a traditional ally of Russia. Most important, China will be watching. Beijing may oppose a western move on Syria only to the extent Moscow is willing to go in the Security Council. That is to say, the so-called Sino-Russian "joint cooperation" over the Middle East and North Africa, too, is in the western crosshairs.

Meanwhile, France claims it is close to winning the baseline support of 9 UN SC member countries for the resolution on Syria, which means it will sail through unless Russia or China casts a veto.

99.9% purity in Sino-Russian strategic ties

2011-05-18T03:09:00.000-07:00

In terms of diplomatic idiom and style, the remarks by the Chinese ambassador to Russia Li Hui during a meeting with Russian parliamentarians in Moscow on Tuesday are noteworthy. Chinese diplomats are highly professional and the margin of error in articulation and conduct is virtually 'nil'. According to Interfax news agency, Li told the Russian MPs that China "sees Russia as its main strategic partner,"; that "the extent our cooperation has reached an unprecedentedly high mark,"; and, that "our contacts continue to become stronger and expand in many directions."

Li said 2011 is a special year as it marks the 10th anniversary of a treaty on strategic partnership between the two countries. He added: "This document holds a unique place in the foreign policy of our two countries. In other words, it is gold of the highest purity, 99.9%." He said, "In international affairs we stand shoulder to shoulder, as the saying goes, and we hold similar positions on many key issues, whether it is the situation in North Africa, in the Middle East or in some other countries. By achieving definitive and complete solutions to border disputes, our countries eliminated the latent danger for the further positive development of their cooperation."

These remarks cannot but be seen against the backdrop of the US-Russia reset coming under duress lately and the Chinese rhetoric about the US taking a sharp turn after last week's strategic dialogue in Washington. The Russian and Chinese foreign ministers met twice during the past fortnight - at Moscow and in Almaty during the SCO FM conference.

Beijing is closely watching the US-Russia talks on missile defence and the unilateral US deployments of ABM systems in Poland and Romania disregarding Moscow's protests. President Dmitry Medvedev at his press conference today in Moscow - first of its kind in his presidency - kept up the Russian warning that Moscow will respond to the US deployments in NATO territories. He said Russia will boost its nuclear strike capabilities if NATO refuses to cooperate with Moscow in the European missile defense project. "I hope that they [NATO] would respond to the questions put forward by President Barack Obama and me, and we will be able to forge a missile defense cooperation model. If we don't, then we will have to take retaliatory measures... then we will have to force the development of our strike nuclear potential. It would be a very bad scenario, this scenario will take us back to the Cold War era," Medvedev added.

Medvedev not only didn't soften the tone of Moscow rhetoric on ABM, he used the expression "retaliatory" and invoked Cold-War era confrontation. People's Daily has featured two commentaries within a week attacking the Barack Obama administration. The first one visualised that the departure of two "China hands" in the administration -- James Steinberg, the deputy secretary of state, and Jeffrey A. Bader, senior director for Asian Affairs on the National Security Council - who are both considered "China-friendly", would lead to a "more forceful" and "more aggressive" policy toward China, which is advocated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Kurt Campbell, the assistant secretary.

Today, PD carried another unusual commentary singling out Clinton for attack. It took umbrage at Clinton's remark to Atlantic magazine that Beijing is worried about a Middle-East type upheaval erupting in China - "They're worried, and they are trying to stop history, which is a fool's errand." PD hit back saying her "undignified comments" were lacking in "diplomatic etiquette" and that "US is always finding fault with China, considering the core of its global strategies is to prevent other powers from elevating to a level enough to challenge its otherwise overwhelming superiority. Now that China has grown up to be the world's No. 2 economy, the U.S. would naturally keep a vigilant eye on it, fearing China would one day overtake and replace it."

Without doubt, there is a momentum building toward Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Russia in mid-June.

Moscow steps up rhetoric over ABM in Romania

2011-05-17T10:00:00.000-07:00

Moscow has escalated its rhetoric by several notches over the United States' strategic build-up in Romania and in the Black Sea region. Moscow warned that Washington is putting at risk the US-Russia reset in relations. Speaking at the Duma [Parliament] on Tuesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov underlined that if Washington continues to develop the European ABM system by disregarding Russia's concerns, START accord will be in jeopardy.

"The establishment of the ABM system in Europe, which threatens Russia’s security, may be recognized as an exceptional circumstance for Russia’s withdrawal from the strategic arms reduction treaty. We think it is necessary to sign a juridically binding agreement between Russia and the US which set the principles and the limits of interaction on the European ABM system and makes it possible to organize efficient monitoring of missile threats," Ryabkov said.

From present indications, Washington has no intentions of acceding to Moscow's demand to conclude a "juridically binding agreement". Secretary of Defence Robert Gates pointed out recently that the US Congress won’t ratify such an agreement. Gates instead suggested “political guarantees” to Russia. But then, Moscow knows from experience that such "political guarantees" are worthless. The most celebrated case was the West's assurance to Mikhail Gorbachev that once the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, NATO wouldn't move eastward "an inch".

Equally, it is highly unlikely Moscow will pull out of START, since the accords allow Russia to retain "strategic balance" with the US. Washington knows it, too. If so, why is Moscow escalating the rhetoric? One explanation could be that Moscow is grandstanding with the hope of extracting some measurable progress at the expert-level talks regarding cooperation between Russia and US and NATO over missile defence. Moscow no doubt feels frustrated that the talks are stalling and the US and NATO are quietly going ahead with the ABM deployments in the meanwhile. The ABM will figure during the meeting between Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama at the G8 summit later this month in Deauville.

What remains to be seen is the extent of any US-Russian trade-offs at Deauville. Washington is in need of cooperative attitude from Moscow on certain key foreign policy issues -- Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, etc. Washington knows Russians are usually pragmatic in closed-door talks. Medvedev, in particular, is a staunch votary of the reset in US-Russia relations. He also needs to display the success of the reset. It suits the Obama administration to resort to a policy of masterly inactivity and let reset drift a while and then throw in some trade-offs. Medvedev's scheduled press conference in Moscow on Wednesday will throw some light on how far the Kremlin is prepared to go to press its case.

US flexes muscle in the Black Sea

2011-05-17T02:20:00.000-07:00

The United States agreement to deploy missile interceptors in Romania in return for two military transit bases on the Black Sea region has the Russian strategic community up in arms as US anti-missile defenses would break the regional power balance. There is historical poignancy that the Black Sea ceases to be a Russian “lake” – since the Biblical times, in fact. The geopolitics of a wide arc leading all the way from the Balkans to Central Asia will never be the same. In the "chronicles of the new great game", it's no coincidence Moscow is also reviving the Soviet-style "mutually beneficial partnership" with Iraq.Read my article in the Asia Times.

An SCO canopy for South Asia

2011-05-16T06:06:00.000-07:00

The regional security paradigm taking shape with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization move to admit Afghanistan as observer and grant full membership to India and Pakistan shakes up the geopolitics of the region. The backdrop is the Afghan endgame and the robust US attempt to establish long-term military presence which the regional powers staunchly oppose. With such wider reach, Russian-Chinese coordination on strategic issues is graduating to a qualitatively new level. Read my article in today’s Asia Times...

Manmohan Singh resets Afghan policy

2011-05-15T22:11:00.000-07:00

The year was 1992. Chaotic days in April, as one Sunday morning Benon Sevan, United Nations Secretary-General's special envoy, came to the High Commission in Islamabad straight from a conference with the then Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, seeking political asylum for Afghan President Najibullah in India as part of a deal for the orderly transition of power in Kabul to the mujahideen who had surrounded the Afghan capital...
Read my article in The Hindu on the profound implications of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Kabul last week.

Quetta Shura looks beyond Osama bin Laden

2011-05-13T22:57:00.000-07:00

The Taliban took full six days to comment on the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. The statement throws light on their thinking.

Nowhere in the statement is there any reference to the killing having taken place in Abbottabad on Pakistani soil. The killing has been described as “martyrdom” following “a sudden attack by the aggressive American forces” and comes as a “great disaster to the entire Islamic Ummah, and to the martyr’s family, followers and all the Mujahideen.” The statement recalls OBL’s “loyalty and bravery” and “great sacrifices” in the Afghan jihad of the 1980s against the Soviet intervention; “he was from the greatest Mujahideen” in the resistance to “Zionist-Crusader aggression” against the Muslim world.

However, OBL’s death will not weaken the Afghan resistance and instead only strengthens the resolve of the Afghan resistance; this will manifest in the coming period. Because, the resistance is indigenous “born from within the Afghan people”.

Obviously, this is a carefully considered, well-drafted Taliban articulation of position in a structured tone, deliberated within the Quetta Shura and most probably carries the personal stamp of Mullah Omar. Pakistan could well have been consulted in its drafting. The striking point is that Pakistan doesn’t figure in it at all – positively, negatively or even in a neutral, factual way. Taliban are hard-pressed to take a stance on how OBL could have been killed on Pakistani soil. So, the statement simply fails to mention where the “martyrdom” took place.

Again, what stands out is that the identification with OBL is at a personal level and not about the ideology he represents or with the al-Qaeda.

Most significantly, Taliban have insisted on their “Afghanness” against the backdrop of OBL’s killing. The statement does bear out that the relationship between Taliban and OBL was very much a personal one between Mullah Omar and OBL rather than organisational. The statement contains no affirmation of solidarity with the al-Qaeda ideology – not even remotely. In short, Taliban duly pay their tribute, but life moves on. There is no threat of any revenge attacks, either.

Arguably, OBL’s death makes it easier for the Americans to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, although given the worsening security situation, talking and fighting will proceed alongside for some more time. This also appears to be the general drift of thinking in Washington.

Gilani expects US overture to Pakistan

2011-05-12T06:53:00.000-07:00

Pakistan PM Yousuf Gilani's exclusive interview with Time magazine carries an important message for the Barack Obama administration. Gilani compared Pakistan to a jilted lover. The overall tenor of the interview is that Pakistan's relationship with US is under great strain and the intelligence-level cooperation has broken down and this will have fallouts on the US' Afghan strategy - unless the Obama administration moved quickly to kiss and make up.

Gilani took pains to underline that even after Abbottabad, Pakistan's rapprochement with Hamid Karzai is intact, as they are based on pragmatic interests, implying that Pakistan can always play the "Karzai card" against the US.

Gilani was surprisingly mild on Abbottabad. His grievance was that "we should have done it [operation[ jointly." He looked beyond Abbottabad and hinted Pakistan expects a major US gesture of reconciliation. He listed transfer of drone technology and a nuclear deal (such as US has with India) as part of Pakistani 'wish list'.

The interview is timed with Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Kabul. But there is no tendentious remark by Gilani about India's activities in Afghanistan. Main points of the interview:

1. Continuing to work with the United States could imperil his government, unless Washington takes drastic steps to restore trust.

2. Complained repeatedly about the widening "trust deficit"."When there's a trust deficit,there will be problems in intelligence sharing." [As for reason for trust deficit], "It's not from our side. Ask them."

3. Cooperation between the CIA and ISI has broken down.

4. Washington and Islamabad differed on how to fight terror and forge an exit strategy in Afghanistan.

5. [On Abbottabad raid], "Naturally, we wondered why they went unilaterally. If we're fighting a war together, we have to work together. Even if there was credible and actionable information, then we should have done it jointly." He was first alerted to the raid through a 2 a.m. call from Pakistan's Army Chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Gilani then called his foreign secretary and asked him to demand an explanation from U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter. "I have not met or spoken to [U.S. officials] since. Whatever information we are receiving is from the media. Today, we have said that we want them to talk to us directly."

7."We (elected government, military and ISI) are all on the same page."

8.Emphasized strengthening links with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. But that doesn't necessarily translate into support for the U.S. strategy there. "In our discussions with Karzai, we came to an agreement that terrorists are our common enemy. We both have suffered; we both have made sacrifices. So we have decided to unite to fight against them."

9.Acknowledges his abiding "difference of opinion" with Washington on how best to fight militancy. "Military solutions cannot be permanent solutions. There has to be a political solution, some kind of exit strategy."

10.Favors a political solution to the conflict, led by Afghans. "It should be owned by them and be on their own initiative.” Saw Pakistan's role as that of a "facilitator".

11.Rejects any suggestion that Pakistan will compensate for any cooling of U.S. support by drawing closer to China. "We already have a stronger relationship with China. It's time-tested."

12. At the same time, didn't believe Washington was really going to cut aid. If it did, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

13. Despite his constant references to the trust-deficit, hoped to see a restoration of closer ties with Washington, but put the onus on Washington. "They should do something for the public which will persuade them [Pakistani people] that the U.S. is supportive of Pakistan." As an example, cited the 2008 U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. "It's our public that's dying, but the deal is happening there. You claim there's a strategic partnership?"

Do you get a sense of deja vu? Evidently, Gilani read up history before giving the interview to Time magazine. Remember the burning down of the US embassy in Islamabad in 1979? That was in the month of November over the rumours regarding the burning of a copy of Koran somewhere. Then, on December 24, detachments of the 40th Army of the Soviet Union crossed into Afghanistan. The then US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski later recounted: "We [Jimmy Carter administration] immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible."

Russia redrawing Europe energy map

2011-05-11T02:37:00.000-07:00

Russia and gas giant Gazprom are on a winning streak in the great Caspian energy game, with the company's export revenues soaring, prospects for the South Stream and North Stream pipelines brightening, and the outlook for the rival US-backed Nabucco pipeline to Europe fading fast.Read my article on the politics of Russia-Europe energy ties in Asia Times....

US-Russia reset hits the skids

2011-05-10T00:10:00.000-07:00

The United States President Barack Obama will be visiting Poland later this month and will confirm the stationing of F16 combat aircraft on Polish soil during meetings with Bronislaw Komorowski, his Polish counterpart. The London Telegraph reported that 16 US jets will move from their current home at the Aviano air force base in Italy to Lask in central Poland, and will be stationed on a rotational basis from 2013. The US-Polish talks will also cover the stationing SM-3 interceptor missiles in Poland as part of Washington's plans for a missile defence shield. The United States already has a Patriot missile battery in Poland.
The development will raise eyebrows in Moscow. The US-Russia reset is already shaken by serious differences over Libya. The deployment of US ABM in Romania have been finalised recently. The Victory Day parade in Moscow's Red Square on Monday was no doubt a show of strength with Russia displaying its most advanced air defence systems - S-400 Triumph air defense missiles and the Iskander-M anti-craft missiles and the Topol-M ballistic missiles.
The F-16 jets in Poland as such do not threaten Russia. The point is why Obama is doing this. Russia will be annoyed by the prospect of NATO military infrastructure in Poland. Moscow had threatened to direct missiles at Polish targets if George W- Bush administration proceeded with the deployment of ABM components in Poland. Obama apparently scrapped the Bush-era plan on ABM and Russia welcomed the decision, and viewed it evidence of Obama's intent to push the reset with Russia. Now comes the revelation that Obama had merely postponed matters.
Russia had warned last year when reports of F-16 deployment in Poland first appeared that it would "take into account the American-Polish plans and carry out [its] own armed forces development projects". Again, the issue is the placement of American military hardware on Polish soil and not the fighting capacity of the F-16. Warsaw has been hoping to "lock in" the US in its overall defence over and above the NATO cover. And Obama is now obliging. Poland has long wanted a permanent presence of U.S. military on its territory as a cover from Russia despite Moscow's overtures to cultivate Warsaw. His renewed effort to permanently place U.S. military infrastructure in Poland would be a stabilizing factor, arguably, for Poland but Russia is likely to resist. Moscow is yet to react.

Russia, China challenge NATO

2011-05-09T03:14:00.000-07:00

Growing unease that North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervention in Libya aims to perpetuate the West's historic dominance in the Middle East fueled the weekend announcement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that Moscow and Beijing would act in concert. Both share concern that the United Nations hierarchy may acquiesce to a ground invasion in Libya without a Security Council mandate. Read my article in Asia Times on the weekend's Sino-Russian consultations in Moscow and their significance for international security.

Pakistan reaches out to Persian Gulf region

2011-05-08T05:13:00.000-07:00

Three Pakistani high-level delegations are touring the Persian Gulf region. Two of them are most certainly substantive - President Asif Zardari's visit to Kuwait and Interior Minister Rahman Malik's to Riyadh - while the visit by Farooq Naek, the chairman of the Pakistani senate [upper house of parliament] to Iran seems more of a goodwill visit. Not that generating 'goodwill' with Iran at this juncture of great volatility in the Saudi-Iranian relationship or US-Iran standoff is any less than a suggestive balancing act by Pakistan.
From all appearance, Malik's arrival in Riyadh out of the blue Saturday on an unscheduled visit catches the eye. Malik is no ordinary cabinet minister. He is a hatchet man of much importance and his responsibilities cover the range of security issues affecting/surrounding/engulfing/threatening Pakistan today. Second, the consultations took place after bin Laden's killing. That Malik left home turf at all when the temperature is running so high within Pakistan underlines that there was something of extreme urgency and sensitivity to be discussed with the Saudi leadership at the highest level. He was deputed as special envoy so that he could talk straight with the Saudi king.
There have been persistent reports that Riyadh and Ankara were lately prevailing upon the Pakistani leadership to let the Americans have bin Laden. Whether or not Pakistan heeded the Saudi advice has become a moot point. The Abbottabad operation has damaged the operational level working relationship between the US and Pakistani intelligence agencies and militaries, which needs some immediate therapy as time is of the essence of the matter in Afghanistan. Finally, the Saudis are all ears as to what happens now to al-Qaeda, whose original mission, let us not forget, was to effect "regime change" in the Arabian Peninsula and banish the Saudi royal family - although it is myopic to overlook the convoluted and covert Saudi dealings with the al-Qaeda organism all along.
No doubt, Malik briefed the Saudi leadership on what has been gleaned from bin Laden's family members who are in Pakistani custody. Some of them at least would long to go home in Saudi Arabia. Evidently, Malik was on a visit of extreme sensitivity for the Saudis, too. This was evident from the fact that just about all the people who matter in the Saudi security and foreign policy establishment were present when King Abdullah received Malik. From the list of Saudi officials present, it seems matters of intelligence sharing, scale of any Pakistani help in the event of instability in the GCC region, and Afghanistan and US-Pakistan relations would have figured in the talks. To be sure, the Saudis will be wondering how the Taliban leadership would take all these happenings - Bin Laden killing and the tensions in US-Pakistan relations. Besides, what happens now to the Saudi efforts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table? It seems highly unlikely, though, that the Saudis approve the unilateralist US operation in Abbottabad, which now leaves a lot of debris all around. Recent reports suggest that King Abdullah takes a dim view of the US regional policies under Barack Obama.
Zardari's Kuwait visit is also not lacking in substance, although of a patently lower grade than Malik's mission to Saudi Arabia in sensitivity. Zardari's accent was on the generous financial help that Kuwait extended to Pakistan over the years. Interestingly, Kuwaiti PM Sheikh Nasser Al-Mohammad Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah told Zardari that his country always valued Pakistan's support for Kuwait "in every difficult hour, particularly after the Iraqi invasion in 1991." A highly relevant and topical invocation of time past, isn't it?
Equally, Naek was well-received in Tehran. The top leadership met him - Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Ali Laijani and Alae'ddin Broujerdi. The APP dispatch makes out that the talks went beyond protocol needs and was not exactly lacking in political content. At any rate, Naek reportedly told Ahmedinejad that "Peace in Afghanistan was linked with Pakistan and it had no military solution. It could only be resolved through dialogue among the major regional players, including Iran." Larijani stressed that Iran and Pakistan are on the same in the fight against terrorism.
Again, Naek assured Iranian FM Ali Akbar Salehi (who is travelling to Islamabad shortly) about curbing the activities of the Baluchi terrorist group Jundullah (which is alleged to have links with the US intelligence operatives in AfPak). Most important, he told Salehi that Pakistan believed in the "policy of non-interference and non-intervention" and that the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of every state ought to be protected for establishment of permanent peace in the region". The big question is, what exactly did Naek have in mind? There is so much foreign interference and intervention taking place in the region - GCC intervention in Bahrain, US operations in Abbottabad, US drone attacks on Pakistan, US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, US threats to Iran, etc. Conceivably, Naek sought to set an orientation for Salehi's agenda during the latter's forthcoming talks in Islamabad. Pakistan is in acute need of Iran's friendship and understanding at this point of great insecurities and vulnerability.

Pakistan seeks solace in the Kremlin

2011-05-06T02:24:00.000-07:00

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari will make an unexpected three-day trip to Russia next week. The timing underscores that Moscow recognizes the central role that Islamabad plays in the Afghan situation - both share the view that any peace process should be "Afghan-led". While it is too early to say the "fizz" has gone out of the United States-Russia reset, Zardari will be keen to see how this affects Pakistan. Read my article in the Asia Times…

'Oh, where were you, the Wahhabi grand mufti?'

2011-05-05T01:42:00.000-07:00

The war of words between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which began over Bahrain and the 'Arab spring', has crossed over from the temporal world to the spiritual. The newly-appointed Saudi Grand Mufti Shaikh Abdulaziz Al Shaikh began the spat when he made a patently racist comment in an interview with the Jeddah-based Okaz paper some three weeks ago. "A little thing is known about the Safavids and their doctrine. They are known for their black history laden with hatred to Islam and Sunnis. We must be wary of the Iranians’ intrigues and be careful of their deceit and not fall for their claims about Islam, which are all hypocrisy and deception", the Wahhabi religious head reportedly said.
The highly tendentious reference to the Savafids who established the Twelver school of Shi'ite Islam as the official religion in Iran opens up the hugely controversial Wahhabi insistence that the Iranians are not Muslims and that the 1979 revolution was not 'Islamic' but was an Iranian revolution. The Safavid dynasty (1501-1722) had its origin in the Safaviyya Sufi order, which was established in the city of Ardabil in the Azerbaijan region. From their base in Ardabil, the Safavids established control over all of Greater Iran and reasserted the Iranian identity of the region, thus becoming the first native dynasty since the Sassanid Empire to establish a unified Iranian state. Despite the relative brevity of the Saffavid dynasty, the legacy that it left behind was the revival of Persia as an economic stronghold between East and West, the establishment of an efficient state and bureaucracy based upon “checks and balances”, their architectural innovations and their patronage for fine arts. The Safavids have also left their mark down to the present era by spreading Shi'a Islam in major parts of the Caucasus and West Asia.
Quite obviously, the Saudi grand mufti calculatedly intended to insult Iran and to provoke the Iranian establishment, which has been savvy enough so far not to fall into the US-Saudi trap to polarise the Sunni Muslim Middle East - especially the Persian Gulf countries - on the basis of an alleged rise of resurgent Shi'ism. The Saudi grand mufti most probably spoke at the instance of the ruling family. At any rate, the Saudis finally succeeded in compelling the Iranian religious establishment to respond.
The response has come from the highly respected Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi who is based in the holy city of Qom. He shot off a letter to the Saudi grand mufti where he accused the latter of serving the interests of the United States and Israel by dividing the 'ummah' at this historic juncture.
Shirazi raises a very pertinent question: “You, the Wahhabi grand mufti, have forgotten that if it had not been for Shia Muslims in Iran and Lebanon, Israel and the United States would have gained domination over the entire Middle East. And it is not clear where your muftis were and what they were doing at the time. When Israel was massacring Muslims in Gaza, most of whom were Sunni, Shias in Iran and other places supported them (the Gazan Muslims), and if it had not been for their support, Israel would have continued (committing) atrocities." The reference is to the doublespeak of the Saudis, especially their underhand dealings with the US-Israel axis and their lack of commitment to the Palestine problem.
The passing away of the old Saudi grand mufti in February seems to have enabled the Saudi regime to put in place a more pliable character as the new grand mufti. Interestingly, the Saudi grand mufti's tirade against Shi'ism hasn't had many takers in the Middle East. There seems to be all-round embarrassment that the Saudi regime is desperately stoking the fires of sectarianism in its existential struggle to survive the current upheaval in the Middle East. Interestingly, the Egyptian grand mufti in Cairo is on record that Shi'ite jurisprudence is acceptable to the 'ummah'.
The controversy arises at a sensitive time when Egypt is careering away from Saudi Arabia in its regional policies; there is tension between the Muslim Brotherhood and Syrian regime; Bahrain is in turmoil; Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite eastern provinces (oil-rich) are restive; Yemen is descending into anarchy and tribal/clan struggle; and, most important, Iran and Egypt have joined hands as the torchbearers of the Palestinian cause.

Bin Laden and the Afghan endgame

2011-05-04T15:39:00.000-07:00

Javed Burki Saheb’s syndicated column on the meaning of Osama bin Laden’s death stuck me as an important contribution. Burki Saheb has impeccable credentials as an intellectual and public figure and to be well-informed about the “powers that be” in Pakistan, especially from his present vantage point in Lahore. He not only refuses to rule out Pakistani involvement in the Abbottabad operation but suggests that OBL’s death actually suits Islamabad and could have been stage-managed as a well-conceived game plan in order to break the nexus between al-Qaeda and Haqqani network (Pakistan’s favourite proxy in Afghanistan) which in turn can pave the way for a "settlement" in Kabul to the mutual satisfaction of Washington and Islamabad. I’d recommend the article for careful reading.

Killing Osama was the easy part

2011-05-04T06:08:00.000-07:00

Prof. Sandy Gordon of Australian National University makes some thoughtful comments on the likely future trajectory of the United States - Pakistan alliance. Arguably, US may suspend its aid programme if it emerges that elements within the Pakistani establishment "knew" of the presence of Osama bin Laden. The issue is as to what degree US wants to or is in a position to queer the pitch or turn on the heat on Pakistan. Gordon sees the US compulsions in terms of the North Waziristan problem and the transit route that Pakistan provides for the NATO forces in Afghanistan. Gordon argues that this US dependence on Pakistan may last for another two years or so and thereafter the relationship is fated to get atrophied.
Gordon makes three other points, namely, that US drawdown in Afghanistan is inexorable in the post-Osama scenario and will be hastened by US' need to prioritise its economy over foreign policy, cut down on military budget and refocus on China. Two, China is not seeking to replace the US as Afghanistan's patron. Three, the emergent AfPak security paradigm hurts Indian interests.
What Gordon fails to factor in are the following elements. Isn't it presumptuous that US will overlook the danger of repeating what it did in 1989 which was to scoot once the Afghan jihad was over and the Soviet Union was done with, and allow the residual forces of militancy to incubate in a near future and regroup under ISI's stewardship through the early 1990s and then come back and hit at the US interests by the second half of that decade? In short, continued US involvement with Pakistan becomes almost unavoidable in the medium term and that would translate as continued US aid to Pakistan so as to leverage Washington's influence on Islamabad. There seems no easy way out of this syndrome.
Second, Gordon overlooks that even assuming that US is resetting its sights on China in its regional policies - and, especially if it is indeed so - Afghanistan and Central Asia can only become even more crucial strategic arena for the "great game". Some Russian comments have actually begun anticipating that US is about to shift gear into an activist mode in Central Asia in the coming months and likely work on effecting "regime change" in the region. Interestingly, last week Barack Obama phoned up Kazakh President Nurusultan Nazarabayev and spoke of the need for democratic reforms in Central Asia.
Over and above, all evidence is that there is no let-up in the US' search for a status of forces agreement with Kabul that formalises long-term US (and NATO) military presence in Afghanistan. In sum, it is premature to estimate that post-Osama, US is getting ready to cut and run from the Central Asian region.
Third, US cannot pursue an effective containment policy toward Iran without a firm foothold in Central Asia. It is logical that the US regional calculus will continue to envisage the "Greater Middle East" as one continuous strategic entity that stretches from the Persian Gulf to Kazakhstan and is supervised under the Central Command. There is hardly any scope to abdicate from Central Asia and still hope to be optimal in "containing" Iran.
Finally, Gordon simply leaves out the upheaval in the Middle East and the huge challenge to the US regional strategies. From the US-Israeli perspective, Egypt is already becoming a "problem child" of the Arab revolution. The challenge assumes criticality if the Arab Spring begins to envelop the Persian Gulf's "pro-West" autocratic regimes. This is where a great need may arise for the US to rope in Pakistan, which is uniquely placed with a big standing army and much surplus manpower and is a major Sunni country. The US is keen to polarise the Persian Gulf along the Sunni-Shi'ite schism while Iran is doing all it can to frustrate that ploy. In short, the cat-and-mouse games of the US-Iran standoff are edging toward a defining moment and Pakistan's role is of great significance for both Washington and Tehran. Besides, the danger of a military conflict involving Iran always exists - and more so with the US public opinion in a jingoistic mood and US desperately coping with the growing isolation of Israel in the Middle East.
Gordon hits the bull's eye insofar as China will keep its head under the parapet and would have no inclination to waste its resources to stabilise Afghanistan. China would rather see US continue to "do the heavy liftng" instead of becoming strategically involved and to concentrate on the lucrative economic spin-off. This is also consistent with the Chinese philosophy of not getting involved in other countries' internal affairs.
Alas, India is placed between the rock and a hard place. Any US appeasement of Pakistan in an Afghanistan settlement can only be at the cost of India's influence in Kabul. Any abrupt US departure from the region leaving matters in such a mess can only pose security challenges of immense proportions for India. India would like to tap into US's capacity to influence on Pakistan, but any big US military aid to Pakistan also hurts Indian interests. All India can hope for is that the nascent dialogue with Pakistan gains traction but then, that's easier said than done.

Osama's end suits Pakistan's ends

2011-05-04T00:11:00.000-07:00

The death of Osama bin Laden and the scattering of the al- Qaeda remnants from the region would create a favourable atmosphere for the Afghan peace process to advance. The US and Pakistan can be expected to seek a modus vivendi that accommodates the interests of both sides. The 10-year-old Afghan war is most definitely drawing to a close. Looking beyond, the US would probe how this difficult ally, Pakistan, can be harnessed for the "new great game" beginning in West Asia. Read my article in Mail Today.

US, Pakistan to remain allies

2011-05-03T22:54:00.000-07:00

The first detailed White House comments by Press Secretary Jay Carney on the future trajectory of US-Pakistan ties in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden's killing underline Washington's interest to pick up the treads of counterinsurgency cooperation and move on. Carney's remarks will be well-received in Islamabad. Carney made out the following points:
A. US-Pakistan relationship is a complicated one but it is also an important one.
B. On the whole, Pakistanis have been "very helpful in many ways" in the fight against al-Qaeda.
C. Pakistan assisted and helped in the "gathering of intelligence and information" that enabled US to assemble the "mountain of information" that went into the Abbottabad operation.
D. Pakistan remains a "key partner" in the unfinished fight against al-Qaeda.
E. US regards Pakistan as "extremely helpful" and "looks forward to cooperating into the future."
F."Complicated differences" have arisen at times on how the two countries "approach and view things" but at the end of the day there has also been "a great deal of important cooperation" and that shouldn't be lost sight of in arriving at a "complete picture of that relationship".
G. Without doubt, Pakistan has been a "frontline" state in the fight against al-Qaeda and has "suffered in large numbers."
H. Pakistan is a big country with a "big government" and "there are many people in Pakistan and there are many people in the Pakistani government" - implying it isn't a monolithic structure and there are many power centres. Naturally, it isn't a question of "trust" at state-to-state level, but more a "question of the interests we share and the cooperation we've forged".
I. There are indeed differences with certain sections in Pakistan but "you have to be careful about tarring everyone either in the country or the government."
J. US intends to probe how bin Laden could have taken shelter in Pakistan and enjoyed a "support network" or "who, if any" within the Pakistani establishment was aware of the Abbottabad safe house, but it will approach the issue without preconceived notions.
K. US-Pakistan relationship has run into testing times in the past and US has "worked hard" on the relationship since it is an "important and complicated" relationship. US is "confident" that cooperation will continue.
L. Pakistan remains an "essential partner" much as "very divergent opinions" may arise int e relationship.
Most significantly, Carney completely sidestepped the issue of US aid-cut off, as some Congressmen have belligerently demanded. He implied that no such move is in the consideration zone of the US government. The briefing is a signal to Islamabad that once the dust settles down over Osama's killing, there is important business to transact and Washington will approach in a cooperative spirit rather than adversarial. Quite obviously, given the endgame in Afghanistan and the impending draw down of US troops in July, as well as the uncertainties that are arising in the Persian Gulf security (especially with regard to Saudi Arabia), the imperatives of US-Pakistan cooperation remain stronger than ever. It is important to factor in that an estimated 30000 Pakistani personnel provide security for Bahrain, where the US' Fifth Fleet, which is the anchor sheet of US regional strategies in the region, is based. US would factor in the unique status of Pakistan as the Praetorian guards of the Saudi regime if a major crisis arises in the Persian Gulf region.

All great Neptune's ocean can't wash Osama's blood

2011-05-03T17:57:00.000-07:00

"This is a sorry sight", said Macbeth in William Shakespeare's play, looking at his bloody hands moments after he murdered King Duncan. His wife thought that's a foolish thing to say, and when she noticed he had brought the bloody daggers from King Duncan's bedchamber, she thought him even more foolish. She told him he must take the daggers back, place them with the King's sleeping grooms, and smear the grooms with blood. Macbeth, however, was so shaken that all he could do was stand and stare at his bloody hands, so Lady Macbeth took the daggers from him. When she went to do the job she thought he should do, Macbeth still stood and stared.
He then asked himself if all the water in the world can wash away the blood: "Will all great Neptune's blood wash this blood / Clean from my hand?" And he answers his own question: "No this my hand will rather / The multitudinous seas incarnadine, / Making the green one red."
The gruesome scene passed through my mind when I read the Telegraph this morning that the White House is backtracking on how Osama bin Laden died. The latest account - not the final account, most certainly - admits that the initial account was riddled with errors. So, the initial claims that the al-Qaeda leader had died while firing an automatic weapon at commandos have been withdrawn, with President Barack Obama’s spokesman admitting “he [Osama] was unarmed”. A dramatic description of bin Laden using his wife as a “human shield” and forcing her to sacrifice her life also proved to be false. The woman was still alive and was taken into custody with several of the terrorist’s children.
In an embarrassing climb-down, Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, admitted that the previous version of events — which came mostly from the chief US counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan — had been put out “with great haste”. The Telegraph says, "The about-turn left the US open to accusations of a cover-up."
To be sure, contradictory versions have begun appearing from Islamabad. The Pakistani authorities now say they had co-operated with the US and had kept the building under surveillance since 2009, which completely rubbishes Obama’s account of a four-year CIA operation to identify bin Laden’s hiding place. The Pakistanis also suggested that their soldiers had raided the building in 2003 — two years before the building was even built, according to the US — looking for another senior al-Qaeda operative.
So, what about the earlier report that Obama and Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state and other senior officials had watched the assault on a live feed provided by a camera mounted on the commando's helmets? The White House is yet to figure out a cogent explanation. Maybe, let us hear the final, authoritative version from Obama himself, duly certified in a sworn affidavit by Clinton who was first witness of the carnage in Abbottabad? The issue isn't as simple as it seems. Navi Pillai, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has already posed the uncomfortable question whether the US operation in Abbottabad was consistent with international law.
Things are indeed becoming murkier and murkier. Osama's blood cannot be easily washed away from the fixtures in the Oval Office. So much calumny has gone into the making of the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Lest we forget, Taliban was prepared to compromise with George W. Bush and hand over Osama for standing trial on 9/11. But, no, Sir, the Texan president wanted a full-fledged invasion of a decrepit country and the massacre of its desperately poor people as a mark of bloody retribution. Obama knows that the national mood still continues to be the same, as the obscene scene of American women and men celebrating in front of White House baying "USA", "USA" amply testified.
However, history is for posterity. The investigative journalist and author Gareth Porter once again reminds us that this entire slice of history since 2001 was completely unnecessary. The chilling facts are: i) Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden in October 2001; ii) Taliban dropped the pre-condition that Americans must come up with evidence of bin Laden's complicity in 9/11; iii) Taliban was desperately seeking a face-saving formula to avoid confrontation with the US, but "Cheney and Rumsfeld were determined not to allow a focus on bin Laden to interfere with their plan for a U.S. invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime."
Like Macbeth's predicament, will all the clout over the information order that is at its command, the White House is fumbling, unable to cope with regimentation of the flow of current history. So rapid is its flow and the streams out of Abbottabad are mixing with the rivers of blood flowing out of the Hindu Kush, Mesopotamia and the Libyan deserts. It seems there were 23 children and 9 women in the compound in Abbottabad at the time of the assault. They were apparently "handed over" to the Pakistani authorities. By whom? When? Where? Maybe, we won't know as the dead don't tell tales. But then, the living witnesses can speak, can't they, some day?

Fisk's tribute to bin Laden

2011-05-03T00:14:00.000-07:00

The first time Robert Fisk, the iconic British journalist and author (and Arabist), met Osama bin Laden was back in the misty pages of history in 1993. In his magnum opus The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East (shame on you if you haven't yet got hold of that classic), this is how Fisk recalled the setting: "Our journey north from Khartoum lay through a landscape of white desert and ancient, unexplored pyramids, dark, squat Pharaonic tombs smaller than those of Cheops, Chephren and Mycerinus at Giza. Though it was December, a sharp, superheated breeze moved across the desert, and when Kashoggi tired of the air conditioning and opened his window, it snapped at his Arab headdress." Fisk was handpicked by bin Laden for his first-ever interview with a western journalist. Then they met twice again - in Afghanistan.
Fisk's tribute to bin Laden in today's Independent has the poignancy of a passionate chronicler who angrily, incisively and vividly delved into the heart of darkness of radical Islam. He begins by stressing that bin Laden had become more or less a 'spent force': "A middle-aged nonentity, a political failure outstripped by history – by the millions of Arabs demanding freedom and democracy in the Middle East – died in Pakistan yesterday."
And, that takes Fisk to the million dollar question: "Betrayed? Of course he was. By the Pakistan military or the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence? Quite possibly both." In sum, the Pakistani military leadership decided to turn in bin Laden, as the law of diminishing returns is at work any whichever way you look at it.
By the way, do read the edited extract from Fisk's classic which I mentioned above, narrating his second meeting with bin Laden.

China-US diplomatic minuet over Iran

2011-05-02T10:41:00.000-07:00

The latest WikiLeaks cables exclusively with Reuters open a window on the complex diplomatic minuet being played out between China and US over Iran sanctions. What comes to relief is the extent to which Washington is going to get China to roll back its energy tie-ups with Iran and the seamless pragmatism on the part of China to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
It all began in 2009 with the US goading Saudi Arabia to step up its oil exports to China so that China becomes less dependent on imports from Iran. The Saudis were willing to play ball since Riyadh was in any case keen to diversify its exports to the Asian market and China is a famously huge guzzler. The convergence of interests has propelled Saudi Arabia today to emerge as China's number one oil supplier. SA today exports more oil to China than to the US.
But did that discourage China from importing from Iran? No way. It seems China cultivated both Saudi Arabia and Iran as big time suppliers of oil. Make hay while the sun shines, isn't it? The American intention was to somehow goad China into falling in line with the US' push to impose tougher sanctions against the Iranian regime. Did the Americans succeed? Partly, yes. China did become more cooperative than before on the diplomatic front. But behind the curtain, Chinese state oil conglomerates moved into Iran in a big way - ironically, to occupy the areas vacated by the western majors due to the sanctions regime! Wasn't that smart thinking? Earn American goodwill while at the same time expand the business opportunities in Iran! But that is not the end of the story. Instead of reconciling as a passive player, China became a player on its own by taking matters into its own hands and it began performing as a a go-between for Washington with Iran. At one point, Chinese FM Yang Jiechi even assured the US diplomats that rhetoric aside, Iran "deep down" appreciated Barack Obama's willingness to work together.
Meanwhile, Chinese oil companies took care to dodge any punitive American measures by claiming that their projects in Iran were in the nature of service or engineering contracts rather than involving equity stakes or capital investments.
But Washington soon caught on. It mulled over things and came up with a two-pronged strategy - offering sticks and carrots at the same time. The US Congress adopted more stringent laws that could bring within their ambit Chinese energy conglomerates and other foreign firms operating in Iran's energy sector. But simultaneously, US also signalled that as quid pro quo for cooperation, it would allow Chinese energy firms to gain access to the American energy market. Beijing weighed the relative factors of advantage and apparently bit the carrot and asked its big energy firms to go slow in Iran. What induced the Chinese rethink? Well, according to Reuters, "China this year has concluded several major joint ventures to develop shale gas fields in North America as it seeks drilling technology to develop its own reserves of shale gas, the world's largest."

Egypt shakes up Middle Eastern order

2011-05-02T02:14:00.000-07:00

The stunning geopolitical reality of the ''new Middle East'' is that Egypt brokered the surprise Palestinian reconciliation of Fatah and Hamas without consulting the United States and Israel - or Saudi Arabia. That Cairo coordinated efforts with Tehran suggests Egypt-Iran rapprochement has gained traction, and Israel's worst fears about the Egyptian revolution seem to be coming true. Read my article on the dramatic news of Palestinian reconciliation in today's Asia Times.

Quality of life of the Chinese and Indians

2011-04-28T22:07:00.000-07:00

The latest issue of the New York Review of Books carries an incisive essay by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen on India's political economy. Sen goes about it comparing the quality of life in China and India. Indians, of course, are so obsessed with catching up with China’s GDP growth that they overlook that the judicious yardstick ought to be how growth advances living standards and reduces poverty in the two countries. Sen gives a jolt to them.
China beats India hollow with regard to the range of development indices such as life expectancy at birth, infant mortality rate, mortality rate for children under five, nutrition and availability of immunization vaccines for children, mean years of schooling for children, maternal mortality rate, adult literacy rate, etc. India’s “growth mania” presupposes that high GDP growth should have precedence over allocation of resources for social sectors whereas, China is maintaining high growth rate even while paying attention to ‘social objectives’. High growth generates public resources that could be turned into greater allocation for social sectors but this is not happening in India. China spends about 2 percent of its GDP on health care whereas the figure is 1.1 percent for India. This has led to “shameful exploitation [and]...sheer unavailability of health care in many parts of India.”
India, no doubt, is leagues ahead of China in terms of its democratic system, free press, freedom of expression, etc. The common Indian hypothesis is that their country's democratic system acts as a “barrier to using the benefits of economic growth in order to enhance health, education and other social conditions.” Sen emphatically refutes this plea and puts his finger at where the problem lies: despite India's open democracy, the reality is that social conditions graduate as political issues only if they assume acute forms. Whereas, in China, the leadership doesn’t require any such ‘prompting’.
“The Chinese leaders, despite their skepticism about the values of multiparty democracy and personal and political liberty, are strongly committed to eliminating poverty, undernourishment, illiteracy, and lack of health care; and this has greatly helped in China’s advancement.”
The flip side is, of course, there: for example, China’s authoritarian leadership could ride over such a horrendous happening as the famine of 1959-1962 which killed 30 million people and, again, could overnight dump as part of the 1979 reforms the guaranteed health care which provided a great safety net for poor people. “In a functioning democracy an established right to social assistance could not have been so easily—and so swiftly—dropped. The change sharply reduced the progress of longevity in China. Its large lead over India in life expectancy dwindled during the following two decades—falling from a fourteen-year lead to one of just seven years.”
Interestingly, however, China's leadership can also be highly responsive. The leadership saw the folly of the reform and began a corrective course in 2004 “reintroducing the right to medical care.” The impact has been immediate. “China now has a considerably higher proportion of people with guaranteed health care than does India. The gap in life expectancy in China’s favor has been rising again, and it is now around nine years; and the degree of coverage is clearly central to the difference.”
On the contrary, “Whether India’s democratic political system can effectively remedy neglected public services such as health care is one of the most urgent questions facing the country… For a minority of the Indian population—but still very large in actual numbers—economic growth alone has been very advantageous, since they are already comparatively privileged and need no social assistance to benefit from economic growth… an exaggerated concentration on the lives of the relatively prosperous, exacerbated by the Indian media, gives an unrealistically rosy picture of the lives of Indians in general. Since the fortunate group includes not only business leaders and the professional classes but also many of the country’s intellectuals, the story of unusual national advancement is widely and persistently heard. More worryingly, relatively privileged Indians can easily fall for the temptation to focus just on economic growth as a grand social benefactor for all.”
Sen concludes on a highly critical note: “My primary concern, however, is that the illusions generated by those distorted perceptions of prosperity may prevent India from bringing social deprivations into political focus, which is essential for achieving what needs to be done for Indians at large through its democratic system. A fuller understanding of the real conditions of the mass of neglected Indians and what can be done to improve their lives through public policy should be a central issue in the politics of India.”

Pakistan stares at Bush's pledges

2011-04-28T02:24:00.000-07:00

Reports that Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has advised Afghan President Hamid Karzai to dump the United States for a geopolitical alliance with China merely illustrate the state of US-Pakistan relations. Beijing has no interest in Afghanistan's blood-soaked civil war, and Islamabad is simply moving to sabotage an American plan to break from past pledges by the George W Bush administration and exclude Pakistan from an Afghan settlement.Read my article in today's Asia Times...

Pakistan confronts US' Afghan strategy

2011-04-26T20:41:00.000-07:00

Appearances have always been deceptive in Afghan politics. More so as the endgame of the brutal war gets under way. What passes for the current US-Pakistan acrimony over ISI's nexus with the Haqqani network in Afghanistan is quintessentially about setting the bottom line of the Afghan peace talks. Partners who claimed they were 'allies' are compelled to redefine the parameters of their collaboration. This is not easy as US and Pakistan are pursuing objectives and national interests that diverge strategically. India has done well by distancing itself from the US ploy to give the Afghan chessboard the dissimulating look of an India-Pakistan turf war. Read my Op-Ed in today's Hindu newspaper on the acts and scenes of this intricate shadow play.

The men behind Mumbai terror attack

2011-04-25T20:54:00.000-07:00

The wheel of justice may turn slowly, but one would like to believe that it does turn inexorably. If so, the terrorism trial that is set to begin in Chicago on the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November 2008 that killed more than 160 people including Americans, will have huge repercussions for international security. The United States federal prosecutors unsealed charges Monday against four additional defendants for plotting the 2008 terrorist attacks.
All four accused are considered fugitives with alleged links to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Pakistani-based terrorist group, and the prosecution's key witness has linked one of them to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI] although the indictment doesn't explicitly mention the Pakistani security agency. Prosecutors identified three of the men as Sajid Mir, Abu Qahafa, Mazhar Iqbal and provided only a pseudonym for the fourth, “Major Iqbal.” All eyes, however, will be on "Major Iqbal". The indictment describes him as “a resident of Pakistan who participated in planning and funding attacks by Lashkar.” But US and Indian security officials and Indian court documents identify Iqbal as a serving ISI officer and one of at least three ISI officers who are suspected of being involved in recruiting, training and directing David Headley, the mysterious one-time informer of the US Drug Enforcement Administration, who conducted reconnaissance missions for the Mumbai attacks.
Sajid Mir is a longtime Lashkar chief, who also is accused of serving as Headley’s handler. He remains at large, although his voice was caught on tape directing the Mumbai killings by telephone from a Pakistani safe house. France had convicted Mir in 2007 in absentia as a terrorist and identified him as possibly an officer of the Pakistani military. Abu Qahafa whose voice was also recorded directing the 10 gunmen who carried out the three-day attack, is accused of overseeing the training of the attack team. Mazhar Iqbal, alias Abu al-Qama, is the only one of the four known to be in Pakistani custody. All four suspects could face the death sentence or life in prison.
The trial is bound to cast shadows on the US' future dealings with ISI at an official level. A transparent working relationship is going to be hard to sustain while the trial in Chicago is on as each side will be suspecting the motivations of the other. Coming on the heels of the latest WikiLeaks cables of 2007 pertaining to Guantanamo Bay in which US military listed ISI as a terrorist organization on par with al-Qaeda or Hamas and Hezbollah, the Chicago trial will at the very least highlight the role of the Pakistani military in crafting terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Admiral "Mike" Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said only last week that the "relationship" between the ISI and the Haqqani network of Afghan insurgents constitutes a major source of tension in US-Pakistan ties.
The trial proceedings at Chicago hold the potential to directly implicate the ISI, which in turn can complicate the US-Pakistan relationship at the political level. The fact remains that ISI is a key interlocutor in the endgame in Afghanistan and US can ill afford to antagonize the Pakistani military. Having said that, the Chicago trial can be used by Washington to leverage more cooperation by the Pakistani military in the Afghan war. Significantly, the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said last week that 2011 may prove to be the decisive year of the war.
India will also be watching the Chicago trial with eagle's eyes. It has huge stakes in the trial being taken to its logical conclusion rather than being exploited or hijacked by the US administration with a view to extract concessions from Pakistan on the Afghan war front. It remains to be seen whether India will seek a formal participation in the Chicago trial. There is much frustration in the Indian establishment that Pakistan is stalling in bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice and there is some latent discontent as well that Washington treads softly keeping the priorities of its AfPak policies in mind. At the same time, India has just resumed its dialogue with Pakistan, which has raised a public controversy in the domestic opinion. Much statecraft will be needed to reconcile these glaring contradictions.
On balance, it is highly improbable that the Pakistani military will cave in and admit the ISI's involvement in the Mumbai attacks and show willingness to be punished. Any such admission will not only make Pakistan a state sponsoring terrorism, but will also tear apart Pakistan's political economy where the military calls the shots. Let us not forget that ISI is largely manned by Pakistani army officers on deputation. There is no question of the Pakistani military handing over one or more of its officers to stand trial in the US. If the push from Chicago comes to a shove from Washington, Pakistani military leadership will simply hunker down. Pakistan will also weigh its trump cards in Afghanistan, factoring in that the Barack Obama administration will be highly vulnerable to adverse tidings from the Afghan war when a crucial presidential election looms ahead. So, it is going to be a tough call for Uncle Sam who is juggling so many balls in the air - the global "war on terror"; Pakistani military being US's key ally; "strategic partnership" with India; imponderables in the endgame in Afghanistan; Obama's bid for second term as president; and, of course, the "due process of law" taking its inexorable course in Chicago under the constant glare of media publicity at home and abroad.

China nourishes poor countries, West exploits!

2011-04-21T23:39:00.000-07:00

China has published for the first time a 'white paper' on its foreign aid programme. Unfortunately, year-wise or country-wise figures are not available but the aggregate figure of aid given from 1950 till 2009 is 256 billion yuan (approx. 39.2 billion dollars). This compares with US's foreign aid of 28.8 billion dollars in 2009 alone. Half of China's aid has gone to African countries while a third went to Asian countries. Forty percent of aid was given as outright grants and used for projects such as building hospitals, schools and low-cost housing. The rest is divided evenly between interest-free loans and concessionary, or low-interest, loans, which are almost on par with grants. Contrary to general impression, only 9 percent of concessionary loans went into oil and mining projects while two-thirds went into economic infrastructure development in the recipient countries. The figures should quieten criticism that China uses aid for prising open the natural resources and mineral wealth of the African countries.
An interesting portion of the white paper is as regards the evolution of the "fundamental principles" of China's aid policy over the years. What began as a modest "material assistance" programme for North Korea and Vietnam in 1950, soon expanded to cover Indonesia as well and by 1956 it began covering Africa. In 1964 China for the first time codified its eight principles of aid policy "the core content of which featured equality, mutual benefit and no strings attached." 1971 (amidst the cultural revolution) sees a big expansion with China providing "maximum assistance it could afford to other developing countries in their efforts to win national independence and to develop national economy, thus laying a solid foundation for its long-term friendly cooperation with developing countries."
The character of the aid programme transforms since the reform period began in 1978. "China's economic cooperation with other developing countries extended from economic aid to multi-form and mutually-beneficial cooperation. China adjusted the scale, arrangement, structure and sectors of its foreign aid in accordance with its actual conditions. It strengthened its foreign assistance to the least developed countries, paid more attention to the economic and long-term effects of aid projects, and provided aid in more diversified and flexible ways. To consolidate the achievements of existing productive projects, China conducted multi-form technical and managerial cooperation with recipient countries, such as managing aid projects on behalf of recipient countries, lease management and joint ventures."
With China's own shift from a planned economy to a "socialist market economy" by the turn of the 1990s, further changes come into the aid policy. In 1993 China set up Foreign Aid Fund for Joint Ventures and Cooperative Projects with parts of the interest-free loans repaid to China by developing countries. The fund was mainly used to support Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises to build joint ventures or conduct cooperation with the recipient countries in the production and operation spheres... Meanwhile, it attached greater importance to supporting the capacity building of recipient countries, and kept enlarging the scale of technical training. Officials from recipient countries receiving training in China became an important part in the cooperation of human resources development between China and those countries."
There has been a phenomenal growth in China's aid budget during the period since 2004, with annual average increase of around 30%. Aid continues to be primarily disbursed through bilateral channels, but the white paper claims, the "the scope of international aid for development is being gradually expanded." The overall thrust of the white paper is to underscore by implication that China provides an alternative to western donors who mostly render "tied" assistance which turn out to be project exports whereas China's aid goes to nourishing the developing world. Read the full text of the white paper released in Beijing on Thursday.

Ban Ki-Moon on a hot tin roof

2011-04-18T16:20:00.000-07:00

The 3-day visit by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to Moscow on Thursday assumes significance against the backdrop of the developments over Libya. He will be talking in his official capacity as UN SG with a permanent member of the security council but is practically undertaking this trip as a messenger from the western camp. Resolution 1973 is at the epicentre of a war of words between Moscow and Brussels. The open sparring at the informal NATO-Russia Council meeting in Brussels on Saturday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and NATO SG Anders Fogh Rasmussen giving diametrically opposite interpretations to R 1973 gives the impression that Moscow intends to dig in if the West broadens the scope of the UN mandate arbitrarily to include 'regime change' and deployment of ground troops on Libyan soil.
Plainly put, US and its European allies (primarily Britain and France) are coolly disregarding Moscow's protestations and doing things much the way they want and seem to estimate that Russia will eventually cool down and accept the fait accompli. One purpose of Ban's visit will be to check out what the temperature is like in Moscow. The Kremlin has announced that President Dmitry Medvedev will meet Ban on Friday. So far, Medvedev has stuck to his guns that R 1973 doesn't envisage military intervention or regime change. But is that the last word? It is hard to imagine that Moscow couldn't have anticipated with all the professionalism in international diplomacy at its command that such a flawed thing like R 1973 would be open to misinterpretation. Yet Russia acquiesced with its passage through the UN Security Council. So, what is Medvedev's Plan B?
Clearly, the West also needs more cooperation from Russia. A 'turning point' is coming with talk of a caesefire. If a deal for dispatch of Muammar Gaddafi into exile somewhere in the heart of Africa comes up, Russia would have an opinion. Again, is Gaddafi to be taken ultimately to the Hague to stand trial as a war criminal? The ball has been set rolling in the International Court of Justice [ICJ]. But ICJ comes under the purview of the UN security council and Russia has a big say. Also, if deployment of western troops in Libya becomes necessary at some point to arrest the sheer slide to anarchy, fresh UN security council mandates might be needed.
So, Ban will try to check out what mood is prevailing in Moscow beneath the heavy fog of rhetoric. And he will faithfully report back to Washington and maybe US president Barack Obama can make another phone call to the Kremlin and once again invoke the spirit of the "reset" in US-Russia ties.
It needs some gumption for Obama to do that after pointedly snubbing Medvedev and his BRICS partners over LIbya. At its summit meeting in China last Thursday, the BRICS adopted a stance on Libya critical of the western intervention in Libya. But on the very same day, Obama joined hands with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy to pen an article in New York Times virtually rubbishing the stance taken by BRICS (all 5 of whom are represented in the UN Security Council). The missile was aimed at Russia and China and it would have hit the target.
Meanwhile, Medvedev expressed misgivings also about the UN force's involvement in the messy transfer of power in Cote d'Ivoire. Nothing like this free-for-all has ever happened before as is happening under Ban's stewardship. Much can be attributed to Ban's messianic mission to secure a second term as SG. Medvedev will expect Ban to give some plausible explanations.

Saudi money wins Obama's mind

2011-04-18T01:37:00.000-07:00

Speeches from the Barack Obama administration suggest Saudi Arabia's hint it may extend the largest purchase of American arms in history has worked. In no time at all US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has twisted from urging reform in Gulf states to bowing to Riyadh's role in suppressing revolt and sharing its view that Iran is meddling in the Arab spring. Read my article in Asia Times on the US policy toward the Persian Gulf region.

Money can buy loyalty in Afghanistan

2011-04-15T23:30:00.000-07:00

When we come to Iran's policies in Afghanistan, we mostly have a lot of smoke and mirrors. Seldom it is that an 'insider' account appears putting matters in proper perspective. Afghan leader Abdullah Abdullah's narrative, therefore, is of special interest. More so, as according to Abdullah, Iran turned a new page, so to speak, on its Afghan policies at a time when he used to be in the charmed circle of power brokers in Kabul, as the indispensable foreign minister of the New Afghanistan that George W. Bush was creating.
According to Abdullah, Iran began cultivating the government of Hamid Karzai sometime in 2003-2004. To quote Abdullah, “It started in a sort of transparent manner when I was the foreign minister. So it was during [Iranian] President [Mohammed] Khatami’s time, and President Khatami mentioned it to President Karzai, that ‘from my own office, I have a budget at my discretion. If you agree with it, I would like to give some money for your office.’ So it started that way. In the first year, it was twice or three times that this happened — each time, perhaps around $1 million.”
The timing is interesting. Bush had by then called Iran as one of the 'axis of evil' and had forgotten all about the splendid cooperation that Tehran extended for the success of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Mohammad Khatami was still in power in Tehran, albeit on his 'last legs', so to speak, politically bruised and bleeding from the daily ambushes and sniping from within the regime but he still harbored residual hopes that Washington would appreciate him as a man they could do business with. Iran-US standoff was intensifying, too.
As for Karzai, he was Bush's best pal with whom he conferred without fail every single week on phone from Oval Office. Karzai himself was basking in the sunshine of western attention as an acknowledged American puppet and was preparing for the (blatantly rigged) presidential election in 2004 auguring his first term as elected head of state. Everyone seemed to have forgotten about Mullah Omar by that time; Taliban had become, so it seemed, a part of history.
So, Tehran's decision to fund the American puppet in Kabul who was known to have a direct line to the Oval Office showed up a pragmatic policy at its best that almost bordered on cynicism. Tehran would have judged correctly by that time that the language of money spoke best within Karazi's power structure and a few million dollars were worth spending to win friends and influence people. Besides, it was an accepted norm of Afghan political life to accept money as a gesture of goodwill and no moral scruples were being violated.
An interesting thought: Did Tehran anticipate that Karazi would eventually fall out with Washington? Possibly so. Especially since the practice continued even after Khatami was replaced by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. At any rate, Tehran would have seen the point in discouraging Karzai somehow from aligning in any way with the US policy of 'containment' of Iran.
What is absolutely delightful is that Karzai took American consent before accepting the 'bakshish' from Tehran. Just ponder over it a bit. Bush knew Tehran was cultivating Karzai but okayed it since he had the full confidence that Iranians were wasting their money! How I wish I were a fly on the wall when Karzai and Bush chatted up on the Iranian offer of money!
Karzai, of course, took abundant precaution. He split the Iranian money with his cabinet colleagues - in what proportion we don't know - so that if ever a controversy arose, the entire government would swim or drown with him. Smart thinking! Equally, Bush administration weighed the pros and cons of the Iranian move and seemed to have concluded that the Iranian policies toward Afghanistan could do no great harm and essentially, Iran didn't seek to 'de-stablilize' Afghanistan.
Let me quote the Washington Times report: “We [US] did not take the view that it is in the interest of Iran to destroy Afghanistan and to have massive turmoil and an ungoverned space of the Somalia variety,” said Elliot Abrams, who held various senior National Security Council positions during the George W. Bush administration. “We thought Iran had mixed interests in Afghanistan. And looking back, that seems to be right. It hasn’t acted to create a Somalia there, but it has acted at the very least to undermine American influence and make our presence there, as in Iraq, as difficult and as costly as possible,” Mr. Abrams said.
That is to say, Bush administration saw Iran as a 'stakeholder' in a stable Afghanistan although the American propaganda would have us believe just the opposite. Abdullah didn't reveal how much was his own share of the Iranian money was. What an irony! Abdullah today is America's darling, and he is defaming Karzai. Tomorrow it might be Karzai's turn to allege Abdullah began receiving American money sometime circa 2009. And, if that turns out to be true, that is, if Washington is indeed 'cultivating' Abdullah, can Tehran be far behind? Maybe, Karzai can throw light in a few years' time. To be sure, Americans are playing around dangerously with the Afghan politicians, pitting them against each other and having a good laugh.

Pastor Jones and a dreaded ghost

2011-04-04T02:15:00.000-07:00

Special United Nations envoy Staffan de Mistura quickly blamed the Taliban for the killing in Mazar-i-Sharif of five Nepalese guards and three UN employees following American pastor Terry Jones overseeing the burning of a holy Koran in the US. De Mistura has missed the plot. The incident is a wake-up call that if pushed too far, non-Pashtuns will take up arms to counter the return of the Taliban to Afghan political structures, and especially in the case of the notorious Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa, likely to be freed from Guantanamo Bay. Read my article in today's Asia Times....

Egypt warms up to Iran

2011-04-03T01:20:00.000-07:00

A second indicator has appeared that in the downstream of the regime change in Cairo, there are new stirrings in the Egyptian regional policies. The permission granted by the Egyptian authorities, in the face of US and israeli concerns, to the two Iranian warships to cross the Suez Canal, the first-ever since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, was an act imbued with 'new thinking'. Now comes a far more definitive step by the Egyptian government. Foreign Minister Nabil el-Arabi said on Tuesday (March 29) that Egypt is ready to “open a new page” with Iran. The state-run Middle East News Agency quoted el-Arabi as saying, “The Egyptian government doesn’t consider Iran to be an enemy state. We’re opening a new page with all countries, including Iran.” He offered that restoring full diplomatic ties depends on the Iranian side and added that the two countries have historically-rooted relations.
Tehran has been swift to respond. “Good relationship between the two countries will definitely help stability, security, and development in the region,” Iranian FM Ali Akbar Salehi said in Tehran Saturday. Salehi praised the Egyptian revolution and said, “The Egyptian people by taking steps toward realizing their just demands opened a new chapter in the history of the country and again I congratulate them on this victory.” Salehi added despite ups and downs the “historic relations” between the two countries have always persisted and “I hope in the new environment we witness an upgrade of relationship between the two countries and the two great nations of Iran and Egypt.”
The ties between the two countries were severely damaged following the 1979 Islamic Revolution and literally disintegrated following Egypt’s recognition of Israel later in that same year. Egypt is still the only Arab country that has no embassy in Tehran. A "thaw" in Iran-Egypt relations began tentatively appearing since 2008 when Hosni Mubarak and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad met for the first time and the then Iranian FM Manouchehr Mottaki visited Cairo for official talks. But by end-2008, the two countries clashed over the crisis over israeli blockade of Gaza and Egypt resumed its allegations of Iran-backed hizbollah plots to destabliise the Mubarak regime. By end-2009, however, the "thaw" somewhat resumed. The blow-hot-blow-cold pattern can now be expected to give way to a more predictable relationship.
For Iran, which has excellent relations with Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, to add Egypt to the basket of 'friendly countries' will be a diplomatic coup. It enables Tehran to focus on the GCC states. Egypt is also disengaging from Yemen, which has been a point of discord with Iran. If Egypt-Iran relationship gets normalized, Israel and Saudi Arabia would probably feel disheartened.
Of course, the US policy to 'isolate' Iran regionally by building a containment ring of 'pro-West' regimes was heavily predicated on Mubarak's hostility toward Iran. That policy is no longer sustainable. Egypt is a test case in a broader sense, too. A pattern is emerging: the successor regimes in the Middle East will be much more responsive to public opinion and they may no longer passively acquiesce with the US regional policies.

US compliments Russia's "non-aligned" foreign policy

2011-04-01T21:43:00.001-07:00

Howsoever Russia strains to show it is critical of the US-led military intervention in Libya, Americans keep complimenting Moscow for its accommodative attitude. Barack Obama phones up Kremlin, actually, to compliment. A Russian friend wrote to me yesterday that two-thirds of Russian people oppose the western attack on Libya. But Americans know it is often the remaining one-third who call the shots in policy-making, especially in times of war. Voice of America has featured a commentary profusely complimenting Russia for its newfound "non-aligned" foreign policy. Of course, VOA unilaterally defines "non-alignment" as a foreign policy that puts primacy on 'interests' [read trade-offs] rather than high principles or ideology, as it used to be understood in the bipolar world in the last century. VOA explains: "Many analysts see Russia as seeking a post-Imperial role in the world. No longer a superpower, it has decided to try to maintain good relations with key countries around the globe. In Soviet days, Russian diplomats routinely vetoed Security Council resolutions supported by the United States. By abstaining in its UN vote, Russia joined China, Brazil and India. Fyodor Lyukanov edits Russia in Global Affairs magazine. 'Russia does not see itself any more as part of a global power which should participate in everything. Rather, the country focuses interests much more on spheres of most vital interest,' Lyukanov said."
But there is always a tragi-comic twist to such tales. So, VOA concludes: "On Friday, Mikhail Margelov, the Russian government’s top representative to Africa, gave a series of interviews, predicting that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi would be out of power by June. The Russian official said he was sending aides to Benghazi to forge contacts with the opposition. At the end of the day on Libya, Russian officials may have tried to please everyone, but ended up pleasing no one."

China rallies African opinion on Libya

2011-04-01T07:53:00.000-07:00

China utilized the foreign-minister level strategic dialogue with Germany in Beijing on Friday to reiterate its call for a political solution to the Libyan crisis. The visiting German Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle joined Chinese FM Yang Jiechi to say, "The Libyan situation cannot be resolved by military means. There can only be a political resolution and we must get the political process underway."
"Both China and Germany abstained from voting for UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which shows that the two states have reservations on the resolution," Yang told reporters. The resolution was adopted to stop violence and protect civilians, Yang said, adding that China is worried by continued reports of deaths and injuries among civilians and the escalation of military conflict in Libya. China maintained that concerned countries should strictly abide by the resolution and respect Libya's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity, Yang said. "The matter should be addressed appropriately by political and diplomatic means," he added.
China has scored a big point on the diplomatic front by getting Germany to take a common position with it. This comes barely two days after Hu Jintao's plain-speaking with the visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Quite obviously, Beijing has taken the high ground in the Libyan crisis and has positioned itself visibly as the flag carrier of opposition to the western military intervention. Interestingly, it is acting entirely on its own.
Xinhua carried a strident commentary today posing the rhetorical question: "Why Libya, why not Cote d'Ivoire or Somalia? It's a question posed in Africa - from Cape Town to Addis Ababa, from Nairobi to Abuja. Though reasonable, the question has not yet been highly valued or clearly responded... The U.N.-sanctioned military operation is based on an assumption: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi will massacre all the residents after storming the rebel's eastern stronghold of Benghazi. Thus, the crisis is latent and the operation is preventive. Also in Africa, on the western side, a humanitarian crisis looms in Cote d'Ivore. That's where hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes and nearly 500 have been killed by forces loyal to President Laurent Gbagbo, who clings to power despite losing to Alassane Ouattara in the Nov. 28 presidential run-off election. Why Libya but not Cote d'Ivoire?"
The commentary quotes prominent African leaders echoing China's criticism of the western intervention. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni accused Western countries of using double standards by pushing for a no-fly zone and asked: "Why Libya, but not Bahrain or Somalia? While imposing a no-fly zone in a rival country like Libya, the West turns a blind eye to a similar case in Bahrain, one of the pro-West countries. We have been appealing to the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists, without success. Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia similar to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil which is not fully controlled by the western oil companies?"
The commentary concludes by rallying African opinion against the West. "In the world arena, the Africa countries have often been regarded as a 'silent majority'. In fact, Africa may not be really silent. Instead, maybe its voice has not been valued or considered. As the war in Libya faces a deadlock and turbulence in the Middle East appears to be sprawling to Africa, questions concerning Africa's situation require rational settlement, rather than any unwise approach."
The way things are developing, the longer the western military operations in Libya continue, the greater will be the opportunity for China to rally African opinion. The decision by the African Union not to participate in the London conference last Tuesday creates a highly favorable backdrop for China's diplomatic offensive in Africa. The West has no answer to China's campaign.

Neo-Ottomans discover new Middle East

2011-04-01T02:00:00.000-07:00

Turkey is convinced it stands as a shining example of democracy for Muslim nations, but it is far from becoming a shepherd for a new Middle East where historical divides are being accentuated as America's influence wanes. Sunni Arab co-religionists resent the Ottoman era, and Tehran is unlikely to welcome the diplomats from Ankara now wading into Shi'ite Iran's backyard. My article on the thrust of Turkish policies in response to the 'Arab revolt' appeared in today's Asia Times.

Brzezinski on the 'Arab revolt'

2011-03-31T09:56:00.000-07:00

The Grand Master who first drew the post-cold war chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke with CNN's Amar Bakshi on what he sees ahead in the Middle East in the downstream of the 'Arab revolt'. ZB's assessment:
A. Don't expect a flowering of democratic states. Political awakening may take even extremist forms initially.
B. At any rate, successor regimes will be more responsive to popular opinion. From US' perspective, they won't any longer passively acquiesce with American foreign policy.
C. Popular opinion is quite critical of US due to its support for Israel. Israel-palestine problem is at the root of anti-American, anti-western Arab sentiments.
D. Therefore, long-term implications of Arab revolt for Israel's future are 'ominous'.
E. Which means there is imperative need of a 'grand compromise' that US must broker between Israel and Palestinians.
F. Iran is benefitting from Arab revolt. Therefore, US should be careful not to unwittingly help increase Iran's influence by excessively pushing for reforms. US interest lies in helping increase Turkey's regional influence.
G. Basic flaw in US regional policies was to have neglected the Arab street and to have pursued its interests in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan by accommodating the regimes, which have 'overlapping interests that are often financial'. But there is need to 'pay attention to Arab masses' in the Persian Gulf and not 'ignore the motivating impulses' for people who are now 'beginning to assert themselves in their national decision-making'.
Read the transcript of the interview.

Hu condemns western intervention in Libya

2011-03-30T08:52:00.000-07:00

At long last, China has come out with outright condemnation of the western military intervention in Libya. What is of great significance is that the criticism has come from President Hu Jintao and China has promptly publicised it. Equally noteworthy is that Hu chose to make his criticism at a meeting in Beijing today with the visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been the most ardent exponent in the western world of the military intervention in Libya. According to the Xinhua news agency report, Hu said history has repeatedly shown that the use of force is not an answer to problems, but only makes them more complicated. "Dialogue and other peaceful means are the ultimate solutions to problems," Hu said.
The Libyan situation has captured international attention and China is greatly concerned about the situation, Hu said, adding that China believes that the UN Security Council's resolution on Libya aims to quell violence and protect civilians. "If military action brings disaster to civilians and causes a humanitarian crisis, then it runs counter to the purpose of the UN resolution," Hu said.
In a reference apparently to the stance taken by the African Union against the NATO intervention in Libya, Hu said, "We have noticed that some countries and regional organizations have raised proposals and suggestions in solving the Libya crisis, which did not lack constructive ideas." He advised Sarkozy that China believes it is in the interests of all concerned parties to positively respond to these proposals. Stressing China's support of political efforts to ease the tension in Libya, Hu said China has called on relevant parties to immediately cease fire, seek peaceful ways to solve problems and avoid more civilian casualties. Hu said China believes that the independence, sovereignty, unification and territorial integrity of a country should be respected and that China is against the use of force in international affairs.
It is noteworthy that Hu spoke at length on the Libyan issue. Quite obviously, Beijing senses that the West is unilaterally expanding the scope of the UN SC resolution and a likelihood of western troop deployment on Libyan soil cannot be ruled out. Hu's stance comes as a big snub to Sarkozy and the Chinese stance makes it impossible for the NATO to gain any clear-cut mandate from the UN SC, as it had managed to secure for its involvement in the Balkans and Afghanistan.
China's clear-cut position should also embolden circles within Russia that are alarmed over the western intervention in Libya to raise their head over the parapet. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has been keeping an ambivalent stance so far, which drew pointed commendation from US President Barack Obama personally. Medvedev's overriding priority has been not to let the Libya problem come in the way of spoiling his policy of "reset" with Obama despite the glaring fact that the western intervention in Libya goes against the fundamental tenets of Russian foreign policy that Moscow has been espousing in the past decade. Hu's stance puts pressure on Moscow to speak out unequivocally on the Libyan problem.

Pakistan skating on thin Bahraini ice

2011-03-30T05:28:00.000-07:00

The visit by the Bahrain Foreign Minister Shaikh Khaled Bin Ahmed Mohamed Al-Khalifa to Islamabad opens an incredible twist to the unfolding saga of 'Arab revolt' in the Persian Gulf region. The visiting dignitary met President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar. The discussions primarily related to 'defence cooperation'. Shorn of diplomatese, Bahrain wants Pakistan to be a key provider of security and 'Barkis is willing'. Bahrain is very pleased with Pakistan's`principled stand` on the situation in the Gulf state, which was succinctly articulated by Zardari: “Pakistan desires peace, security, and stability in Bahrain. Pakistan… would not like its (region`s) stability to be upset in any way. Pakistan believes that it would be dangerous for regional peace and stability if the system was destabilized one way or the other”.
Bahrain and its mentors in Riyadh have every reason to be thrilled that Pakistan has unequivocally endorsed the Saudi intervention in Bahrain to crush the Shi'ite uprising. Such clear-cut support is hard to come by nowadays. Quite obviously, Pakistan has estimated that no matter what it takes, Riyadh will never allow Shi'ite empowerment to be realized in Bahrain lest it repeats in the oil-rich eastern provinces in Saudi Arabia itself and from Islamabad's point of view, it pays to be with the 'winning side'. There could be many positive spin-offs - greater job opportunities for Pakistani expatriate workers in the PG states, economic assistance from the petrodollar GCC states, oil supplies on concessionary terms, budgetary support for Pakistan's ailing economy and if things go well, a key role in the PG region's security architecture.
But Pakistan is taking a big gamble. Pakistan has a sizeable Shi'ite minority and it is prudent not to take sides in the sectarian strife in another Muslim country when Sunni-Shi'ite tensions are endemic to Pakistan itself. Second, Pakistan is bound to annoy Iran and other Shi'ite countries in the region, apart from the Shi'ite majority community in Bahrain itself. Third, Pakistan may be overlooking the possibility of the Shi'ite uprising in Bahrain increasingly getting radicalized as time passes and it may get sucked into a protracted internal strife. US Vice-President Joe Biden's phone call to the Bahrain Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa on Sunday gives an indication that Washington remains unsure that the Saudi-led crackdown is the best means of preventing a dangerous situation from developing as the excessive force may well drive the protest underground or may trigger even a region-wide Sunni-Shi'ite conflagration. Indeed, the calm in Manama is deceptive. A White House statement said, "The vice president recognized the important steps taken by the crown prince to reach out to the opposition and that law and order are necessary in order for a productive dialogue to proceed." But one can never tell the US intentions in the Bahrain situation insofar as its first priority will always be to safeguard the basing facilities of the US' Fifth Fleet.
Pakistan could be estimating that by aligning itself with the "pro-West" Arab oligarchies in the persian Gulf, it serves the US strategic interests as well. In sum, is Pakistan chewing more than it can chew? The prominent Middle East expert Juan Cole has warned that "Among the Middle East protest movements, that in tiny Bahrain is one of the more momentous".

Syria gets an unexpected hand of friendship

2011-03-28T19:25:00.000-07:00

Syrian leadership is receiving a helping hand from two unlikely sources in the region to make an orderly transition of reforms. No, Iran isn't one of them. It's Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Turkey's role is expected as much as the Saudi role would have come as a pleasant surprise to Syrian President Bashar Assad. Turkish PM Recept Erdogan spoke to Assad twice over the weekend urging swift reforms. By Erdogan's account, "We advised Mr. Assad that responding to the people’s years-old demands positively, with a reformist approach, would help Syria overcome the problems more easily." Erdoğan said he advised al-Assad to “answer the people’s calls with a reformist, positive approach. I did not get a ‘no’ answer. We have a border of 800 kilometers [with Syria] and we have family relations. We cannot remain silent.”
The Syrian president did not dismiss his calls for reform, Erdoğan said, adding that he expected Assad himself to publicly announce reform plans “either today or tomorrow [Monday or Tuesday].” Erdogan noted that Syria is working on reforms, including lifting emergency rule and restrictions on political parties. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu also spoke to his Syrian counterpart following Erdoğan’s phone conversation with Assad, telling Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem that Turkey was ready to contribute to the reform process. Interestingly, Erdogan dispatched Turkish intelligence chief Hakan Fidan to Damascus on Sunday, presumably to share assessment regarding the roots of the disturbances in Syria. Turkey will be greatly worried about the Kurdish separatists or Al Qaeda-type elements exploiting instability in Syria.
But the political bombshell came in the nature of a phone call Assad received from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on Monday. According to the Syrian account of the conversation, King Abdullah stressed his country's standing along with Syria to "foil the plot". Syrian news agency SANA reported that the Saudi ruler conveyed "support to Syria in the face of conspiracies targeting its security and stability."
The Saudi move is extremely significant. It couldn't have been made in isolation. A degree of prior consultation by RIyadh with the US cannot be ruled out. Hillary Clinton also openly ruled out a Libya-type western intervention in Syria. The Saudi-US thinking seems to be to build political capital with Assad at a time of trouble and thereby nudge him away from his strategic link-up with Tehran. Given the highly uncertain political climate within Iraq, US would have reason to be worried about volatility in Syria, which is an important gateway for extremist elements entering Iraq. Equally, Saudis would want Syria to retain its level of influence in Lebanon, as any diminution of Syrian influence over Hezbollah may work to Iran's advantage. The present political dispensation in Lebanon is essentially an outcome of Syrian-Saudi concord. Over and above, Saudis (and US) would be apprehensive that Jordan wouldn't be able to avoid taking a hit if there is a violent regime change in Damascus. The bottom line for Riyadh anyway would be to try to leverage the present situation to loosen up Syria-Iran axis. US would concur with any Saudi effort in this direction.

Gorbachev at 80: Vilified at home, lionized abroad

2011-03-28T07:33:00.000-07:00

The Russian government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta invited me to appraise the historical legacy of Mikhail Gorbachev on the occasion of the Soviet leader’s 80th birth anniversary. My article titled “Vilified at home, lionized abroad” appeared today in Moscow and can be accessed at the RIS website.

Uprising in Syria threatens Russian interests

2011-03-28T00:33:00.001-07:00

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton says she doesn't expect a Libyan-style western intervention in Syria although Washington deplores bloodshed anywhere. Is this a tactical posturing or a strategic stance? Difficult to give a straight answer. These are highly volatile times when the goal post keeps shifting and umpiring is rather arbitrary. In Libya, at least, it turned out to be so. But then, what's on Clinton's mind? In one word - Russia.
Moscow has just about shifted gear in the past 2 years to accelerate the reactivation of its Soviet-era naval base in Tartus in Syria when the prospect of a regime change in that country appears on the horizon. The navies of Russia and Syria were noticeably stepping up their cooperation over the last year or two, which included Moscow modernizing naval facilities in Syria's port of Latakia and Tartous on eastern Mediterranean to accommodate Russian warships. Russian ambassador to Syria, Sergei Kirpichenko, said in April: ""I am certain that we will witness new and significant progress in our bilateral cooperation in the near future." Russian Navy's nuclear-powered missile cruiser, Pyotr Veliky visited Tartous in April in a display of Russian Navy's ambition to show the flag. Pyotr Veliky has been the flagship of Russia's Northern Fleet. (PV also visited Indian Ocean and called on Colombo in April.)
Reports indicated that Russia has modernized Tartous and deploys 50 naval officers to maintain and supply warships that operate in the Mediterranean. Moscow also offered to modernize the Syrian Navy port at Latakia. Tartous, with three berthing floats, could handle up to a dozen naval vessels. Russian Navy regards Syria as a vital base for operations in the Mediterranean and surrounding regions. The naval base in Syria significantly boosts Russia's operational capability in the region because the warships based there are capable of reaching the Red Sea through the Suez Canal and the Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar in a matter of days.
That brings us to an interesting point: Is it a 'colour revolution' tacitly supported by the western intelligence that is being attempted in Syria? Strangely, trouble began in the border region with Jordan, which is a staunch security ally of the US and Britain. Clinton could be expected to be 'diplomatic', as she doesn't want Russian feathers to be ruffled over Syria at a time when the Kremlin's continued cooperation in the UN is vital for the NATO's Libyan operations. But it can't be that the US is unaware that if Russia loses its bases in Syria, its Navy's capacity to operate in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean (and Indian Ocean) will be seriously impaired. In short, NATO's unassailable supremacy in the Mediterranean, Levant and the Middle East and North Africa can be established if Russian Navy can be somehow "evicted" from Syria. If the uprising spreads in Syria and the regime gets seriously threatened, Russia will be caught in a serious dilemma. It is all but certain that any successor regime in Damascus would seek closer ties with the West. In short, Syria can well become the "Ukraine of the Middle East". Did Moscow make a historic blunder by adopting a passive attitude in the UN security council over Libya in the spirit of the US-Russia reset? The coming weeks will be accentuating the struggle for influence in Syria.

Russia invites Afghanistan to join SCO

2011-03-28T00:05:00.000-07:00

Moscow has invited Afghanistan to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [SCO]. The newly-appointed presidential special presidential envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov has been quoted by Russian media as saying, "We fully support Afghanistan’s membership in the SCO.” His suggestion is that Afghanistan could be first admitted as an observer (like India. Pakistan and Iran) and could become a full member eventually. No doubt, Moscow's suggestion is bound to favor with China and the other SCO member states. Probably a consensus is available already. The big question is whether US would allow Hamid Karzai to accept the Russian offer. If Afghanistan becomes a SCO observer/member, US' plans to forge an exclusive strategic partnership between that country and NATO runs into complications. NATO has been hoping to keep a long-term military presence in Afghanistan. The SCO's annual summit meeting is due to be held in Astana, Kazakhstan, on June 15.
To what extent Moscow's push to get Afghanistan diversify its external relations has been taken in the context of the Libya developments (where NATO is being projected as the sole provider of security globally) is a related question. Kabulov has said SCO can render help to Afghan economy. But then, SCO is also a security organization.

China mocks at 'Nobel Obama' over Libya

2011-03-27T01:49:00.000-07:00

People's Daily carried a commentary Friday calling into question US motives in the Libyan operations. The commentary anticipates an endgame that involves western troops on the ground. It questions 'Nobel' Obama's unconvincing explanations "under attack from Republicans, foreign policy pundits and even some of his own party men... mindful of the growing disquiet at home about the US role... [and] a growing chorus of criticism from a number of nations including Turkey, China and India". Commentary approvingly cites Vladimir Putin's criticism of the western intervention but pointedly ignores President Dmirty Medvedev's subsequent moderation or Obama's telephonic commendation of the Kremlin's attitude of 'cooperation'.
So, what is on 'Nobel' Obama's mind? PD says: ""Nobel" Obama weighs much more of the American interests and its geopolitical strategies in the Arab world than what the peace prize really means. Libyan turmoil is publicly propped up not only by the US-led Western diplomatic devices but also military intervention. The purpose is not as simple as the "regime change", which the U.S. denied, but focuses on isolating Iran, taking up the entire Arab market and further, spreading the political chaos to Russia and China in order to counterbalance the emerging strengths. Gaddafi is fighting stubbornly, or putting up a desperate struggle. The coalition forces are intensifying their political and military pressures upon the Arab world, forcing the Arab countries to remain neutral while they are shelling Libya. The Western military intervention finally lays bare their hidden intention of creating a false impression of the "Domino Effect" and "Butterfly Effect" in the concerned region, and also unmasks "Nobel" Obama's ulterior motives."
This is a significant escalation of Chinese criticism. A Xinhua commentary today follows up, giving a detailed account of the worldwide criticism of the western intervention.

Russia expects NATO occupation of Libya

2011-03-25T10:09:00.000-07:00

A "high-ranking Russian intelligence service source" has been quoted by the Moscow news agency Novosti as saying that preparations are on for a NATO ground operation in Libya in April-May if the ongoing attempts at regime change doesn't have the desired result. The Russian intelligence source said: "Information coming via different channels shows that NATO countries, with the active participation of Britain and the United States, are developing a plan for a ground operation on Libyan territory. From all indications, a ground operation will be launched if the alliance fails to force the Gaddafi regime to capitulate with air strikes and missile attacks." This reiterates the statement by the Kremlin spokesman two days ago that Moscow expected western "boots on the ground" in Libya at some point.
Meanwhile, Pentagon is moving over 4000 marines to the Mediterranean. The Pentagon decision to deploy servicemen from the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (BATARG) and 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit was made "based on continuing urgent needs in Libya and the region". BATARG commander Capt. Steven J. Yoder was quoted as saying, "Amphibious ships are optimally suited for executing a wide range of missions, from humanitarian assistance to theater and maritime security operations." The NATO is readying the military base in Izmir [Turkey] for the Libyan operations. We may expect a sizeable Turkish contingent in any NATO occupation force. NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe Adm, James Stavridis visited Ankara for consultations on Thursday.
The invasion of Libya is unfolding almost ditto on the pattern in Afghanistan in October-November 2001. Intensive aerial bombardment plus special forces support for Northern Alliance militia as the first stage; NA took on the brunt of the fighting with Taliban; once success was within sight and NA took over Kabul, US ground forces landed (without the knowledge of the NA - then FM Abdullah, in fact, protested about the arrival of US forces in Bagram). Here too, Libyan rebels will take the brunt of the ground fighting while US aerial bombardment will degrade Gaddafi (as it did the Taliban) and once success is within sight and the rebels reach Tripoli, NATO occupation forces will land. Unlike NA, which had an established political leadership, Libyan rebels are an incohate bunch with no leadership and there will be no one to question the occupation.

What is there in Libya for Clinton?

2011-03-25T07:41:00.000-07:00

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has emerged as the leading voice of the Barack Obama administration on Libya. She has been most vociferous about the support for 'democratic forces' (rebels) in Libya. She spearheaded the diplomatic campaign for UN resolution. She travelled to Cairo and Tunis to discuss Arab participation. She attended the summit in Paris last Monday to flesh out the coalition to implement Resolution 1973. She began interpreting the scope of R-1973. She is traveling back to London next week for the 'contact group' meeting on Libya. And now, above all, she has announced that US is taking the next step in the war by transferring command and control to NATO. "We are taking the next step: We have agreed along with our NATO allies to transition command and control for the no-fly zone over Libya to NATO."
Furthermore, Clinton went one step ahead and anticipated that it is a matter of time before NATO is put in charge of the entire mission. "All 28 allies have also now authorized military authorities to develop an operations plan for NATO to take on the broader civilian protection mission." (Hey, where is Robert Gates?) Do UAE or Qatar have any problem operating under NATO? No. Because Clinton sorted it out with her Arab counterparts at the Paris meeting. Quite obviously, this isn't Obama Gates' war. Both have taken low-key roles while Clinton is leading and is in full cry.
What is there in Libya for Clinton? Significantly, Clinton is getting strong support principally from two unlikely camps: the interventionists and neocons in US. But what is not obvious in the ongoing discourses - or, more precisely, what is not being openly discussed - is that the Israeli Lobby has been in the vanguard of the campaign for the intervention in Libya. A large NATO presence in Libya is a huge security guarantee for Israel at a time when it faces the spectre of isolation in the Middle East.
The present blueprint of 'humanitarian intervention' is virtually a carbon copy of what was originally mooted by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman in the course of their visit to Tel Aviv in early March. After their return to US, the two senators literally went on a media campaign projecting their blueprint for US intervention in Libya. Both senators have close links with Israel and obviously, they were spearheading an Israeli plan of action which was worked out in Tel Aviv. Now, to begin with, Obama didn't show interest and Gates was even mildly contemptuous of the McCain-Lieberman plan of action suggesting US intervention. But two top politicians in the Obama camp 'defected' to the pro-Israel camp - Senator John Kerry (high-profily chairman of US senate's foreign affairs committee) and Clinton. Obama immediately began backtracking. Did he sense a challenge from Kerry (or Clinton) in the upcoming presidential race with the support of the Israeli Lobby, which hasn't hidden its disenchantment with Obama? Both were Obama's opponents in the 2008 race and both are ambitious politicians. Conversely, is it what is in actuality there in Libya for Clinton to assume the lead figure in the management of the war? Given the pervasive Jewish influence over the US media and Israel's media management skills, these undercurrents lie sequestered from public view.

'The Bell Tolls for Thee...'

2011-03-24T03:51:00.000-07:00

In my earlier post on March 21 'Don't Ask For whom Bell Tolls', I estimated that one unintended byproduct of the western intervention in Libya may turn out to be the ascendance of militant Islam in a wide arc of the Muslim world. I wrote: "The stunning reality is that the bell tolls not only for Qaddafi. Libya is a fragile nation of recent origin and is unlikely to withstand the pressure of foreign intervention. Its tribal, clan politics are a recipe for disintegration. More important, the only unifying force may turn out to be Islamism, which if it rises in the debris of civil war would profoundly impact international security in a wide arc of Greater Middle East stretching all the way to Afghanistan in India’s extended neighbourhood."
Today's Asia Times carries a sensational piece that Osma bin Laden is on the move, that he has been spotted by US intelligence as having bestirred himself and meeting various militant groups including with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Karachi-based Syed Saleem Shahzad who authored the piece has close contacts with Pakistani intelligence sources. It is hard to tell whether the information is aimed at derailing the ongoing talks between the Americans and Hekmatyar. (Gulbuddin seems to have bypassed the Pakistani intelligence and got directly in touch with Americans.) But Shahzad's main thesis is interesting, namely, that bin Laden might switch to a less dogmatic 'united front' approach toward other islamist groups so as to tap into the anti-American fervor that is bound to arise out of the Arab revolt. He doesn't mention Libya, though.
But Alexander Cockburn, editor of CounterPunch, does. He has an interesting post today, based on WikiLeaks cables. It seems the American embassy in Tripoli had been warning state department that eastern Libya, especially Benghazi is a beehive of Al-Qaeda operatives/sympathisers. Again, the so-called Sinjar Records (set of al-Qaeda documents that came into the possession of US intelligence in 2007) independently substantiates the estimation by the WikiLeaks cable. So much so that a former CIA operations officer Brian Fairchild has been quoted as assessing, amid "the apparent absence of any plan for post-Gaddafi governance, an ignorance of Libya's tribal nature and our poor record of dealing with tribes, American government documents conclusively establish that the epicentre of the revolt is rife with anti-American and pro-jihad sentiment, and with al-Qaeda's explicit support for the revolt, it is appropriate to ask our policy makers how American military intervention in support of this revolt in any way serves vital US strategic interests."
Are we coming a full circle? To fight the "evil empire" in the 1980s, al-Qaeda was created. And now the attempt to effect a regime change in Libya may lead to a similar catastrophe. The fact of the matter is that no one has a clue in the NATO camp as to what they are fighting for, who these so-called "rebels" are or what a successor regime is going to look like. As Cockburn says, Barack Obama is being pushed around by the interventionists and neocons against his own better instincts.

Turkey compromises on NATO role in Libya

2011-03-23T07:18:00.000-07:00

The Anatolian news agency just reported, citing NATO officials in Brussels that Turkey has agreed to participate in the alliance's naval operation off Libya. A NATO meeting is under way in Brussels. Brigadier Pierre Saint Anand of NATO's military staff told a media briefing that Turkey was sending five warships and a submarine to join a separate NATO operation off Libya to enforce a UN arms embargo. This seems a volte-face by Ankara. Only yesterday, Turkish PM Recep Erdogan, addressing AKP ruling party MPs in Ankara categorically opposed NATO operation. In fact, he attacked French President Nikolas Sarkozy by name for queering the pitch of implementation of R-1973. He alleged Sarkozy was using Libya operation to boost his domestic popularity ahead of 2012 election. “Nobody told him [NS] to undertake such a role. He took this step on his own."
Erdogan also said Libya operations should be under UN umbrella. Although, he hinted Turkey could take part in the following areas: a) No combat role; b) Turkey could contribute by securing the airport in Benghazi; c) Securing the distribution of humanitarian aid inside Libya; d) Deploying ships in the Mediterranean, between Crete island and Benghazi, apparently to help implement an arms embargo on Libya.
Turkey's participation, if confirmed officially, will no doubt significantly enhance NATO capabilities and profile. Turkey has the second largest military within NATO, next to US; it is a Muslim country; and, any expansion of NATO operations in future such as deployment of ground troops in Libya (which is being talked about) will substantially draw on Turkish resources. What prompted Ankara's rethink is unclear. Barack Obama had spoken to Erdogan. If Turkey indeed shifts its stance, it becomes a diplomatic coup for Obama and there is nothing stopping NATO intervention in Libya. Adm. James Stavridis, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe is visiting Ankara on Thursday to coordinate with the Turkish military on the alliance's operations in Libya, which indicates Ankara is falling in line.
Quite possibly, some cosmetic formula is being worked at Brussels today out so that Turkish leadership doesn't lose face. NATO will not take “political leadership” of the international coalition in Libya but will have a planning and operational role to enforce a U.N.-backed no-fly zone, the French foreign minister said Wednesday.

Mullah Omar gets a Russian visitor

2011-03-23T03:01:00.000-07:00

He can be disarmingly charming. Like any ethnic Uzbek. Plus he has cultivated a great sense of humor, especially the sardonic variety that is a Russian trademark, which sees you through adversities. He was trained in the tricks of his trade at the best professional schools in Moscow.   A consummate Orientalist - that is what he has been, coming in the long distinctive tradition of Russian diplomacy that places an overriding accent on area specialists. That is probably the best way to describe Zamir Nabiyevich Kabulov, appointed on Tuesday to the new Russian post of presidential special representative for Afghanistan, includes on his impressive resume the ambassadorship in Kabul. But then, Kabulov also has the rare distinction of having met Taliban leader Mullah Omar face-to-face. Read the full article in today's Asia Times...

'Don't Ask for Whom Bell Tolls'

2011-03-21T23:16:00.000-07:00

On Libya, it increasingly appears India is getting torn between loyalties - to the strategic partnership with the United States and Barack Obama's promise to support Delhi's bid for a permanent membership in the UN Security Council on the one hand and the wider ramifications of the western military intervention in a UN member country which also happens to be a fragile nation that like many developing countries in the African continent are still grappling with their post-colonial identity. Woven into all this is the great pantomime that is unfolding about the new world order, especially West's angst over its decline and over Asia's rise. The Delhi newspaper Mail Today featured my commentary on the imperative for India to be far-sighted. The text of the article titled 'Don't Ask for Whom Bell Tolls' is reproduced below:

‘Don’t Ask for Whom Bell Tolls’
By M.K.Bhadrakumar

The narrative sounds simple: Arab awakening has reached Muammad Qaddafi’s land, Libya. And, as Omar Khayyam wrote, “The Moving Finger Writes; and, Having Writ, / Moves on: nor all Your Piety nor Wit / Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line.”

But the narrative is deceptive. The Resolution 1973 adopted by the United Nations Security Council on Friday provides for “all necessary measures” by the international community to protect civilians in Libya. It is a deeply flawed resolution insofar as it wasn’t backed (as traditional) by any detailed account of the ground situation, was passed in unseemly hurry and its wording lends itself to varying interpretations, while its implementation is left delightfully vague. Clearly, hindsight tells that the West wanted a fig-leaf to legitimize its ipso facto intervention in Libya and to expand its scope to include “regime change” in Tripoli.

Put plainly, the script is already written and only the stage needs to be readied. Yet, two veto-wielding powers, Russia and China, that consider international law and UN Charter regarding inviolability and sanctity of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member countries allowed the precedent-setting R-1973 to pass through. They wanted the western actions to be somehow made as accountable as possible in the circumstances, while factoring in that western intervention in stoking the fires of a Libyan civil war was already a geopolitical reality.

India, too, abstained and its stance rested principally on the plea that peace efforts (specially by African Union) must be given a chance and there ought to be much more clarity about what is happening in Libya, aside the disquiet that outside intervention may only exacerbate the overall situation. Russia and China have reacted strongly to the air strikes by the “coalition of the willing” – US, UK, France and Canada – and demand that the military operations cease forthwith. So has Africa Union. So has Arab League, which despite its domination by “pro-West” oligarchies, fear the wrath of public opinion over the aggression of another Muslim country by western nations. Arguably, West counts on only one major supporter – Israel.

Unfortunately, from a principled position, Delhi has since backtracked by avoiding condemnation of western air strikes or demanding their cessation, and instead counseling restraint on “all parties”. This balancing works in favour of the West. Which is, of course, a great mistake on India’a part. The heart of the matter is that this is a momentous occasion when India needs to carefully ponder for whom the bell tolls.

The stunning reality is that the bell tolls not only for Qaddafi. Libya is a fragile nation of recent origin and is unlikely to withstand the pressure of foreign intervention. Its tribal, clan politics are a recipe for disintegration. More important, the only unifying force may turn out to be Islamism, which if it rises in the debris of civil war would profoundly impact international security in a wide arc of Greater Middle East stretching all the way to Afghanistan in India’s extended neighbourhood.

Furthermore, Libya’s disintegration or division will send reverberations deep into the African continent where, too, modern nation states that emerged in the post-colonial era are struggling with arbitrary boundaries, and nationhood remains under challenge (eg, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania). Nor can we overlook that a fierce race for Africa’s fabulous resources has resumed lately, harking back to the brutal colonial era. China’s entry into Africa, western economies’ fitful recovery, angst over the West’s steady decline, inexorable rise of Asia, energy security – all these form a cauldron from which the alchemy of the Libyan crisis derives. Overarching considerations include the projection of North Atlantic Treaty Organization as the sole global security organization that has the capacity and experience to intervene in “hot-spots” in the future even without UN mandate.

The narrative, therefore, that Libya is a template of the Arab revolution is crafty deception. Washington has put the Libyan operations under its Africa Command. No wonder, African Union hears the footfalls of a blood-soaked era that it thought had disappeared into history books. Delhi needs to be far-sighted about its stakes in the Libyan pantomime.
ENDS

Russia blows hot and cold on Libya

2011-03-21T07:37:00.000-07:00

Russian PM Vladimir Putin has come down heavily on the western sir strikes on Libya. "The Security Council resolution [1973] is deficient and flawed; it allows everything and is reminiscent of a medieval call for a crusade. It effectively allows intervention in a sovereign state." He added, "This U.S. policy is becoming a stable trend," recalling the U.S. air strikes on Belgrade under Bill Clinton and Afghanistan and Iraq under the two Bush administrations. "Now it's Libya's turn - under the pretext of protecting civilians. Where is the logic and conscience? There is neither. The ongoing events in Libya confirm that Russia is right to strengthen her defense capabilities."
The metaphor of the Crusades and the West's dismantling of the former state of Yugoslavia cannot be accidental. FM Sergey Lavrov also phoned Arab League SG Amr Moussa. According to Russian media, Lavrov told Moussa: "We strictly oppose using military force against civilians, this is why Russia joined the international call to end violence against civilians [in Libya]. Nobody could now predict the consequences of the situation in Libya. We hope they will be minimal and will not damage the territorial integrity of Libya and the whole region.” Lavrov seemed to imply that the western intervention in Libya leading to a civil war or the country's disintegration may have serious consequences for several African countries that are similarly placed in terms of the fragility of their post-colonial nationhood. Russian experts have been voicing apprehension in this direction.
However, on a parallel track, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev today appointed a new special representative on ties with African countries. Curiously, his choice fell on the well-known politician Mikhail Margelov who is a quintessential 'insider' (although with a past as a liberal-minded aide to Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky) and he currently heads the foreign affairs committee of the Russian Duma's upper house. Although a specialist on Africa by academic background, his current forte is Russia's relations with the West and he comes out as an ardent enthusiast of the US-Russia reset.
Margelov uses very colourful language; two weeks ago he called Muammad Qaddafi a "demoniac colonel" whose regime is doomed. "Gaddafi's regime is agonizing. It is dead-trapped, as hunters say. Not only Libyans are fed up with Gaddafi, but also the international community." Margelov hoped that the blood of those killed in Libya will put an end to the "eerie list of crimes by the demoniac colonel."
So, Medvedev's decision is quite interesting. I think one major consideration for the Kremlin must have been that the Americans will feel comfortable with Margelov. Equally, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates just arrived in Russia on a 3-day visit. The fact that Gates got away from US when military operations in Libya have just begun shows that Washington prioritises Russian cooperation, Moscow's rhetoric notwithstanding. En route to Russia, Gates appreciated Russia's abstention at the UN SC on Friday and hoped that more such cooperation would be forthcoming. He said Libya is on his agenda of talks in Moscow.
On the whole, Russian line on Libya is zigzagging. Let us hope its stabilizes sometime soon.

Turkey struggles with its Libya stance

2011-03-20T21:17:00.000-07:00

My mind goes back to those times in Ankara when we in the diplomatic corps agonized so much over Turkey's role in any NATO operations in the Balkans. Turkey's stance on Libya strikes me as a replay of its stance on the Balkans. In fact, Turkey's "neo-Ottoman" legacy included, Turkey's pretensions were almost the same - that it was a potential bridge between Europe and the Balkans, that it was "more experienced" than Europe in the affairs of the Balkans thanks to Ottoman rule, that Muslim people were involved, that it was in Turkey's neighborhood, etc. In the event, Turkey fell in line and meekly picked up what the West offered - an auxiliary role in the NATO operations. Even for peacekeeping later, the West opted for EU, which of course, meant Turkey stood by largely as a spectator.
The same trajectory seems to be surfacing over Libyan developments. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has significantly fine-tuned his Libya stance. Interestingly, this happened in the course of a speech at a conference of the Jeddah Economic Forum at Jeddah. By the way, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal paid a unpublicized visit to Ankara on Thursday late evening for a few hours. Faisal would have given some thoughtful worldly advice to the Turkish leadership. Wealthy Arabs salt away a lot of 'green money' in Turkey.
Anyway, Erdogan has for the first time appeared to be critical of Muammar Gaddafi: "Gaddafi is contradicting himself. He said he was not officially the leader of Libya. What is expected of a person who is not officially in charge is to hand over [the administration of] Libya to a person who has an official leadership position.” Erdogan didn't make any forthright criticism of the western military attack on Libya, either. All he would say: “Of course, now we want the military intervention to end and stability to be restored as soon as possible in Libya. We are not pessimistic. We should never lose hope. We can stop the unending bloodshed and tears in this region. Believe me, we can do this.”
Now comes the big question: Will Turkey join the western military operations? Traditionally, in such matters Turkish military used to make the final decisions. But the Kemalist era is in a twilight zone and time is in animated suspension in Turkish politics as parliamentary elections are due in June. Turkey seems to be dithering at a crossroads. Late Saturday, Turkish foreign ministry said in a statement that Ankara will make the necessary and appropriate national contribution to implementing the no-fly zone over Libya and measures to protect civilians. “Within that framework the necessary preparations and studies are being made by civil and military authorities in co-ordination." The MFA statement cryptically ended on this note, which opens up all sorts of possibilities. The Turkish media has already begun speculating that Turkey could provide one or two frigates to support an international naval force deployed off the Libyan coast, or it could open its airspace for aerial strikes on Libya.
Of course, much depends on whether or not the western operations - presently involving US, UK, France, Italy and Canada - are eventually brought under the NATO flag. In principle, Turkey has no problem with the no-fly zone concept as such. Nor is it in any position to oppose a NATO operation. My estimation that Turkey will ultimately contribute to any NATO operations in some way. It will be too much of a risk politically for Turkey to dissociate from a major NATO enterprise outside Europe. NATO membership is the anchor sheet of Turkey's strategic thinking. Things have changed a great deal in Turkish foreign policy in the recent years with regard to neighborhood policies - toward Russia, Iran, Israel and so on - but the Turkish military will not be amenable to an open dissociation from a major NATO decision or a NATO project in the Mediterranean.
Of course, Turkey's Libya dilemma somewhat eases with the Arab League's criticism of the western operations. African Union has already called for an immediate cessation of the western operation. Russia and China have been categorical in their opposition to the western air strikes and the unilateral interpretation of Resolution 1973. A NATO move in the face of the growing regional and international opinion becomes problematic. Ankara may just get away with its prevarication and strategic ambiguity - and, who knows, if luck holds, Ankara may even secure a slice of the mediation that may become necessary at some stage to convey a few sensible things to Gaddafi.

Turkey's Libya dilemma

2011-03-19T10:57:00.000-07:00

Turkey is dramatically careering away from the Anglo-French initiative on Libya. The growing divergence of opinion in recent days has apparently become a great divide. Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan has voiced support for an urgent ceasefire in Libya and refrain from any western military action. In reality, Turkey could be doing a curious balancing act, estimating that a role for mediation might arise at some point. Thus, Turkey supports a no-fly zone, but opposes "foreign intervention in our friend and brother Libya." Turkey also adds a caveat that its stance is evolving and is subject to the humanitarian considerations from time to time - a safety valve, of course. No signs, either, that Turkey intends to block a NATO operation in Libya, although Erdogan earlier questioned the alliance's locus standii. Zaman has a fine write-up on the nuances in the Turkish position. The present government is buffeted by many pressure - Ottoman legacy in North Africa, western intervention in yet another Muslim country, Arab League stance, huge economic interests in Libya (projects worth 15 billion dollars) and so on. More than anything else, Erdogan will be highly sensitive about the domestic opinion. Turkey is gearing up for parliamentary election. How will Turkish public react if western operations lead to heavy loss of "Muslim lives" in Libya?