Posts by PramodSedhain:

Myanmar reform towards progress

October 13th, 2014

 

 

By Pramod Sedhain.



Almost five decades of military rule and isolated from the rest of the world, the Myanmar path to reforms is under way. Reform has been initiated since November 2010. As part of this effort, the Myanmar government granted amnesty to thousands of political prisoners, human rights defenders, land rights activists, journalists, foreigners, factional-struggle military officials, among others. The Myanmar government has expressed commitment to release the remaining political prisoners. Likewise, the Western nations have been encouraging the Myanmar government to expedite the wave of democratic reforms and open up economy.

The current progress on reforms has created a widespread opportunity and hope for the country’s economy or politics. After the easing of the Western sanctions imposed on the former military rule, the Myanmar government has made multiple progress and opportunity in all fronts, including political, economy or social. The foreign nations have focused their attention on Myanmar’s vast natural resources, economic potentiality and strategic geo-strategic location. (Myanmar shares the land border of 5,876 kilometers with five countries China – 2185 km, Thailand – 1800 km, India- 1463 km, Laos- 235 km, Bangladesh- 193km, which is longest borders in Southeast Asia.)

Progress seen on the horizon in Myanmar and upcoming 2015 election would draw a future course. 2015 multi-party election will prove to be a very significant step in the reform transition from military to a civilian rule. The Myanmar Constitution has reserved 25 per cent of parliamentary seats for the military as well as important ministerial posts. More than half of the rest are held by retired army officers involving pro-military party Union Solidarity and Development Party. Myanmar’s most popular opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her party National League for Democracy (NLD) stepped up the election champion. Nobel Peace Prize winner and international democratic icon, Suu Kyi will not be able to fight for the next president under the constitutional clause. She will not be eligible for the presidency. Suu Kyi, who was under house arrest for at least two decades, has demanded that this constitutional provision be scrapped.

During my visit to the country, we could easily shape perceptions that the country is heading towards reforms in all aspects. The multi-cultural and ethnical potential country has now a very easy access to foreign tourists and they can easily move across the country without any fear. There has been an impressive and extensive booming of construction in the capital Yangon with several other economic activities around the country indicating reform progress. The significant number of foreign tourists flow will be sufficient to evaluate the ground situation of the country with visible signs of reforms underway. The privatization process as well as strengthening of the important financial sectors like telecommunications, electricity, energy, forestry, education, and health indicates that Myanmar has accelerated efforts towards progress and reforms.

Transforming the country’s economic development will help strengthen democracy and improve the people’s living standards. Political reform along with economic and social reforms is the foremost necessary element for the overall development of a country. Market-oriented liberalization economy and trade, transporting line and other development infrastructure, skilled and quality labor training, modernization of industry and agricultural sector, modern health and education system is also vital for development process. Socio-economic new development creates new opportunities to achieve peace and stability.

Poverty reduction and economic progress is Myanmar government’s principle priority. Myanmar government wants to see a triple growth in its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita by fiscal 2015/16 and the government is trying to focus its legal framework target to achieve the goal. But there are multiple challenges to achieve the goals because of financial problem. Government needs to have more direct foreign aid, grants, loans and investment. The government is trying to establish business-friendly environment in the country to attract more investments. The government is still drafting the foreign investment law, drafting laws on industrial zones, to strength privatization, laws on the minimum wages, raising the threshold for income tax, among others.

Following the visit of US President Barack Obama on 19th of November last year (making it the first-ever visit by a US President), Myanmar has been center of attraction. Obama’s visit not only drew the world’s attention, but also helped in pushing the country’s democratic reforms. After the new US engagement in Myanmar, it has become easy to promote foreign trade and to normalize its relations with the wealthy western world. International condemnation and sanctions have been drastically minimized following the reforms in Myanmar. The lifting of all sanctions in Myanmar has opened the door of business opportunities and gaining different sources of engagement and even ending decades of sole reliance on China. According to Reuters news agency report, since July 2012, U.S. companies have cumulatively invested $612 million in Myanmar.

According to the Myanmar government, foreign direct investment was five times higher in the fiscal 2012-13 than in 2011-12. According to Reuters News agency report, Myanmar has revised its forecast for foreign direct investment more than the estimated $4 billion figure to more than $5 billion for the fiscal year that began in April. The major foreign investment sectors are energy (oil and gas), manufacturing, mining, hotels and tourism, transport and logistics, real estate, livestock and fisheries, agriculture, construction and services.

According to the Myanmar Investment Commission data, economic reforms helped triple Foreign Direct Investment into Myanmar to more than US$4.107 billion in the fiscal year, compared with $1.419 billion a year before and $91.17 million 10 years ago in fiscal 2003/04. Top foreign investors are China, Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, United Kingdom, Sweden, Brunei, Samoa, India and other western states. This investment attraction indicates business-friendly law in Myanmar.

Despite the vast natural, cultural and biological resources and lot of potentiality, Myanmar remains one of poorest countries in the region. According to the Asian Development Bank data, Myanmar’s GDP growth was estimated at 6.5 percent for 2013 and is forecasted to rise to 6.7 percent in 2014. If the international community rewards Myanmar, it will be one of the potential stronger economies in the region. The 60 million population nation’s economic transformation is not a big deal because of its diversifies potential options including low-cost youth labor force, huge regional market opportunities, foreign aid and investment commitment, growing interest of foreign investors, among others.

In other hand, it have lot of stock of untapped natural resources including the valuable petroleum, timber, tin, zinc, coal, lead, marble, natural gas and similar to hydropower. Myanmar’s long coastline has easy access to major Indian Ocean shipping lanes which has the most potential of developing new deep-sea ports to enhance trade corridors in the region. Another rare chance to Myanmar is its location, which is a key factor to huge potentiality to build up trade channels link with around 2 billion consumers market. Credible financial institution suggests that the country’s economy is likely to grow by an average of 7.7 percent per year across 2016-2020. According to McKinsey Global Institute survey, Myanmar could grow the size of its economy from $45 billion in 2010 to more than $200 billion in 2030.

Myanmar’s tourism industry has a huge potential and is already the highest record ever in history. Myanmar’s growing tourism industry is a major contributor to GDP. Tourism can be a major source of revenue and potentiality to enhance their economy through this sector. According to Myanmar Minister of Hotels and Tourism figure, they received 2.04 million tourists in 2013, with a growth of over 90 percent as compared to the previous years. In 2010, just 300,000 tourists visited the country. Tourism development plan, policy and investment are growing rapidly. It lists 794 hotels licensed to accept foreigners but still needs to improve easy air connectivity with foreign countries. Myanmar government has a projection of some 3.01 million tourist arrivals by 2015 and 7.48 million by 2020.

The natural aspect is the most potential tourist destination because of their extensive destination of Himalayan range, tropical forests, pristine beaches, off-shore islands to inland waterways. Myanmar is a fascinating destination for hundreds of pagodas, temples, archaeological sites, and other rich cultures and natural attractions. The nation has a beautiful flora and fauna along with different beauty spots snow-peaked mountains to rivers, natural lakes, beaches and archipelagos. The nation has around 135 national races with different customs, tradition and art. Myanmar is rich in bio-diversity and resources. According to Myanmar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs data, the country is home to nearly 300 known mammal species, 300 reptiles and about 100 species of birds, and 7,000 species of plants.

Challenges ahead

Despite lot of opportunities and hope, Myanmar’s reform transition faces great challenges and extensive obstacles. Challenges remain in critical phases and there is still a risk of stability and peace. Country needs to solve the long-standing inter-communal violation and it ethnic conflicts. Myanmar is still in fault-line of multi religious and ethnic tensions. Internal power struggle might affect the fragile ethnic diversity and the economic progress. National unity is the most significant factor to avoid the risk of different internal as well as ethnic conflicts risk.

Failing to form a common solution and a political unity the tensions and mistrust in Myanmar will spread and take a new height resulting new waves of deadly violence and communal unrest. Peace and stability should be the government priority. The government has made ceasefire with 10 major ethnic armed groups, which were fighting against the government. The country’s early stage economic development, unemployment, management capacity, urbanization, technology, full fledge connection with world are other challenges. Myanmar has already stepped forward. However, there are several seen and unseen political, economic and social challenges.

 

Comments Off on Myanmar reform towards progress

Is Kim Jong Un still in-charge of North Korea ?

October 10th, 2014

 

 

 

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain?



 

Speculations have dramatically raised among Pyongyang- watchers since the country’s core leader Kim Jong Un’s sudden disappearance from significant state functions as well as from the public view since 3 September 2014. Kim’s status and whereabouts is still unknown since it is neither verified nor any evidence-based information is received within the secretive country. North Korean government news agency KCNA news once said he was “suffering from discomfort,” but after that there have no news about the leader’s health condition. There has been no accurate assessment about Kim’s condition from the South or Western intelligence agencies either. Intelligence agency is still silent and has not provided any details. Their primary focus of assessment could be ‘possible power struggle’, perhaps power shift within the top brass military elite.

Several North Korean analysts have assessed that the reason could be anything political or military chaos in North Korea or possible power shift within the ruling military elite. Possible political destabilization in Pyongyang has increased confusion and risk for the neighboring countries but they have remained quiet and closely watching the developments of North Korea. But in general analysis, Pyongyang has not still given a clear sign of power shift to any other person or group. There has been no exact evidence or confirmation about the developments inside North Korea. Likewise, no information or source could be verified. The widely confusing issue is: where is Kim Jong Un? What has happened to him or in which direction is secret North Korean politics heading towards? Another significant question is: Who makes political decisions and who is in-charge of the country’s 1.2 million regular troops?

North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong Un’s absence from public eye for more than a month and key notable absence in high profile public events including the celebrations of founding day on 9 September, legislative session of the Supreme People’s Assembly on the 25th September and meeting to mark the 17th anniversary of his father Kim Jong-il’s election as general secretary of worker party on 7 October and 69th anniversary of the founding of the ruling Workers’ Party on October 10 has raised serious suspicion.

Of course, South Korean intelligence agency, the National Intelligence Service, has collected every detail about North Korean development as well as focusing on central leadership’s fragile and factionalism or possible power shift very carefully. However, it has not disclosed the assessments. It is still unclear about what has really happened in North Korea? The major question is: who is really in charge of Pyongyang? And particularly, what is guiding North Korea’s political course behind the scenes?

Perspective of Kim in power

Kim losing power in a coup is not easily believed in North Korea. What has really happened inside this secretive country? Who are the power brokers? Who are the ruling minds? How is North Korea functioning? These are some of the questions that have remained a mystery and are confusing the whole world. The secret might be notably invisible to run the country to create confusion to the outside world in the dynastic-ruled hermit nation. If we analyze the past experience, Kim remains in complete control of the country system and society. The current mysterious event inside North Korea might have a little bit of truth. Rumors and miscalculation inside secretive and totalitarian nation North Korea has not been a new issue.

North Korea has still remained an issue of confuse and miscalculation. Most of North Korean issues are based on the regular follow-ups by the government news agency, defector, tourist, external open source and whole rumors on the basis of lack of reliable source inside the country. If there has been a coup, there could have political, diplomatic and military consequences within the North Korean state organ – ruling party, military and the government. In case of sudden turmoil on nuclear-armed nation, there could be of course hierarchy problems within the military elite to gain the control of giant army. Another doubt is the issue of takeover of power shift, which is not easy though.

In the past, North Korea played different tools and tactics to confuse the outside world to hide the truth and fact. Coup in North Korea cannot be so easy because of the totalitarian cult of personality surrendering the Kim’s dynasty. Even if the regime collapsed surprisingly paving way for a new military regime, it would not be easy to handle the power elite, which ultimately would lead to confrontation or conflict.

Another confused calculation is the possible new leadership sign in Pyongyang which has not happened. In case of immediate power shift taking place, we see the instability and confusion but there are no signs of such developments. Toppling Kim would be surprising and unfortunate since no alternative power elite or force have immense power to handle the country. Rivalry and coup against the supreme leadership and power handover on another person is not an easy task. Same system and different leadership is not possible to smooth functioning. North Korean regime cannot survive without centre leadership.

Issues concerning North Korean have been serious since series of intelligence have failed since the formation of the country in 1948. Several Suspicions and speculations in North Korea during the Korean War as well several military coups rumor have been proved wrong. Rumors of the Leader’s poor health, serious power struggle, and death or murder news have been circulated in the entire world but finally they were not verified. Since Kim Il-sung political rivals purged time in 1950’s whispers rumored starting in outside world. Rumors of attempted among the shadowy Pyongyang elite have emerged regularly over Kim Ill Sung ruling years in 1950s, 1960s, 1970s . Coup rumor widespread in several times after some of the senior military and party official trialed and bloody purged.

Since Kim Jong Ill assumed the Pyongyang power in 1994, news concerning collapse and coup attempts had been circulated during his entire 17-year-rule in 1990s and 2000s. Several high profile news circulated in 1995, 2002 and rumor straightly surrendered after intelligence and political assessments of power shift, collapse or military but all of myth not confirmed the reality. Currently, circulating of coup against North Korean leader Kim Jong Un might be another cycle of past rumors.

 

Comments Off on Is Kim Jong Un still in-charge of North Korea ?

Significance of broad coalition against terrorism

October 5th, 2014

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 


US-initiated campaign against Islamic State terrorist is now a meaningful broad-based coalition. Western and regional key military power countries’ pledge to participate against anti-terrorist operation against Islamic State (IS) has taken a significant step – both militarily as well as politically. Defeating the IS terrorist group is now the priority of the integrated Western air force. But they are not prepared for ground attacks. Initial air strikes have been successful but without ground control, the long term goal remains uncertain. Hundreds of aerial bombardments have been carried out forcing the militants to retreat. Many allied countries’ ability to fight against IS seems limited but their support has weakened the terrorists’ morale. The U.S. itself has massive military power than the entire coalition and it can carry out massive operation alone. However, several countries joining hands have symbolic meaning – to show “an alliance against terror”. Most of the allied countries might involve in logistic and other supporting mission. This can be a symbolic step against the ongoing fight against Islamic State terrorist group.

Since August 08, US’s significant air strikes totally blocked the jihadists from advancing. The strikes also helped to rescue the trapped civilians as well as besieged Kurds, Yazidis and Christians. The French – America’s key traditional ally – was the first European country to join the U.S-led bombing campaign. France is the country with the independent military policy than any other US-NATO western allies. France was one of the most vocal critics of US military action in 2003 and now it is involved in a totally different context. French aerial presence is limited in this operation but possess a great idea and experience to tackle terrorism. It was also involved in an operation in Mali in 2011 to purge al-Qaida-linked militants and its forces were deployed to end sectarian violence in Central African Republic (CAR). French troops flexed military muscle in Ivory Coast, Libya and other parts of Africa. After extensive debate in the United Kingdom parliament and voted on approving the multinational aerial operation, US closest ally, UK warplanes joined the US-led air strikes to target the IS militants. European economic powerhouse Germany has supported the coalition. Australia, Netherlands, Belgium among others countries have joined the mission.

Most of the US ally only participated in Iraq but the US-led Arab allies participated in Syria against the radical Islamist militants. In order to wipe out extremist leadership, US-led Arab coalition simultaneously attacked several dangerous extremist groups in Syria among Islamic State, al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra front, rare-known Al Qaeda network in Syria- Khorasan, among others extremist targets. Five Arab nations – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have taken part in the air strikes in Syria. The beginning of broader approach might be a similar alarm bell to the Syrian government because they might impose a no-fly zone in the northeastern part of Syria to aim the Syrian moderate rebels controlling the ground. If they remain successful to enforce the no-fly zone, the Syrian military’s ability to launch air strikes against apportion rebels can lead to a total collapse.

Aircraft have attacked IS’s command, control and logistics capabilities as well as the capital of terrorist groups’ self-declared caliphate in Syrian city of Raqqa and its primary economic source – oil installations in eastern Syria. French fighters pounded the significant Islamic State targets in Iraq. Nearly 40 countries have joined the US-led coalition against terror group. Such a broad coalition has been formed nearly two and half decades after the Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991). In 1991, a coalition of some 34 countries had joined the Operation Desert Shield (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) and were involved against Iraq in response to Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait.

Now that it is time for more countries to join the campaign against IS to protect their own soil. Commitment to join the coalition is important for controlling possible threat of Islamist extremists. After series of anti-western terrorist activities and beheading of US, UK and France citizens, the West felt it a necessity to declare war on them and to put military pressure against the IS. The US-led pressure against IS militants is necessary to protect their own interest as well as to prevent their nationals from joining the jihadists. Arial operation in wider areas is a difficult task but this harder choice is because the IS seriously poses threat not only at the regional level but to the whole world. Killing or capturing senior Islamic State leaders, destroying their number of command headquarters, controlling the spread of terrorism and extremism is the prime concern for the coalition countries’ air strikes. Necessary ground intelligence gathering is more crucial after intensified air strikes against the terrorist group. According to Central Intelligence Agency assessment, the terror group IS could have as many as 31,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria. The threat from this terror group is far dangerous than al-Qaeda because of its ground base, brutal tactics, its fighter size, its weaponry, its economic source, and fighters’ determination.

Conducting military strikes in IS targets is necessary for protection of world peace and stability. Destroying their capability and weapons is impossible without effective air-strikes. Air strikes have damaged the Islamic State’s ability to control more significant territories in Iraq but high- morale with equipped and trained force is needed to gain the ground. Questions remain how long will it take for the operation? And can air-strikes defeat the IS? The former al-Qaeda in Iraq group formed in 2013 had captured several cities. It had captured eastern Syrian city-Raqqa and expanded its capture in neighbor Iraq in June. The terrorist group changed the Middle East map after capturing Iraq’s second largest city Mosul and declared a “caliphate” in the controlled areas in Syria and Iraq. The U.S.-led air strikes on Islamic State neutralized the group but despite the limited bombardment of a few key targets they could be hiding in small trenches and civilian areas. Recruitment and cut-off of a major source of revenue is still a challenge.

Ideological battle is equally important like military campaign. According to Reuter’s news agency, more than 120 Islamic scholars from around the world issued an open letter denouncing Islamic State. Reuters mentions the letter signed by figures from across the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco states: “You have misinterpreted Islam into a religion of harshness, brutality, torture and murder”. The letter described IS interpretation of the faith as “a great wrong and an offense to Islam, to Muslims and to the entire world.” Another humanitarian crisis is refugee with thousands of civilian population of the town flee posing threat to regional stability in the Middle East. Coalition’s bombing campaign is yet to be justified. Three-year-old Syrian civil war political solution is still uncertain and Iraqi political settlement is another challenge. Sectarian division, ethnical tension and political discrimination are some other problems in the crisis region. Inclusive and integrated joint government is the need in both Iraq and Syria. If political solution is underestimated in the current crisis across the region, this could pose another serious threat, which will start a new cycle of violence in the region.

Comments Off on Significance of broad coalition against terrorism

Changing terrorist trend: Global to Local

September 24th, 2014

Pramod Raj Sedhain.


Despite close-tracking of terrorist groups’ activities, assassination of leaders, drone strikes, military and technical superiority and other strategic pressures, several terrorist groups are on a rise. Effective counter terrorism efforts and growing intelligence surveillance have helped in reducing global terrorist groups’ high profile attack capacity in western homeland. What is worrying is the growing links between local militia group and global terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Collaboration of local militants with global terrorist network is a potential long-term threat. Terror groups have now shifted their traditional tactics by adopting the ideology of gaining a foothold in local insurgency and indiscriminately waging violence.

Western intelligence and counter terrorism officials have been busy these days to assess the barbaric terror group – the Islamic State and preparing the list of targets. They are currently involved in assessing IS strength, structure, strategy, command and control, connection with foreign terror groups, finance, ideology, recruitment, possible plotting as well as the emerging terror threat in their own soil. They have drawn a combat blue line to tackle terror groups, create potential targets to air strike as well as tracking the leadership. They already started credible encounter strategy to reduce the Islamic militant posse’s potential threat.

Alliance of local militia groups’ with global militants has posed rapid threat worldwide. This has boosted the morale of the local terror groups carry out suicide bombing and even improving their weapons, kidnapping, and bloody approach against civilians. Islamist groups of different countries share their bloody tactics, inspired terror ideology, sharing radicalization method and recruitment, criminal ideas and approach. This trend is common in Africa and Middle East, which is gradually penetrating in Asian countries.

 

War on Terror: Far from Over

Aftermath the 9/11 World Trade Center attack, President George W. Bush declared “war on terror” on September 20, 2001. The entire world extended unconditional support in the beginning, which would eventually lead to wider campaign worldwide to lead the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The campaign successfully foiled different terror attempts. However, despite the war against terror and high security, there were some major terrorist attacks including in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005.

U.S prime target al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was killed in an operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2011. An American-born dangerous terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. The notorious al-Shabaab leader Ahmed Abdi Godane was killed in a U.S. airstrike in September 2014. However, neither the Islamic extremism has been defeated nor the al-Qaeda fighters are eliminated.

It has been more than 13 years that the global war against terror has been declared. However, before declaring final victory against terrorism, new terrorist group called Islamic State emerged with a new threat. On September 10, 2014 President Barack Obama declared new war against Islamic State ”wherever they exist.” Al Qaeda’s competitor, new global terror group Islamic State is now the new enemy of U.S. President Obama authorized military operations against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq as well as deployment of additional U.S. forces in Iraq. The U.S. has not shown interest in ground intervention to avoid the bigger risk. As an identity of extreme brutality, Islamic State captured the eastern Syria as well as Iraq’s northern and western regions and proclaimed the establishment of caliphate.

International terrorist groups have changed their strategy pattern. Likewise, the U.S. too has changed its tactics against extremists. CIA has begun to conduct drone strikes while the US military has focused on aerial strikes. According to New American Foundation data, 58 al-Qaeda and Taliban-affiliated senior leaders have been killed in the CIA drone campaign in Pakistan. The ‘Hunt Down Terrorist’ mission through drone in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan to other nations has still continued.

Emerging global jihad and youth motivation is a serious ideological threat. Without controlling violence and extremist ideology, terrorist threat cannot be minimized. Mesmerizing youths (by terror groups) of their violent ideology through digital Jihad recruitment is a serious problem. Grooming and radicalization of well-educated young people is a long-term threat. IS has enough money and ground. However, al-Qaeda is running out of funds and foreign fighters.

Different extremist militant groups train youths in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen or elsewhere. Several western youths have joined the global jihad to gain fighting experience and training to carryout attacks. Collective monitoring mechanism and collective intelligence-sharing are not practiced globally. Cutoff terrorist alliances, strengthening local security, common counter terrorism strategic policy, collective data system, and high-tech investigation can minimize terrorist threats. Terror mission is inspired by different components. Ideological battle against terrorism is the foremost thing to avoid youths from involved in terrorism.

 

Battles within global terror groups

Terrorist activities have dominated international headlines in recent times. Currently, factions between al-Qaeda and its splinter Islamic State are engaged in a tug of war and even clashes to control global terror leadership. Both groups are trying to strengthen their position. After the rise of Islamic State in Middle East, global ‘terrorist’ network al-Qaida’s legitimacy has come under serious threat. Two groups are struggling to win the race – to establish themselves as the global leader of global jihad? Their bloody conflict started in Syria and now has reached in the global level.

Under the brutal leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic state (former al-Qaida Iraq branch, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) declared caliphate on 29 June 2014 and Baghdadi was named as its caliph. Baghdadi wanted the leadership role of global jihadist movement but IS emergence proved to be a new threat for Zawahiri. IS formally closed links with al-Qaeda in February 2014.

Al Qaeda opened the Syrian branch Jabhat al Nusra to fight against Syrian government, which was the most powerful opposition force in Syria by the end of 2012. Organization chief Zawahiri explicitly told their Iraqi branch chief Baghdadi that his group was to operate only in Iraq but they did not care and fight broke out between two groups in 2013.

Al Qaeda has an upper hand in Yemen conflict. It expanded its network to Algeria, Libya, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Al-Qaeda is now under the threat from IS rising worldwide. Al Qaeda’s ideology is to use Asian, Arabian and African local militant groups to gain the ground against the respective governments. Different local terror groups use Al-Qaeda terror umbrella to use cross-border phenomenon for local existence but now some of terror groups are seeking similar alliance with Islamic State, which is a direct threat to Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda umbrella linked terror group has continuously carried out attacks by using racketeers and sectarian outfits in the local level. However, intelligence agencies have enhanced counter-terrorism efforts in western countries to stop or foil any terrorist plots. Al-Qaeda has changed their tactics and is currently limited to regional conflicts for survival. Western intelligence has continued surveillance against al-Qaeda’s strategy after the outfit lost their prominent figure. Currently, majority of the members in the terror network are from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

After losing the central command and suffering from effective western intelligence, they focused on local-level conflict. They have even started to attract western Muslim youths and after radicalizing them they send these youths back to their origin country to carry out attacks. Many local al-Qaeda branches are not directly under the central command control. Al-Qaeda’s other branches in North Africa, Somalia, Iraq, Syria and Yemen have been facing multiple challenges.

The terrorist organization Al-Qaeda has announced the establishment of a new branch in the Indian subcontinent. Terrorist organization chief Ayman al-Zawahir declared that the group aims at creating a Muslim caliphate in Burma, Bangladesh and some parts of India. This tactic could be a mere propaganda to show their existence.

Pakistani terror group Tehreek-e-Khilafat and Jihad swearing allegiance to Islamic state is another serious challenge for Al-Qaeda. Pakistan and Afghanistan is home to dozens of small terror groups having close ties with al-Qaeda and Taliban. Such spread of Islamic State outside the Middle East is an emerging threat within the terror groups.

Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram has been on the headlines once again with its pledged allegiance to Islamic State terrorist group, which exist in parts of Syria and Iraq. They said to set up an Islamic state in the towns and villages it has seized in north-eastern Nigeria. Their direct operational links is still in doubt but such decision is a challenge for Al-Qaeda existence. Boko Haram killed thousands of people, and launched series of attacks, bombing, sectarian violence. The terrorist outfit gained higher international attention in April 2014, after they abducted more than 200 schoolgirls in northeastern town of Chibok.

Boko Haram extremist position is not only Nigeria’s serious security threat but also in neighboring nations. It is also an emerging global threat. Failing to control this group will have negative impact on Chad, Niger and Cameroon and long-term threat to the western world. Most of the African local Islamist militant groups have ties with international jihadist.

After announcing alliance with al Qaeda in February 2012, the Somali terror group Al-Shabaab has been able to carry out ‘cross-border attack’ in the neighboring nations. They carried out Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya. This group is a potential threat to Uganda and Tanzania. North African and West African terrorist cells have already proven their dangerous ability in Libya, Algeria, and Mali. But the recent new global terror legitimacy struggle and race is another threat for global security since both groups might carry out deadly attacks to prove their strength.

 

Comments Off on Changing terrorist trend: Global to Local

Why battle against Islamic State is a must?

September 18th, 2014

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.


After seizing a vast swath of territory in eastern Syria as well Iraq’s northern and western region, Islamic State (IS) has posed a real and serious threat to global security. Since June, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorists, which controls parts of Syria, crossed the northern Iraq and carried out a ‘sweeping seize’ of the large swaths of territory by straddling the borders between the two countries. Islamic State militants have taken control over the Iraq-Syria border including Iraq’s second largest city Mosul and Syria’s eastern province of Raqqa. Iraqi military force saw a quickly humiliating loss in a horrific way with ISIL declaring the “Islamic State”.

In June, secretive head of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (in a video message) declared himself as a “caliph” (ruler of all the world’s Muslims). The crisis in Iraq escalated after the militants controlled the northwest part and moved forward to other cities. They acquired advanced weapons and money, and continued their advances to the capital Baghdad as well Kurdish capital Erbil. The highly mobile militancy Islamic State, which split with the al Qaeda terrorist network during the Syria’s Civil war, has now a potential threat.

 

US humanitarian intervention

Growing Islamic State threat in the region has sounded alarm bells to the US, which has taken necessary and effective humanitarian actions. The U.S. ‘wait and watch’ strategy ended after the militants activities escalated. The intention of the US clearly signifies that it is keen on protecting innocent civilians and prevent humanitarian catastrophe. The steps of intervention would be legal under the request of the Iraqi government, and unanimous international and regional support.

Islamic militants targeted victims of Yezidi, Christian, Kurdist and Shia communities. This cannot be prevented without essential military and humanitarian support. US military has started dropping of relief materials, including bundles of food, water and medical supplies in the seized area, where civilians are facing shortages of food and water. US has been carrying out air strikes against the IS militants to prevent their activities and further advance to protect several religious minorities who are at high-risk. Merely shedding crocodile tears will not address the crisis.

The position of ISIL militants in northern Iraq has been bombarded by US airstrikes since August 8 thus allowing Kurdish forces to retake control of the some of vital significant areas such as the Mosul dam. In other frontlines, Iraqi army backed by thousands of volunteers have been engaged in fighting against the IS militants to push them out of their captured areas. According to Pentagon figure, the US spends $7.5million average per day on military operations against Islamic State in Iraq.

Islamic State militants have been committing heinous crimes such as mass execution of civilians and captive troops, beheadings, crucifixions, terrifying, torching, and deplorable murders. The world has never seen such notorious, barbaric and brutal shocking images, which are against humanity. The terrorist group beheaded U.S. journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. The group also mercilessly eliminated the rival insurgents and the moderate rebels.

The U.S.’s accurate air strike with laser-guided bombs has destroyed Islamic State’s significant offences weapons while several fighters have been killed. US ultra-modern technology and drone successfully eliminated the Islamic State offense position, heavy weapons and convoy. This has not only stopped militants’ advance but also proved to be a humiliating defeat of IS militants. Since the last two and half decades, the US’s military involvement in Iraq has been for the third time. But the current military intervention is more urgent as well as legal.

U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was widely criticized by its long-standing allies. But this time, the US role is highly praised worldwide. Since the withdrawal in 2011, this time US has been handling the situation sensitively. It will certainly defeat the Islamic State because of US military and technological might no matter how strong and defiant the core leadership of terrorist is.

The U.S. intelligence has been keeping a close eye tracking of the Islamic State Chief Baghdadi. It is just a matter of time where and when he will have the pay the price for the militant and brutal activities. Air strikes are limited and the focus remains only in Iraq. However, it has been a necessity to expand air strikes in the Islamic state heart-land, Syria. President Barack Obama had already authorized spy planes to track militants in Syria to air-strike their positions. However, the question is how long will it take to achieve the goal?

 

How can the radical terrorists be wiped out?

How long it would take to down IS terrorism in the region is still unclear. It might take months or even years. The threat posed by IS extremists is not an easy task to deal with. It will also not entirely depend on military action alone. There has to be a political solution. Understanding the root-cause of the crisis and taking a right political approach might resolve the crisis permanently. Forming an effective new collation government is the foremost thing to tackle the growing IS threat.

Combating terrorist or militants without cutting off funding and controlling fresh recruitment is not an easy task. Proper co-ordination and intelligence gathering is prime necessity to strike at the Islamic State’s high-level leadership. Without clear ground and clear information about the group’s organizational structure, clear battlefield structure, command and control identification, it would be difficult to identify the targets and such miscalculation could lead to unfortunate circumstances.

Islamic State is purely a terrorist group and fiercest enemies of modern civilization. Only a massive and accurate military force can deal with these radical groups. Striking at their core leadership, command and control, equipment and technology and air force against militancy can only prevent the IS militants from spreading their influence.

Crumbling Iraqi security forces need modern weapons, training, advice, effective intelligence as well as logistic support. Effective and credible new Iraqi force can only protect any future possible threats or militancy. Iraqi and Kurdish forces urgently need arms and equipment to combat terrorism.

There is also a need for international support for Iraq to combat and overcome Islamic state extremists. European leaders must act quickly with the US to take action against terrorism to eliminate the jihads. If France and UK joined hands with the US against the militants, this will help in controlling the threat. Other western countries too can support humanitarian, logistic as well weapons and training. Muslim scholars and clerics have to initiate a campaign in favor of true ideology by criticizing the barbaric activities of the IDS militants.

Western homeland under threat

Rapidly growing extremist Islamic State isn’t just a threat to the Middle East but will have an impact in several countries worldwide. The whole world might be affected by such regional phenomena. Growing Jihadists in Iraq and Syria has remained a long-term potential security threat for the western countries. Surprise events have been witnessed in the Middle East with modern western youths joining the radical Islamist group. Thousands of western citizens are inspired by the Islamic State radical ideology and hundreds of westerners have already joined their rank. Western governments are in a difficult position since their citizens are joining the Jihadists.

According to The Wall Street Journal report (August 29, 2014), 12,000 people form 74 different countries jointed the Islamic State terror group along with 500-600 British citizens and 2,200 European. US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told CNN that 100 Americans are fighting with the Islamic State. He added, “There may be more. We don’t know.” U.S. intelligence estimated more than 300 Americans may have joined with the Islamic State. Similarly Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop revealed that a significant number of Australians have taken up leadership role in Islamic State. She said that the government assessed more than 60 of their citizens and 100 more supported those militant groups.

How the number of Jihadists from Europe and America are joining the terrorist group is still not exactly known. Their return will always be a threat. Another problem is that they possess valuable western passports and they can easily travel to most of the countries. Such a situation is not a threat for western countries but also to the whole world. All countries need to strongly adapt to counter-terror strategy and control mechanism.

Western intelligence agencies have been facing several difficulties to identity, tracking, monitoring and verifying the militants one by one. Their number is still at doubts and the danger of carrying out terror attacks on its own soil remains high. Question remains how the western nations will be capable of monitoring potential suspects and their activities? Which system will the western security agencies adapt to when it comes to interrogation and investigation of extremists to identify their possible motive? Such complex security channel and effective intelligence surveillance depend on the threat level.

 

Comments Off on Why battle against Islamic State is a must?

India-Nepal Military: Relation and Aid

September 8th, 2014

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

Amid series of defense-purchase negotiations, Nepal Army (NA) received huge military assistance from India. The tiny Himalayan nation received forty-five trucks loaded with bullets, bomb disposal items and explosive devices in the second week of June this year. India, the major arms suppliers to Nepal Army had earlier suspended military aid to Nepal following the royal takeover in 2005. At a meeting last year, Nepal had sought 1.76 billion Nepali Rupees (USD 18.33 million) worth military supplies from India.

The Nepal Army sought to purchase more than 26,000 weapons of various kinds including several thousands Indian-made Insas rifles to landmines, detonators, safety fuses and time pencils. India has been providing weapons, including 81 and 51 mm mortars and other military hardware. India provide Nepal army weapons with 70 per cent of the aid coming in grant since 1962. Military hardware exported by Delhi to Nepal comprises mainly rifles, helicopters, mine-protected vehicles and other equipment. After nine years of suspension, India provided non lethal weapons – including 216 light vehicles, 154 heavy vehicles, including 58 trucks of 7.5 tons capacity, 67 trucks of 2.5 tons capacity, 4 ambulances, 25 multi-purpose armored vehicles, among others.

Resumption of arms supplies has been Nepal military’s prime priority. In the backdrop of huge arms dealing, Nepal’s Army Chief General Gaurav Shumsher Rana visited India for five times. Likewise, India’s Army Chief General Bikram Singh visited Nepal three times in two years.

Nepal has not procured arms and ammunitions for Nepal Army for nearly a decade. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the government and the then Maoist rebels stopped both parties to buy arms and ammunitions until the completion of peace process. After conclusion of the peace process and with the integration of the former Maoist combatants into the Nepal Army, the government of Nepal wrote to all countries having diplomatic relations stating that there was no obstruction for procurement of arms and ammunitions.

Nepal since long has been buying weapons from India under the Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950. Article 5 of the treaty mentions Nepal shall be free to import arms from third country but needs consultation with Indian government.

This has remained a divisive and debated issue among the leaders, experts and analysts. That treaty has often been termed as unequal while some hard-line communist have maintained that the treaty has compelled Nepal to fully depend on India. Several people want revision of the treaty while some have been demanding that the treaty be scrapped in the changed scenario. It should also be noted that India had stopped a plane carrying 3,000 American M16A2 Rifles meant for Nepal Army during the armed insurgency period in December 2002.

The recent armed shipment is a special significance in the light of enhanced defense cooperation between Nepalese army and Indian army since Nepal became republic in May 2008. Since the restoration of Democracy II in Nepal, military relations and cooperation between the two countries have gradually improved. Likewise, India’s concern and influence, after Nepal’s peace process, has increased dramatically.

Root of Military relation and Indian Priority

Nepal and India’s military has a “very deep and vast relationship”. India and Nepal hold strong and special military ties. Nepal Army has heavily depended on Indian arms and ammunition. Since 1965, both the countries have been practicing conferring the title of “honorary general” to army chief of both the countries. The two armies have been exchanging goodwill visits since 1950 when the then chief of Indian Army, General Kodandera Madappa Cariappa visited Nepal. Since then, 20 Indian Army Chiefs visited Nepal while 15 Nepal Army chiefs have visited the southern neighbor.

After 7th India-Nepal Bilateral Consultative Group on Security agreement in 2011, India and Nepal army platoon level (30 persons each) held a joint training exercise. India and Nepal held joint military exercise titled “Exercise Surya Kiran”. The joint exercise, which has been complete after sixth series, is alternatively hosted by Nepal and India.

The level of joint training was upgraded to company level (approximately 80–250 soldiers) in 2012 based on experience gained in previous two exercises in 2011. Such exercise is basically focused in jungle warfare operations and counter-insurgency and aimed at boosting military level relations between the two neighboring nations. Such operation exercises are conducted up to the battalion level (approximately 300 to 1,200 soldiers, 2 to 7companies).

Military ties between the two countries have been deep-rooted and historic. Gurkhas are best known for their history of bravery and strength in the Indian Army’s Gurkha Regiment and the British Army’s Brigade of Gurkhas. Nepalese Gurkhas have participated in all operations undertaken by the Indian Army since its Independence. Gurkha engaged in 1947-48 Indo-Pak War, Hyderabad War in 1948, 1965 Indo-Pak War, Chola in 1967 and the 1971 Indo-Pak War. Gurkhas also operated with distinction in anti-militant operations in Assam and Jammu & Kashmir .

After the independence of India in 1947, six of the original ten Gurkha regiments remained with the Indian Army. Additionally, a further regiment (11 Gurkha Rifles) was raised. The Gurkha regiment that was transferred to the Indian Army have established themselves as a permanent and vital part of the newly independent Indian Army. British Indian Army’s Gurkha regiments won a dozen Victoria Crosses and other top laurels in World War I and II, before they were divided between the British and Indian armies in 1947.

Gurkhas from Nepal and India are recruited not only in these battalions but also in other regiments such as the special force (parachute battalions). Under the Indian Army, there are 7 Gurkha regiments serving around 25,000 Nepalese working in 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 11th Gurkha Rifles, each of which has five to six battalions (800 to 1,000 soldiers each). Gurkha’s serving in the Indian Army and the ex-serviceman collectively generate an annual revenue of $200 million .

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the contribution of Gurkha soldiers during his official visit in August . Modi said the Nepal’s Constituent Assembly “There is no war that India has won without the blood of Gurkhas. I respect their contribution,” he said to a thunderous applause. Modi quoted former Indian Army chief Sam Manekshaw to acknowledge Gurkhas’ bravery: “If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or is a Gurkha,”.

Indian Priority

Nepal is a land-locked country situated between India in the east, west and south and China in the north. The country’s strategic importance is derived from its status as a buffer between the two Asian super powers. Nepal has a geopolitical strategic Himalayan border with China and open boarder with India. It’s of vital strategic and security interests to Indian’s military assistance to Nepal. Nepal location is in a strategic geographical cross road between India and China. Nepali shares a border of 1,751 kilometers with India (open and porous border in east, west and south) and 1414.5

kilometers with China in the North.

India thinks Nepal as a special national security matter and is deeply concerned with China’s activity in Nepal. India has special concern in Nepal and military relation has been boosted. Indian New Prime minister Narendra Modi also puts Nepal in his topmost priority.

Nepal Army: strength, Weapons and modernization

Nepal, despite having a population 26 million population and being one of the world’s poorest countries, has the largest standing army of 96,000 with 6 divisions. During the decade long conflict, the ranks of Nepal Army doubled from some 46,000 to 96,000. During the insurgency, Nepal government established the para-military Armed Police Force (APF) to fight the Maoists. The current size of the APF stands at 36,000. The size of Nepal Police is currently 67,287 while the number of intelligence is 2,000. There have been voices in recent times to downsize the number, budget, role of the security forces.

The Nepal Army never has disclosed the amount of arms but well-known sources inside the NA reveal that during the armed insurgency, Nepal received 20,000 M-16 rifles from the U.S. (nearly 25 percent of the total rifles). However, NA has more than 45 percent worn-out and traditional rifles. It has replaced them by 47,000 modern assaults rifles. NA has several hundred other modern weapons imported from several countries.

Nepal Army Special Forces & Counter Terrorism unit have equipped several hundred Colt Commando assault rifles. During the insurgency period, Nepal Army replaced INSAS & SLR to modern M16 rifles. Nepal Army faced several hurdles from the Indian side during the shipment.

Nepal Army has 40 thousand

India-made INSAS assault rifles, which was bought in a 70 % subsidy rate. Similarly, Nepal Army have used UK-made Sterling submachine gun SMG. NA has around 22,000 SMGs. Likewise, Nepal army Squad has around 5000 Belgium made M249 Light Machine Guns, Paratroopers No.10 Brigade have Israel made IMI Galil, Special Forces & VIP protection units also have Israel-made Uzi Submachine guns. Similarly, Nepal Army Sniper Units, Special Forces and Nepal Army Rangers have been using Germany-made Heckler & Koch Rifle (among MSG90 Military Sniper Rifle, Heckler & Koch G36, MP5).

NA also has several hundred UK-made Bren light machine guns and Belgium-made Minimi and FN MAG Machine Guns. Nepal Army has also different kinds of supported weapons and artillery system like several dozen of UK-made QF 3.7 inch AA gun, Russia-made SPG-9 Rocket-propelled grenade system, India-made 25 mm gun, different types of mortars, among others. Nepal Army Air Wing has different variety of UK, Russia, France, Poland, cargo, VIP flight and Troop Transport & Cargo Aircrafts but does not have fighter jet attack helicopter. NA is also equipped with several India-made light helicopters like HAL Dhruv and Cheetah. Several NA aircraft have been grounded due to lack of proper maintenance. Nepal Army has no air force. However, it is trying to strengthen its air mobility. Recently, Nepal Government decided to purchase two Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters to act as a gunship at a cost of Rs 3 billion (96 Nepali rupee equivalent to 1 US dollar) for NA .

Nepal Army has also different types of tanks, APCs, Small air defense cells and other variety of weapons. As a troop contributing country, Nepal ranks fifth in the world. Nepalese Army has some 4,096 soldiers serving in 13 different missions around the world and has committed about 5000 army personnel for UN operations.

 

Comments Off on India-Nepal Military: Relation and Aid

Why Ukraine is a strategic chessboard?

September 3rd, 2014

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 

War-torn Ukraine has become a costly east-west superpower strategic chessboard. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, geo-strategic located Ukraine has been a cross-road between east and west, which the current standoff was not experienced during the cold war era. Ukraine has failed to ensure the non-aligned status to balance between east and west. Both Russia and EU-US involved in the start of the Ukraine crisis to “lead from behind” strategic ‘triumph’ approach. But, later they came to the forefront by interfering in Ukraine’s domestic politics and started using aggressive policy to gain the domination of geo-strategic ground for their own purpose. They systematically destabilized the situation rather than practicing a solution-based approach.

After toppling the pro- Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, Kiev’s new leadership put a ban on the country’s second official Russian language. Instead of coming up with a ‘balance deal’ with both EU-US and Russia, the Ukraine leadership took to hostility behaviors with Moscow that led to Russian firm response. Immediately in response, Russia branded Ukraine’s new leadership as “fascist and junta”. Russia has been threatening to destroy US missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. Russia was already in war against Georgia in August 2008. Such direct response, it seems, is widely underestimated or miscalculated by Ukraine’s new government and its supporters.

With a motive to isolate Russia, Ukraine’s new leadership actively switched on to Western camp by forgetting the geo-political and geo-graphical position. Ukraine’s future remains fragile due to the interest, priorities and perspectives of different powerful countries on the crisis. Western countries and Russia can play a role to stabilize the situation but they have their respective strategic calculation, including promoting their respective influence.

Ukraine underestimated Russia in different time and situation. As a result, Ukraine had to undergo painful consequence in Crimea. Currently, Ukraine’s eastern part is undergoing severe crisis with a significant number of people waging a separatist movement. The heavy industrial as well as mostly Russian-speaking eastern region has historical, political and cultural relation with Russia since the Soviet regime. Soviet developed eastern Ukraine as a war zone since the last four months. Russia and the western countries are engaged in blame-game politics accusing one another for the current crisis. Ironically, none of them seem to resolve the crisis.

Russia and western countries have lots of possible new strategic steps to address the Ukraine crisis. Both misjudged the critical situation and want to own strategic victory. But deeply divided Ukraine has been incurring considerable loss in terms of military, political or social. Military solution or victory in Ukraine is far from reality without balancing the interests of the superpowers. Without a pragmatic policy to deal with rival powers (Russia and EU-US), Ukraine cannot overcome the current crisis.

Strategic significance of Ukraine

Kremlin’s strategic alarm bells began to ring since the protest erupted against Ukraine’s pro-Moscow President. Ukraine’s geo-political and geo-strategic location is significant for Russia’s entire national security, which shares 1,576km long border with Russia. Ukraine has a great strategic, economic and social importance that is helpful for both Russia and EU and US.

Ukraine has been of value long before the USSR era. The country was the second-most important country after Russia during the Union era. Most of the Soviet influential leaders, scientists and scholars were born in Ukraine. Moreover, Soviet established Ukraine as an industrial country because of its strategic value to monitor and control almost Eastern and Central European countries. Ukraine shares borders with Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova, which play a vital strategic value for Russia and the West. Sea of Azov and Black Sea have equally vital significance for commercial and strategic sea power. Ukraine, the second largest country in Europe after Russia has as a size of 603,550sq km. Its geographical size also shows the importance.

Ukraine is the most important transit country for its oil and gas exports. Ukraine transit pipeline (of more than 80 percent) routes linking Russian oil and gas fields and Western Europe. US-EU wants to control Ukraine merely because they want to bypass Russian energy transportation route from the Caspian region. Russia wants Ukraine to be a key member of Eurasian Union – the Russian concept EU rival economic union. Ukraine, with a population of 44.6 million is an important market for both rival countries. Western powers want to work in tandem with Ukraine as their strategic and economic partner. They want to contain ambitions to expand their sphere of influence. The West also wants to encircle Russia through Ukraine. Russia, however, want to prevent it.

Ukraine’s economic value is equally important. Ukraine is a major agricultural and industrial hub. Its fertile soil is dubbed as the best in Europe. Its capacity is immense in terms of animal husbandry, food production as well as potential breadbasket of Europe. Ukraine is a major manufacturer of weapon systems, expertise to make a ballistic missiles parts, launch pads for missile space carriers, large transport planes, ship building, auto industry, among others. Ukraine is the major producer and exporter of steel. Analysts believe that Ukraine’s 15 nuclear power reactors can easily be converted to produce nuclear weapons.

All these are happening behind the scene. Western countries want to prevent Russia from expanding its influence westwards from Ukraine and Russia puts its efforts to prevent western countries from intervening in the region like breaking up of Yugoslavia. Ukraine currently faces a dangerous line and without power balance instability is sure to continue. Western countries supported the Yugoslavian break-up by force and supported the independence of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia. Such actions on weak nations have been directed, guided and manipulated by Western powers to show control and influence.

 

Root of Conflict

Ukraine crisis began in 2013 when pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych abandoned a deal with the EU in favors of stronger ties with Russia. Streets of Kiev saw clash, almost everyday, known as Euromaidan protests (anti- government protesters). It became global headline stories after the Orange Revolution. Protest and government response turned violent with the government taking on strict anti-protest laws on November 30. However, violence escalated uncontrolled.

On February 21, a compromise deal was brokered by foreign ministers of France, Poland and Germany and supported by Russia to sign the deal with President Yanukovych and the opposition leaders. The agreement included power-sharing and early elections. However, protest continued forcing Yanukovych to flee to Russia. On February 22, a new pro-western government on power is in place. Russia has time and again denied recognizing or giving legitimacy to the new Kiev government. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s confidence might gain more height because he has gained popularity in Russia because of the costless, painless and bloodless strategy to annexation of Crimea.

After the annexation of Crimea, Russian dominant eastern region cities of Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv cities turned violent demanding Crimean-style referendum on independence from Ukraine. Violent clashes continued in the cities and insurgents were more aggressive but local security officials did nothing. On 13 March 2013, there were violent clashes between pro-western and pro-Russian protesters in Donetsk. Government buildings in eastern regional major cities were occupied by protesters. On 7 April, 2014, crisis took to a new height breaking out into a full scale civil war. Ukraine government retook Kharkiv building but occupations spread to other cities, and a number of unrest and militancy dragged the whole region. Ukraine government launched the “anti-terror” operations against the separatists. This worsened the situation further. The US, EU, Russia and Ukraine reached a Geneva deal on 17th April but unraveled instantly. Pro-Russian leaders declared referendums in the eastern region, which were held on 11th May.

Since April, Russian supported separatist rebels and westerners supported Ukraine forces. The rebels now control the strategic position far from the fighting area southeast and opened a new significant front line against the government. Separatists are seeking to create a strategic golden land road linking between Russia and Crimea provided that they succeed in their mission. Another important factor of such strategic gain could control over the entire Azov Sea and the rebels might use their own navy force or handover Russia to control any oil or mineral riches it contains. This will ultimately pave the way for the rebels to control the Russian border land. They can easily penetrate in the government’s reinforcement and perhaps energy line. But it is difficult to analyze right away because of lack of details knowledge of rebel weapons, strength and strategy. The US-EU-NATO and Russia considers that the Ukrainian conflict is a “war for prestige”. Answer remains unclear which power will lose and who will win the war but the greater loser is Ukraine either tactically or strategically.

 

Uncertain future

If Ukraine fails to control regional and ethnic tensions within a certain time-frame, wars and violence will continue to destabilize the country’s long-term future and hope. Ukrainian economy is on a coma and its unemployment problem is increasing. Poverty, death, destruction, corruption, crime is dominating the transitional political scenario. Several pro and anti government militia have sophisticated weapons with them. This is one of the long-term problems for Ukraine.

 

Comments Off on Why Ukraine is a strategic chessboard?

China rising in SAARC

August 25th, 2014

 

 

By Pramod Sedhain.

Rivalry between China and India in terms of strategy and economy in the South Asian region has seen a dramatic rise in the last decade. This is sure to influence the entire South Asian region, including the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Most of the SAARC member states have geographical proximity and share borders with China and India. Both countries are concerned with each other and try to demonstrate their priority and influence in the region. What is evident is that these two powerful countries are competing not only for geographical interest. There are some more factors, including strategic, energy resources as well as economical and political. However, both the countries are competing to establish their influence, their policy, goals and objectives in an aggressively. Both are increasing their approach and traditional role in the region. China’s growing economic activities and influence in the region, including the SAARC have rapidly decreased Indian regional influence in the last decade.

China’s growing economy and strategic influence in the SAARC region to get a full-fledged member in the SAARC has not been welcomed by India. Growing influence in the SAARC will benefit India significantly to garner international image in terms of economy, strategy, water and energy need.

Since 1985, SAARC has been working significantly towards the region’s mutual interest as well as enhancing cooperation among the SAARC member states. However, progress seems to be at a snail’s pace due to wide differences and political divides within the member states.

Despite the understanding, issues revolving the South Asia Free Trade Area (SAFTA), greater road, rail and river water connectivity for trade have not gathered momentum. China in recent times has significantly increased financial assistance to SAARC nations overtaking the western traditional donors. China’s growing financial efficiency will in the long run overpower India’s influence in the region. China’s economic reach in the South Asian region picked up dramatically in the first decade of 2000. China is the largest trading partner of SAARC member states. It is also the largest foreign investors in Sri Lanka and Nepal. China’s trade with SAARC countries has nearly doubled compared with India.

China has been an observer nation in the SAARC Summits since 2005 and is cautiously engaged to secure permanent membership. China is seeking full-fledged engagement in the SAARC to present itself in potential political, economic and security dimensions. Increased interests with countries having close ties have been given due attention in the name of development projects, including construction of sea ports, railway lines, creating new trade and ties link opportunities in the region. Chinese People’s Daily reported on July 29, 2014 that China will extend railway line linking Tibet with borders of India, Nepal and Bhutan by 2020.

As part of Chinese government efforts to boost own Tibetan development and an aim to connect with the rest of the bordering countries, China opened railway in Tibet’s capital Lhasa in 2006. Such significant projects hold a very potential market for regional countries. Chinese emerging footprints in the SAARC has already overtaken India in terms of trade.

India

China is India’s largest trading partner with nearly $70 billion bilateral trade. India recorded the largest bilateral trade deficit of a whopping $39.4 billion. Bilateral trade reached a record $74 billion in 2011, when China became India’s largest trading partner, over $66bn in 2012. The two sides have agreed a new $100bn bilateral trade target for 2015. Amid the military standoff in the Himalaya border region, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang chose India for his first state visit on May third week of 2013. During the visit, China and India reached nine agreements along with the most important signing of the landmark border defense agreement to maintain peace and tranquility on the Line of Actual Control. Such visit indicates that China’s new leadership wants to minimize the long-standing boundary dispute, strengthening friendship and trust and promoting the trade with neighboring nations.

Pakistan

Pakistan’s geo-political location with Arabian Sea can help both countries’ relation both in terms of economy and military. China is also the largest investor in strategic Pakistan’s port at Gwadar. Nearly 60 percent of China’s oil comes from the Gulf by ships traveling over 16,000 kilometers in 2-3 months time if Gwadar could reduce the distance to 2,500 kilometers. China is the biggest trading partner and biggest foreign direct investor of Pakistan. Energy and infrastructure project of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is under progress. China’s trade with Pakistan has doubled in the last decade and in absolute terms it increased by 5.5 times. Bilateral trade between the two nations has been over $12 billion. China has pledged to invest $32 billion in energy, transport and infrastructure projects in Pakistan in the next five to seven years.

Bangladesh

China-Bangladesh relation has been growing at an unprecedented level while heading to closer comprehensive partnership of cooperation. Bangladeshi Prime minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed visited China in June 2014 and signed a number of agreements which led to closer comprehensive relationship and cooperation between the two countries. China’s investment to strategically develop and modernize Chittagong Port and the proposal to build a deep-sea port in the Sonadia Island off Cox Bazar remain vital. It is significant for sea lanes of the Indian Ocean linking China with the strategic Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Another issue of vital importance is the road link that is making progress. According to new plans, a 128-kilometer railway line to connect Gundum, a border town of Bangladesh through Burmese and other highway connecting Bangladesh with Kunming in China through Burma territory will be constructed. Such road link and sea link will be significant for trade as well defense purpose. China provides financial assistance to Bangladesh’s infrastructure, roads, railways, a coal-based power plant, and factories. According to open available figures, Bangladesh is the second-largest arm importer of Chinese arms. China exports arms to nearly 35 countries. Bangladesh buys light lethal weapons to heavy boats, fighters, anti-ship missiles, tanks,and fighter aircraft from China. China is the largest trade partner of Bangladesh and Trade volume between two countries reached 10.3 billion US dollars in 2013.

Sri Lanka

China is the largest investor in Sri Lanka’s infrastructure projects. It has provided 4 billion U.S. dollars loan for development projects. The projects include a 1.2-billion-U.S.dollar coal power plant, a new international port in southern Sri Lanka, an international airport and several highways and railways. Sri Lanka was the first country to express its support for the Maritime china concept Silk Route policy. A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two countries is expected to be signed by the end of 2014. Sri Lanka shipping route on the way to Maritime Silk Road will have an easier connectivity across the Indian Ocean in terms of economy as well strategy. As a vital strategic geographical location, China has funded all large-scale projects in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka’s government started the regional hub concept with five-hub strategy including focus on the Maritime, Aviation, Knowledge, Energy and Commerce centre. Bilateral trade between China and Sri Lanka in 2013 was $3 billion.

Nepal

As a strategic geo-political location, Chinese presence is growing in Nepal. China’s investment in Nepal doubled from 2007 to 2011. In the first time, China has overtaken India when it comes to foreign direct investment contributor of foreign direct investments at $174 million. Sino-Nepal trade is rapidly growing and the annual trade of Nepal with China is over 2 billion US dollar.

China has active participation in sectors, including transport, infrastructure, and hydroelectric power projects as well as in wider transportation network. China has announced plans to extend the Qinghai-Tibet Railway to Nepal by 2020. According to Xinhua, China has given continuity to the construction of the infrastructure near the Nepali border point of Rasuwagadhi. Along with different infrastructure to open the border point for trade, China has committed to upgrade the track between Nepal’s Syaphrubesi and Kerung in Tibet at a cost of $20 million. Similarly, China is constructing the 60-megawatt power plant on the Trishuli River. It has also committed a $1.6 billion 750-megawatt joint venture on the Seti River by 2019.

China also expressed willingness to enter the Indian border region of Nepal- Tarai. Recently, Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Wu Chuntai said, “Our support now will not remain limited to the capital but we will make our own efforts to support the socio-economic development works in Nepal’s Terai plain”. In 2013, Chinese tourist arrival was 89,509, which is 11.22 percent growth than previous years. Chinese tourist holds 24.5 percent of total tourist arrival in Nepal and the second largest number of tourists visiting Nepal.

Afghanistan

China’s door-step and the war-torn country Afghanistan is also a key security priority. Stable Afghan is China’s concern and it is vital to the security of Xinjiang. After the downfall of Taliban regime in 2001, China supported Afghanistan in reconstruction and security training. China expanded relations with Afghanistan rapidly and involved in a landmark $3 billion deal in 2007 to produce copper in Afghan’s Aynak copper mine project in eastern Logar province. Mineral experts estimated Afghan mineral deposits valued at up to $3 trillion. Similarly, Chinese National Petroleum Corp signed a 25-year contract of Afghanistan’s oil and gas reserves estimate worth more than $700 million.

Beijing signed strategic partnership with Afghanistan in 2012. With an effort to stabilize Afghanistan, China appointed special envoy to Afghanistan. Western firms hesitate to invest because of security concerns. However, China took the risk of investing in Afghan’s mining, construction and tele-communications. China is also interested to invest in hydropower, agriculture and construction sector as well as building direct road link to China across the remote 76-kilometer border between the two countries.

In May 2014, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Shanghai. President Xi vowed of additional assistance to facilitate the construction, among Silk Road economic belt. Likewise, the Chinese government also announced to offer 10 million yuan (1.62 million U.S. dollars) in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. According to Xinhua, China- Afghan trade volume expands ten-fold during 2002-2009, USD 20 million to 214 million. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of bilateral ties, China and Afghan have boosted cooperation and witnessed high-level exchanges for mutual benefits.

Maldives

China strengthened diplomatic, trade and cultural ties with Maldives. Located in the heart of the Indian Ocean, Maldives government too is keen in establishing special economic zones. China’s keen interest to invest in infrastructure projects in strategic importance and world’s most important shipping channel between East and West. Chinese new leadership initiation “maritime silk road” is also a key focus and priority in Maldives. This aims to deepen China’s economic presence in the region. China wants rapid expansion of maritime cooperation with other countries and wants to establish Maldives as another hub for trade between East and the West.

Maldives is highly dependant on tourism and since 2010 China became the biggest source of tourist arrivals in the island nation. In 2013 alone, more than 330,000 Chinese tourists visited Maldives. Chinese tourist flow has increased leaps and bounds in the past half decade. Tourism accounted for 28 percent of GDP on average in the past five years in Maldives. China has carried out different projects in Maldives under concession loans. Until 2002, the two countries did not have any significant trade or business but the volume of trade has increased significantly in recent times. According to the Embassy of Maldives in China, the figure volume of trade with imports from China reached USD 17.354 million and exports reaching USD 584,000.

Bhutan

Bhutan has diplomatic relations with 52 countries around the world but not with China. India, Bangladesh, Kuwait and Japan have established embassies in Thimphu, Bhutan’s capital. China is keen to have direct diplomatic link with Bhutan. Former prime minister of Bhutan, Jigmi Y. Thinley wanted to expand Bhutan’s diplomatic relations with China. The then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and his Bhutanese counterpart Jigmi Y Thinley met on the sidelines of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development at Rio De Janeiro in 2012 to discuss about establishing diplomatic relations. China shares 470-km-long border with Bhutan. The two countries held 22 rounds of talks to resolve the border disputes. Bhutanese New government announced not to establish diplomatic relations with China. However, Chinese tourists visiting Bhutan is the third after Japan and the United States since 2011.

 

Comments Off on China rising in SAARC

Challenge ahead US Asia pivot

August 13th, 2014

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 

The U.S. pivot towards Asia-Pacific has led to dramatic competition in the region. Aimed at deterring rising China’s activities, the US has intensively expanded its effort to the Pacific region. Such a situation could change the political, economical, and even military scenario in the region. The US has expressed its commitment of vision towards its ally and desire for a peaceful, stable and economically prosperous region. But the key pillar of foreign policy “pivot to Asia” is sure to influence its heavy weight military might.

US President Barack Obama decided to make a “pivot” to Asia in 2011 while shifting its new priorities and increased participation in economically vibrant Asia. On the policy shift, it has announced to focus 60 percent of American air and sea power in Asia by 2020. After the announcement of the new policy, the US started aggressive approach and rapid expansion on the most dynamic and competitive regions. Fundamental goal of US strategic shift on the Asia-Pacific region is to influence the region politically, diplomatically, military, culturally and economically and fulfill its core strategic interests.

This key US perspective on foreign, defense and trade policy is making progress on the vast Asia Pacific region. National security, global domination and economic interests are the key factors of the US shifting towards Asia. The U.S. has moving ahead with an aim to maintain close ties with its Asia-Pacific allies to counter China’s influence in the region. Some regional countries have sought greater US presence while some disagree while several countries are in favor of an independent foreign policy to protect their national interests. United States expanded economic engagement with Southeast Asian nations. It also established different multilateral institutions.

Chinese defense white paper – 2013, has blamed the US adjustment in Asia-Pacific strategy saying that “some countries have strengthened their Asia-Pacific military alliances… and frequently making the situation tense.” Growing China capacity and regional interest, undefined maritime boundaries, unfavorable political circumstances and complex geography is emerging threat to US policy toward Asia. But both US and China avoid military confrontation and are aware of intervention that would lead to devastating consequences. However, they are in favor of ‘check and balance’ strategy.

US military strength and Pacific presence
Since the end of Cold War, United States military has been the sole super power in the world. US global economic dominance is slowly weakening but its most powerful military remains world’s super power. U.S. has over 1.4 million active duty military and 718,000 civilian personnel. Another 1.1 million serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces. The Pentagon (Department of Defense) is one of the world’s largest and most efficient office buildings in the world. Pentagon utilizes over 30 million acres of land and more then five thousand different locations.

The U.S. spends $640 billion on its military in 2013. US military annual cost accounts 37 percent of the total global military spending in 2013 – the world spent $1.75 trillion on defense. Even with troop reductions and budget cut, US solely spends combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil, according to The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute figure.

Military presence and wide range defense engagement is US key policy priority. US strategic readjustment or “rebalancing” has helped in directly dominating its heavy weight military might. Pentagon plans to shift a large portion of its naval fleet to their traditional influence Asia-Pacific region by 2020. As part of a new military strategy to increase US presence in Asia by 2020, US as deployed more aircraft carriers, majority of its cruisers, destroyers and submarines and littoral combat ships, and increased its 60 percent naval forces stationed in the Pacific, up 10 percent from 2011.

U.S. has different layers of defense deterrence, military presence, defense supremacy in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. After starting the strategic competition in the Pacific region, the U.S. has put efforts in massive military build-up and expansion in the region.

Hawaii, the vital strategic ground to move in the Pacific region is the headquarters of U.S. Pacific Command, the largest of the Unified Commands, where 61 military installations that is capable to conduct all operational activities. The massive buildup US pacific command base is capable to all necessary defense operations handle quickly through land, air, sea as well and space.

America’s ground-based ballistic missile defense umbrella in the Asia-Pacific is located in Alaska. There are also three Air Force bases & Army bases as well five Coast Guard stations with thousands of service personnel.

Island of Guam base is another strategic ground of US pacific defense, the sophisticated military station, which is vitally and strategically important hub of Western Pacific. Guam base is currently billed as a super base and a major supply route and support and communications centre of Pacific force. U.S. has invested billions of dollars in Guam military and naval infrastructure in Pacific since the Second World War. Incase of any attacks on Guam, the US has developed two alternative bases in Northern Mariana Islands – Tinian and Saipan.

U.S. has also fast forward military base stations in Japan and South Korea. Japan hosts 47,000 US troops in different strategic locations. Japan-based US troop has a deployment of powerful X-band long-range missiles track radar systems and patriot interceptors. US army in Japan has rapidly upgraded in the combat capabilities. Japan is also a key bilateral military ally in the region. Similarly, the U.S. military has 28,500 troops station in South Korea equipped with hi-tech military hardware. U.S. has also mutual defense treaty and combat ship access agreement with different regional countries.

Another US largest Navy base is stationed at the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia, which is the most productive launch-pad for air strikes on Iraq and Afghanistan. The British owned Sri Lankan south location station – the Diego Garcia force has well equipment and sensitively standby to military operation anywhere in the world. U.S. has hugely invested to upgrading infrastructure and to make their base with nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine, which can carry up to 154 cruise missiles.

By 2016, the U.S. will station 2,500 Marines in northern Australia. This effort will have a greater access for U.S. aircraft to Australian air bases. The Philippines is another traditional operational military heart in the Pacific region. During the Second World War, the base in the Philippines played a vital role towards victory and until 1992 the headquarters of the US Seventh Fleet. In the counterterrorism effort, American military personnel have been deployed in the southern Philippines as trainers and advisers since 2002. US military has increased the potentially oil and gas-rich disputed Chinese sea border.

The U.S. has good military ties with Malaysia and it has enhanced its defense ties with former arch enemy Vietnam as well wide-ranging military cooperation in the region. The U.S. has engaged in bilateral and multilateral military meetings, joint training, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, interact among other tactic and tolls in the region. US military has heavily engaged with different countries to conduct training programs and defense cooperation. The US has also funded opening different nature of forum and mechanism, emphasized the intelligence role, strength permanent nature military base.

Chinese military capability
China has 850,000 soldiers, 235,000 navy and 398,000 air force of its military units, According to defense white paper – 2013, the territorial military has 18 combined corps in seven military area commands. China revealed the secret military structure in 2013 since the first time to Communist taking over the power in 1949.

Defense analysts believe that Chinese military budget saw a double-digit increment. China announced a 5.7 percent increase in its annual military budget to $119.5 billion in March 2013. But Pentagon believes that the actual military-spending was $145 billion. Western analyst believes that China defense budget grew at an annual average of 9.4 percent since last one decade. Some westerners estimated that the budget reached almost $200 billion.

Military exercise rapidly increased in all branches of army with ban increased bilateral and multilateral exercises with foreign militaries. In a total participation of seven, only three have been with the Russian military. China has also rapidly built new technology to deter the US military superiority. China already succeeded in making aircraft carriers while new generation military equipment and fighter planes are in development.

China is self sufficient to make powerful nuclear capable submarines as well as domestically built Song and Yuan-class boats. They have successfully tested advanced missiles destruction technology, built new aircrafts, command and control, ‘jammers’, electronic warfare, and data links as well as established special cyber warfare capability unit. China is the fastest growing military might and has got special western military hardware and technology.

Still China is not yet fully self-sufficient when it comes to military equipment and modernization capacity. However, China has a good source from Russia. China has also strategic deterrence to nuclear weapons. Its defense white paper clearance is its strategy as “primarily responsible for deterring other countries from using nuclear weapons against China, and carrying out nuclear counterattacks and precision strikes with conventional missiles”.

Chinese long term deterrence strategy
The US strategic shift in Asia Pacific region is alarming for emerging superpower like China. It has adopted long-term counter measure strategy, slowly and silently. China’s strength is its counter-balance strategy to prepare military and economically competition with US in the Asia Pacific region. Chinese move is still defensive rather than offensive but has build containment planes as well contingency capability to take military action. China feels easy to afford its military investment due to its growing economic power. It has also created new defense and commercial route with long term goal and objective to tackle US pacific strategy.

Chinese new strategy is deterring the US aircraft-carriers, aircrafts as well blockading the US strategic golden route in this region. Expansion of new commercial and probably the operational navy base focus on counter circle with the US and its regional ally. China has been silently and gradually taking a long term strategic option to tackle US military capability. One of the Chinese better alternatives is ‘String of Pearls Strategy’ in which China started expanding its maritime routes to significant both economically as well as militarily.

China’s ‘String of Pearls Strategy and other Silk Road route and railway link is related to a long-term geo-strategy. Basically, this concept helps maritime routes between ports, used for trade, logistics, escort vessels and convoys to navy. But during wars, this project will have vital strategic importance to control several maritime check points and to easily block the opponent forces in different places.

China started to create own strategic sea lines major maritime choke points like – Strait of Mandeb, the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz and the Lombok Strait. Similarly, China’s new concern is to build strategic maritime sea port in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh as well as Maldives and even in Somalia. Such significant route is not only holds importance for commercial purpose but offence and defense purposes as well.

Trade corridor linking Xinjiang province in western China to Pakistani ports is equally important route to control Indian Ocean to Arabic sea to neutralize the opponent forces in all sectors and effectively gain long-term counter strategy. Myanmar to Bangladesh moves is also a similar initiative to create geo-strategic sea, road and railway line for huge investment and to provide aid in the region to assist in both commercial and defense purposes.

If such Chinese effort is properly implemented, it will have a significant gain in different purposes such as assisting in modernization of future navy, increased access to airfields and ports, effectively maintain and hold the pearls influxes over shipping lanes.

Chinese traditional land power focuses in maritime security and air force. China continues building military strength, space and cyberspace as well Anti-Satellite Weapons. Incase of opponent strategic weaknesses, China will demonstrate their capability to control particularly sovereignty disputed – the East, Yellow and South China Seas.

In November 2013, China’s flexed its military muscle in the disputed East China Sea and established an air defense identification zone. China forcefully moved to the South Sea despite the objection of Southeast Asian states Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia. China also forcefully controlled some oil- and gas-rich South China Sea.

Comments Off on Challenge ahead US Asia pivot

China Anti-corruption Champion

July 29th, 2014

 

 

By Pramod Sedhain.

 



War against corruption flared up in China and reached the heart of the country elite. Cases filed against heavyweight leaders, highly-placed military figures and government officials have significantly enhanced the credibility of the Chinese new leadership. China’s ongoing anti-corruption drive and aggressive crackdown has seen several expulsions and detentions of several powerful Chinese Communist Party members and officials. Investigation has been carried out within the Chinese central leadership and former power-privileged elite. China’s anti-corruption effort has taken a clear with an obvious indication of effective progress as well as making headlines in the global media.

Corruption in China is harder than expected and this fundamental problem cannot be rooted out without an effective mechanism or unless senior figures are booked. In his opening remarks during the 18th party congress, Chinese then President Hu Jintao said corruption could “kill the party and ruin the country”. Widespread bribe taking, embezzlement and abuse of power are the key concern of the Chinese new leadership. Soon after assuming the post, Xi Jinping had in his speech in the party’s politburo on November 17, 2012, said, “The preponderance of facts tells us that the more severe the corruption problem becomes, it will ultimately lead the party and the nation to perish!” Corruption is poetical threat to survival of the ruling Communist Party in China. Campaign against bribery and corruption has gained momentum since Xi set the prime priory to anti-corruption campaign. President Xi vowed that “both ‘tigers’ and ‘flies’ should be punished,”.

After the start of the anti-corruption action, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China, the country’s top anti-graft agency, vowed to fight corruption. The crusade against corruption reached a new high. China aggressively launched the international “Operation Fox Hunt 2014” for corrupt officials to track fugitives targeting the countries like United States, Thailand, Malaysia, Uganda, among others where possibility of investing huge sums of public money seems high.

According to Chinese News agency Xinhua, anti-corruption body believes that “fox hunt” will “block the last route of retreat for corrupt officials at a time when China’s major crackdown on graft has already narrowed the space for abuse of power.” According to a report on China Times on 2014 July, since 2008, China’s public security agencies have arrested more than 730 suspected major financial criminals in 54 countries or region. China has bilateral extradition treaties with 37 nations. Suspected corrupt and financial criminals have fled to other countries in Asia and Africa. High-profile suspects have managed to escape the country and moved to North America, Western Europe and Australia while medium and low ranking officials prefer to flee to Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and neighboring countries.

The number of serious corruption cases has risen over the last half decade. Major corruption filing cases were up nearly by 14 percent over the first six months of 2014. According to the country’s top prosecutor, the Supreme People’s Prosecutor’s figure, more than 25,000 people have been booked on corruption charges in the first six months of 2014. Xinhua quoted nearly 85 percent of the cases investigators pursued involved bribes of more than 50,000 yuan ($8,000) or embezzlement of 100,000 yuan. According to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China, the country’s top anti-graft agency data, major corruption prosecutions have been on a rise since 2013. China’s prosecuting authorities investigated 27,236 embezzlement and bribery cases between January and November 2013, sentencing 36,907 people. Of those cases, 80 percent were considered as embezzlement and bribery cases involving more than 50,000 yuan ($8,270) or earmarking public funds over 100,000 yuan. In 2012, there were 20,442 major and important cases, compared with 18,464 in 2011 and 17,594 in 2008, according to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. 198,781 people were investigated in graft cases from January 2008 to August 2013.

Sweeping investigation found massive corruption scandals and increase in high-ranking corruption charges in China. Till 2014 July, more than 182,000 party officials at various levels have been investigated, with arrests being made of 32 leaders who rank at the level of vice minister or above, including five leaders who are members of the 18th Central Committee of the CCP. China has over 5,000 officials who rank at the vice minister level or above. Four formerly high-ranking officials were expelled from the Party, including Xu Caihou, former vice chairman of the Central Military Commission.

Xi told a study group of the ruling politburo: “Everyone in violation of party discipline must be punished, We can’t be soft.” Disciplinary action has seen a rapid growth within the party since he took power. In 2013, China took disciplinary actions against 182,000 corrupt party members and government officials, grilled 21,000 officials for major safety accidents, and investigated 31 ministerial level officials suspected of violating laws and party discipline. In the same period more than 750 errant civil servants were repatriated.

Since the 18th CPC National Congress, it removed 18 officials at the provincial and ministerial levels as well as 87,000 rural grassroots officials. The Eight Rules implemented at the end of 2012 by the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee ruled against formalism, bureaucracy, hedonism and extravagance among officials. Since the implementation of the rules, the party has exposed violators while thousand of officials have been disciplined for breaking the rules.

In the first five months of the year 2014, 62,953 officials were punished, up 34.7 percent on the same period last year. The most high-profile corruption trial and investigation was on politburo member – Gen Xu Caihou, who was handed over to prosecutors for a court martial. In the past, military have been largely immune to corruption probes. Similarly, the deputy head of the state energy giant China National Petroleum Company – Wang Yongchun, most powerful politicians – Zhou Yongkang, former the mayor of Nanjing Ji Jianye, Politburo member and party secretary in Chongqing -Bo Xilai, former deputy security minister Li Dongsheng, Former Deputy Hainan governor Ji Wenlin, former national oil exec – Li Hualin and Jiang Jiemin, Mining tycoon – Liu Han, former Sichuan official Guo Yongxiang and Li Chincheng among other hundreds of officials have been investigated.

Investigation on corruption charges have been done not only on government officials, party officials and military officials but academicians and media personalities are also not spared. They too have been prosecuted. Dozens of university officials and leading scientists have been caught in corruption cases. Since the taking charge by the new leadership in Beijing, at least 10 university presidents or vice presidents have been arrested and investigated on corruption charges. Similarly, some media tycoons are also arrested. CCTV network’s vice director of financial news Li Yong, CCTV’s advertising director and director-general of its finance and economics channel Guo Zhenxi are also arrested. These are just a few instances of deep rooted corruption in China. Anti-corruption body has already arrested thousands of major scalps in different sector and professions.

With the growing faith and moral decline within communist party members, China’s Communist Party has started ideological education to uplift the moral standard. China stepped up new regulations on lavish life standards like giving gifts and lavish banquets, which have become a rarity and put a ban on military license plates on luxury cars, among others. As part of anti-corruption campaign, Chinese Communist Party has over 80 million members while new party members’ recruitment policy has also been changed. Recruitment policy has seen a slight change focusing on smartness and career-oriented, emphasis on ideology, stringent discipline, standards and qualified persons to attract new policy. China is set to complete its tightening supervision new plan for disciplinary inspection reforms by 2017.

 

Comments Off on China Anti-corruption Champion

Iraq crisis and its long term impact in region

July 12th, 2014

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 

The ancient civilization country, Iraq has now turned into a battlefield. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has taken control of large swathes of the country, including second largest city Mosul and other key strategic cities last month along with Syrian boarder and other northern parts of the country. The government has been struggling to maintain their grip in capital Baghdad. Shia and Sunni factions have failed to agree on a power arrangement and the volatile country conflict might erupt into a full-scale civil war. Iraqi security and volunteer fighters have been trying to oust insurgents out of Tikrit, part of the larger battle against the gains made by ISIS in recent weeks.

In the 34-minute audio recording distributed online on June 29, the ISIL declared its alleged chief, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, “the caliph” and “leader for Muslims everywhere”. After five days, his group declared the establishment of an Islamic state, or caliphate, in the territories it seized in Iraq and Syria. The notorious terrorist man – with a $10m US bounty on his head made his first public appearance from Mosul to be seen by the entire world.

The most reclusive ISIL head and self-appointed caliph gave the first ever 21-minute video since taking the reins of the group in 2010. Appearing in black robes and a turban and an expensive watch on his right hand, he is sometimes branded as ‘James Bond’. Ruthless ISIL leader Baghdadi turned into the most significant figure in the global jihadi like Bin Laden. ISIL ambition is rapidly growing but this group’s activities are highly criticized from mainstream Sunni religious leaders. Prominent Sunni leaders have sharply rejected the caliphate declared by the ISIL group.

ISIL also saw rapid expansion in the Syrian turmoil after they gained the Syrian ground with modern weapons, training and money. The hard-core and well-trained terrorist group seized extra-advanced weaponry and vehicles from the Iraqi military during their takeover of strategic cities in June, including Mosul across the country. ISIL also committed several cold-blooded executions and war crimes.

 

Comprehensive overview of Iraq politic

Iraqi politic is still looming uncertainty following deep divisions between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish thus fragmenting relations between the government and opposition. As per the Iraqi power-sharing agreement following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Speaker should be a Sunni Arab, the Prime Minister a Shia Arab, and the President a Kurd. However, power sharing and formation of a new government with consensual candidate is still uncertain.

The Council of Representatives (Iraqi parliament) is required to elect a new Speaker during its opening session. However, the new parliament’s first session ended without reaching an agreement. New elected Iraqi MPs have to choose a new Prime Minister, President and Speaker of the Parliament. But this remains a Herculean task after the 2010 elections. It nearly took nine months to form a new government.

April 30, 2014 elections were the first to be held since the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. This was the third since the 2003 US-led invasion, which removed Saddam Hussein. According to Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission data, more than 9,000 candidates and 277 political entities contested the elections and the turnout was 62 percent, which was the same as in the 2010 election. In the Iraqi parliamentary system, there are 18 governorate-based constituencies for 328 seats including 8 seats reserved for minorities and ensuring 25 per cent of seats to women candidates. 83 total female members of parliament won their parliamentary seats without relying on the quota system from the previously elected 73.

Breakdown for the 320 seats apportioned to each governorate such as Anbar: 15, Babil: 17,  Baghdad: 71 (including 1 seat for Christians and 1 seat for the Sabean), Basra: 25, Diyala: 14, Dahuk: 11 (including 1 seat for Christians), Erbil: 15 (including 1 seat for Christians), Karbala: 11, Kirkuk: 14 (including 1 seat for Christians), Missan: 10, Muthana: 7, Najaf: 12, Ninewa: 35 (including 1 seat for Christians, 1 seat for the Yzidi and 1 seat for the Shabak), Qadissiya: 11, Salahaddin: 12, Sulaymaniya: 18, Dhi-Qar: 19 and Wassit: 11 . The major winners in the April election were three Shia-centered political blocs, three Sunni-supported political blocs, and three Kurdish political blocs but they had rivalries within the coalition.

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s State of Law coalition won 92 of parliament’s 328 seats winning in 10 of 18 provinces. This collation needs a total of 165 seats to have a shot to remain as the prime minister. But Maliki has several foes in his own other Shia group. Other two major Shias block is Sadrist Movement with 34 seats while Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq has 31 seats.

The major three Sunni blocks belong to current parliament Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi’s Mutahidoun party with 28 seats, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s Sunni-backed al-Wataniya won 21 seats and the Sunni deputy prime minister Saleh al-Mutlaq’s al-Arabiya won 11 seats in the parliament. The major three Kurdish parties won more than 50 seats in the Parliament. They are KDP 25, PUK 21 and Goran 9 seats. Kurdish have problems of Natural Resources management, territory and financial independence, among other issues. Kurdish is dissatisfied with Malliki. In their view, Malliki did not fulfill his commitments when Kurd backed him for the second term Prime Minister in 2010. Currently, Kurdish are seeking opportunity to independence. Other smaller parties and individuals have 56 seats and they could switch their allegiances anytime.

 

Sectarian division and interest

Iraq needs to urgency form a new national unity government with suitable power and revenue-sharing. But the sectarian futile country’s future remains uncertain and unpredictable. Without resolving the existing political crises, there can be no military solution. Political coalition is highly necessary to deal with the crisis as well as to check external intervention. Major three blocs in Iraq have their own interest.

 

Kurds

About 20 percent of Iraq’s population is Kurds and they have their own president, parliament and foreign minister. After US-led ousting of dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003, Kurdish got their greater autonomy as well political and economic power. The world’s third largest reserves of crude oil country, Iraq has been under serious problems of resources contested with autonomous Kurdistan regional government. In the northern part of Iraq, the turmoil created other problems within the self-governed Kurdistan Region. The central government holds the southern edge of the province. The oil-rich city of Kirkuk has been consolidating control for Iraq’s minority Kurd.

They are seeking referendum on the region’s independence from Iraq and tighten their grip over the territory. United States imposed a no-fly zone over the Kurd territories in the northern Iraq in 1991 to protect them from attacks by Hussain’s forces. However, the US interest at the current moment is unified Iraq. Autonomous Kurdistan in Iraq has been a formidable challenge for the large Kurdish minorities, including powerful neighboring countries like Iran, Turkey and Syria. Kurd is the world’s most populous stateless nation (35 to 40 million overall population) and Kurdistan refers to Iraqi Kurdistan along with large parts of eastern Turkey, northwestern Iran and north-eastern Syria. After Syrian forces withdrew from the Kurdish region in northeastern Syria, the Kurds fighters were able to take control of large sections of country territory.

 

Shia

The Iraqi majority Shia population had been excluded from power under the Saddam Hussein regime. In the past, Shia community was marginalized, neglected and excluded in Iraqi politic. Iraq’s Shia community is nearly twice the size of Sunni. Shia supported the US and British forces in 2003 when they invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam. Iraq’s first multi-party elections in five decades in June 2004 brought an overwhelmingly Shia-dominated coalition to power. But the country faced insurgency and violence. Shia does not want to be dominated. ISIL gain in the Shia areas is limited because they have different militia wing, weapons, sectarian sentiments and strong Iranian support.

 

Sunni

Iraqi strong minority Sunni have been seeking their identity and power-sharing. The current crisis has been mainly due to Sunni rebellion among the external jihadists ISIL. Iraq’s second largest city Mosul has been the base for Jamaat Ansar AL-Islam (JAI), Saddam and former Baathist rebel front Naqshbandi Order, The anti-Shia radical suuni islamists Jaysg Al Mujahideen (JAM), Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI), Falluja base Saraya al-Madina al-Munawara (The Honoured City’s Brigades), among othersare fighting against the Baghdad government. Not only during Saddam’s regime, but Iraqi Sunni dominated the area before the country’s birth. Iraqi Sunni has seen wide differences within themselves but they play vital role against the central government.

 

Great challenge ahead

Iraqi situation will witness a dramatic shift in mixing up ethnic and religious culture in the Middle East. This can also trigger instability, extremism and sectarianism. Orchestrating the ongoing crisis in Iraq is the root to Syrian turmoil. Iraqi crisis can create great problems in the region’s modern history and can even threaten historical maps of post First World War era. Iraqi and Syrian sectarian division is just the beginning of crisis. This can lead to sectarian and religious rifts in the Middle East in the term future. The Iraqi crisis has been seen as an alarming threat in the regional power country.

The extremist group ISIL shifted the balance of colonial-era borders of the Middle East and dividing the country in Iraq and Syrian part and no longer valid in previous boarder. After defeating and collapsing the Ottoman Empire, the new Arab state borders lines were drawn by the British and French in World War I. After territorial gains in two countries, their aim has been to expand and create unison among the Arab countries, including Lebanon, Jordan to Saudi Arabia. That was a similar dream of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who, however did not succeed. Iraqi and Syrian civil war will certainly encourage the Jihadists, arms and money, that could be a potential security threat for the entire region.

Comments Off on Iraq crisis and its long term impact in region

War on Terror: Intelligence ‘double game’

July 1st, 2014

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 


Key US intelligence and strategic asset Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and powerful Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have hindered relations since the “War on Terror” begun in Afghanistan. Despite the soured relationship, CIA and ISI have worked in close cooperation with each other in certain issues. However, they do neither trust each other nor they are interested in it. Both the intelligence agencies have been working on the basis of their own calculation and interest rather than mutual interest. CIA has at times come under intense criticism for working with the ISI. The ISI has also been alleged and criticized for its role in Afghan war for protecting high-ranking militant figures. CIA believes that ISI supported targets like Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar by providing them shelter. Both intelligence services seem to be playing a “double game,” even as Pakistan joined US as an ally against the “war on terror,” in post-9/11 scenario.

CIA no longer believes that ISI has been working in tandem in its effort to counter terrorism. ISI has been alleged of supporting terrorism and extremism even if they trace them. CIA station in Islamabad has a significant number of agents across the Pakistani soil. Both the CIA and ISI are eye and ear of their government policy and both have different doctrines and strategic goals in Afghanistan. They maintain an uneasy cooperation despite their common interest but they try to make an upper hand on several issues. US recognized Pakistan as a major Non-NATO Ally but CIA and ISI are the most unreliable strategic partner of counter-terrorism efforts. Relations between both the intelligence agencies have been uncomfortable and suspicious. CIA has prioritized on covert operation to target against al-Qaida, TTP and other foreign militants from neighboring Afghanistan who plot attacks against US forces. They have huge intelligence network in this region as well a long list of dangerous militants. US military cross-border raid in Pakistani soil is aimed at hitting the ISI proxy militant’s force.

Background of CIA, ISI cooperation

Both CIA and ISI earlier shared similar effort to support the Afghan and foreign mujahideen to covert-fight against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. They not only provided strategic and intelligence support for Afghan militia but also provided training, arms and funding in the 1980s. CIA had an impressive support from ISI role during the Cold War period when Pakistan received extensive military and other assistance from USA. Their relation was bitter after Soviet withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. ISI solely engaged in the Afghan Civil War in 1990s and backed the Taliban regime. During that period, CIA was focused in Europe and Middle East and paid little attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

After seeing potential threat from Afghanistan, CIA agents/informer in Pakistan and Afghanistan were at an unsurpassed level. After al-Qaeda attacked U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998, CIA was a realizable frontier as well foreign policy tool for the US government. Their role increased by folds than the Cold War period. CIA’s bin Laden mission began to hunting mission after they came from Sudan to Afghanistan. CIA local agent had a face-to-face with Laden and his fundamentalist supporters several times during the Taliban regime. Intelligence working on ‘Bin Laden mission’ had a huge investment. After increasing instances of terrorist attacks, CIA’s only concern was to get hold of Laden – forget what’s happening in Afghanistan.

As retaliation measures against bombings in US embassies, US forces started targeting Laden hideouts, including remote places. On August 20, 1998, about 75 cruise missiles were fired by the U.S. at four Afghan training camps in Afghanistan from Arabian Sea through Pakistan’s airspace. CIA’s station in Pakistan provided the principle target list. However, Laden had left some hours before the missiles hit. US missile targeted Al Farouq training camp, Muawai camp – run by Pakistani Harkat-ul-Mujahideen to train militants, training camps in the Jarawah, the possible radical leaders’ meeting point .

In the changed scenario in Afghanistan, CIA official’s role became more influential. The CIA station chief in Pakistan is more powerful than its Ambassador. CIA’s Pakistani station operator agent involved in tracing Bin Laden, directly informed the location in Afghanistan and provided information to the headquarters at the Counterterrorist Center. CIA directly briefed President Bill Clinton about the missile attack on their base. However, the President did not give orders to the military to strike on the Laden hideout. Following the 9/11 attacks, US demanded Taliban to handover laden and close the training camp, which the Taliban ignored. US force then launched “Operation Enduring Freedom” on 7 October 2001 which led to the downfall of Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Thereafter, CIA unit hunting Osama bin Laden dramatically increased its presence and activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan. After the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, laden and senior al Qaeda leaders escaped from there.

CIA has analyzed that Pakistani tribal region is becoming a global hideout base for jihadist militants. The U.S. covert operations have continued in this region through pay role tribal agents. They also use local tribal leaders to fight against Taliban and other foreign fighters. Several bloody fights between tribal militants and foreign militia have been reported in remote Afghan borders. After failing their initial strategy to fight with foreign militia, CIA used several ground agents, intelligence network to trace the militia movement. However, foreign fighters gained control over tribal areas. CIA then used new approach of war and intensified drone campaign. Pakistan has described those attacks as an infringement of its sovereignty. But several air strikes have not yet gained concrete result but led to militant revenge through suicide bombings in return.

The CIA has often blamed ISI for supporting or planning several strikes and bombings against the US and western interest in Afghanistan. ISI’s concern in Afghanistan has been different with that of USA. After potential strategic threat in Afghanistan, ISI joined hands with some proxy militant groups to secure their interest toll. But CIA easily traced the real channel and mentor of such hostile groups targeting the US and it’s ally’s interests.

Extremists’ ties with ISI had alarmed the CIA. The US had repeatedly pressurized the Pakistani government to hunt down the militants. CIA has also handed over the list of Pakistani madrassas, where jihadists are fed against the US force in Afghanistan. Pakistan started several offensive operations in the tribal areas where foreign and local militia have set their safe haven. Operation was limited and eventually concluded with a peace deal. According to a US State Department data, since 2001 Pakistan has provided assistance in counter-terrorism efforts by capturing more than 600 al-Qaida members and their allies.

CIA not only faced the al-Qaida, their number one enemy, but also faced the most sophisticated insurgent group Haqqani network. The US has accused the ISI that this group has been established as its proxy force to serve Pakistani hidden interests in Afghanistan. US intelligence also accuses the Pakistani secret service of operating the Lashkar-e-Taiba to use the army’s covert foreign mission. They still believe that ISI has not still abandoned to support militia. U.S. has accused Pakistan of using militants and killing of NATO troops in Afghanistan, which Pakistan denies. The US doesn’t trust Pakistan’s commitment to counter-terrorism efforts. Therefore, it raided the hideout of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in May 2011 and killed him. It also carries out drone strikes in the tribal area without informing the Pakistani security. According to New American Foundation data, 58 al-Qaeda and Taliban affiliated senior leaders have been killed in the CIA drone campaign in Pakistan from Afghanistan .

Who gained the ground?

Question remains, who achieved the strategic goal in Afghanistan? There are several players – not only USA, European Union and Pakistan but Iran, India, Saudi Arabia, and UAE to Qatar have been playing the different roles. Afghanistan’s central command has been in limbo after post 2014 because of foreign intelligence agencies’ competition to get hold of the geopolitical ground.

Iran has also set of cultural, religious, political, and security relations with Afghanistan, which can be a ground to increase its influence. Tajik and Shi’a groups support Iran and are opposed to Taliban. Anti Iranian Baluchi insurgency group killed Iranian security personnel and Iran has security concern as well as Narcotics trafficking. Iran too has a strategic objective of defeating both US, Pakistan and Taliban because they do not want any other hostile force gain the ground in Afghanistan.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps foreign wing ‘The Quds Force’ has been moving silently to the ground to secure their strategy. They have initiated an extensive covert campaign to play a key role to protect their nation’s interest as well extensive influence over Afghan spies and paid informers’ network. They want to seek a greater role after post 2014 Afghanistan like post US military present Iraq. Iran has certain concerns in Afghanistan because of it’s geographical as well geopolitical situation.

India too has its own national security calculations, and has significantly increased its foreign intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) as well as its Military Intelligence (MI). Both RAW and MI have extensive influence in the government as well as in the security. India also increased its political and economic influence and launched different huge projects in Afghanistan. ISI fears Indian growing influence in Afghanistan and counter-measure strategy. New Delhi and Tehran has had close ties since the 1990s and both might continue to coordinate in the post 2014 Afghanistan. Behind the scene, both countries are actively engaged in countering Pakistani influence over Afghanistan and protect their joint interest. After concluding the fact, ISI played a double game with USA and adapted new tactics to gain the Afghan ground.

After realizing the loss of ground, ISI wants much closer relationship with CIA. On of the most recent examples are the recent prisons swap between Taliban and US government. But current overt action and open rhetoric cannot be the judgment of the final reality. This may take some more time unravel. Tehran’s growing influence in Afghanistan is not favorable for its regional rival Saudi Arabia. Saudi intelligence agency General Intelligence Presidency (GIP) is also playing a role in Afghanistan. Behind the scenes, GIP continues to engage with ISI and Taliban representatives and may have been directly in touch with Taliban figures. The British Secret Intelligence Service MI6 idea is to hold talks with moderate Taliban elements and end the conflict. Other EU intelligence agencies consent with the British. All the intelligence agencies believe that fugitive senior Afghan Taliban leaders are safe in ISI protection.

How Pakistan deals its internal conflict?
USA insisted Pakistan to initiate an ‘all out war’ against militia. However, Pakistan calculated that it will have to pay a huge price. Pakistani military is now in a difficult position to flush out militants since it faces multiple threats not only from Afghanistan but its own territory. Pakistan already faces war or conflict within its own soil. Pakistan has different categories of militia besides widely known TTP, al-Qaeda, Haqqani network but also Sunni to Shia sectarian motivated militia, anti and pro-Indian militant groups such as well sectarian and foreign militants. Sectarian conflict with Balochistan Liberation Army in southwest Pakistan is a battle of different course.

Pakistan faces dozens of major militant groups, which are of deadly and uncivilized nature. There is also a strong criminal gang and internationally organized mafia elements targeting civilians, security personnel to politicians. It is difficult to predict how some of the Pakistani secret elements cut ties with several militant groups. Pakistan military has a high profile threat of retaliation against the militants and could even spread violence in all the major Pakistani cities.

 

Comments Off on War on Terror: Intelligence ‘double game’

NATO expansion in East Europe: Alarm to Russia

June 9th, 2014

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 

Relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia have worsened following the downfall of Soviet Union in 1991. Moreover, the Ukrainian crisis that emerged dramatically generated diverse views and mistrust between NATO and Russia. After the annexation of Crimea in Russia following controversial referendum as well as continued Ukraine crisis, NATO halted all practical and military cooperation with Russia. With the development, The U.S. is currently bolstering defense assistance in Eastern Europe through NATO. At a news conference in Warsaw with the F-16 fighters in the background, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a plan to invest $1 billion in stepping up its military presence in Eastern Europe amid the crisis with Russia.

NATO has already intensifying operational and combat readiness on Russia’s borders and added air and naval patrols and reinforced land troops in Poland, Romania and its Baltic member states. On the other hand, Russia has accused NATO of violating the 1997 treaty of cooperation. The scenario of Europe is very much similar to Cold War standoff and competition of military buildup in the region. Both sides feel that the agreements and promises made earlier have been broken with both the sides moving ahead to a new win-win option. Despite all efforts, both side s have been threatening each other for the stand-off. They are well aware that any single miscalculation might be disastrous since both sides have their own strategic interests. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Ukraine crisis has led to a deep rooted confrontation between NATO and Russia. However, both the sides are not in favor of direct military confrontation.

                      

NATO interest in Eastern Europe

With the commitment of fundamental collective defense purpose and goal, 12 western allies signed the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949 – the world had ever seen the largest and most powerful military and diplomatic transatlantic organization. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States joined the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). During the German reunification based on gentlemen’s negotiation and commitment, NATO agreed not to expand the Russian border. This commitment was not formally documented and signed but in 1997, NATO-Russia Founding Act agreement, where US assured Russia strategic interest and said that the NATO would not permanently deploy troops or arms, including nuclear weapons in former communist states ruled by Moscow in Eastern Europe.

However, NATO expanded rapidly from 16 member states in 1990 to 28 as of now. NATO move eastward, especially in the former Communist block countries – the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined the alliance in 1999. In 2004, NATO enlarged its members with the joining of seven new Eastern European countries. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the organization. In 2009, NATO included new members Albania and Croatia.

43 years after Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of the NATO in 1966 it rejoined the organization in 2009. One of the NATO founder members, France accused the NATO of undermining France’s sovereignty. France wanted to develop Europe Defense Force, which might affect NATO’s long-term benefit from Europe. If EU defense force becomes influential and plays a larger role in Europe, the NATO will have moral difficulties since EU power and founder Germany has been fully integrated into NATO, which however is opposed to warfare. The architect of EU and European Defense force, French military is Europe’s largest, most advanced, combat readiness and having unilateral military operation capability. NATO strongly footholds the Baltic States and Eastern European countries while Russia feels direct threat and betray.

The Brussels-based ally members combined military spending is over 70% of the global total. NATO has also partnership for peace program where 22 countries with bilateral cooperation, including Ukraine and other countries having borders with Russia. NATO has assured Russia that its aim is at creating trust between NATO and other states in Europe but Russia does not trust its offensive intention.

During the cold war period, (on 14 May 1955) USSR formed NATO counter Military Alliance – the Warsaw Pact. The collective defense alliance had eight communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. After nation-wide revolt in Hungary, with the Imre Nagy’s government withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact in 1956, Soviet troops entered the country and removed the government and crushed the agitators. The Warsaw Pact invaded the Prague Spring on the night of 20 August 1968 in Czechoslovakia. The military invasion successfully retained the Communist government state power and stopped the reforms. However, with Warsaw’s existence for 36 years during the Cold War, it and NATO never directly waged war against each other.

After USSR’s downfall, US intelligence analyzed the Russian re-emergence. The US defense planners set the new potential strategic goal and NATO expanded its might with significant Russian boarder line and encircled it both geographically and militarily. NATO began to expand it’s presence to borders of the east European countries. Former US defense secretary and former CIA Director Robert Gates’ memoir book (Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War ) disclosed US strategic interest with Russia,:  “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, (Defense Secretary Dick Cheney) wanted to see the dismemberment not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.”

With the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990, the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year with assured the Russian Security and defense. Currently, not only the Eastern European Boarder country Macedonia, Montenegro, Georgia, among others wait for the NATO membership, but Sweden and Finland are also trying to join NATO. But Russia has warned NATO’s surprising expansion in its borders. Despite differences, Russia and NATO are cooperating on a wide range of areas of common interest. But with the start of the Ukraine crisis, NATO and Russia have missed lot of diplomatic options to resolving the crisis. Their differences have vastly deep-rooted and solution is not an easy task. Western countries see new opportunities in the Ukrainian crisis and Russia sets its strategic goal to annexation with Crimea. 

 

Ukraine: Pain more than gain

Russia front-line states are gradually controlled by NATO and its confrontation seems to be direct due to strategic geo-political location involving the Ukraine crisis. Both sides want upper hand in Ukraine crisis. Western powers have an upper hand in Kiev. After months of protests and with the ouster of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, Russia has rejected the legitimacy of the interim Ukrainian government. But the security architecture of Europe – NATO, wants political and militarily control in the Russian front line ground. Ukraine crisis is not only a confrontation of rivals, supporters, and protector but has seen sharp divisions within the country. After strategic loss in the ground, Russia calculated the status of historic navy base of Crimean Peninsula – Black Sea Fleet. On 23 February, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, the Ukrainian parliament adopted a bill to repeal the law and Russian language. Russian-speaking regions were aggressively infuriated with the new parliament and government. In this difficult scenario in Ukrainian politics, Russia caught the sentiment thus fuelling crisis in Ukraine. In Crimea, there was a dramatic increase of militiamen dressed in camouflage and securing and patrolling vital places such as entry road to airport.

On 27 February, gunmen seized the building of the regional parliament and the building of the Council of Ministers in Simferopol.  Eventually, the Crimean peninsula was controlled by pro-Russian and Russian special forces with Russian flags raised all over these important structures. On 16 March, a referendum was held that paved the way for Crimea to join Russia. On March 18, 2014 Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects. It was ratified by the Federal Assembly on March 21. Russian nationalist doctrine quickly annexed Crimea. Russian move in Crimea was not a contemporary style though it was visible to the Western intelligence radar easily.

Following the annexation of Crimea, the EU and US imposed sanctions and threatened stern sanctions against Russia. Ukrainian separatist turmoil spread to the eastern part of the country and pro-separatist militias have controlled much of two big regions in the east. The rebels have already voted for a self-rule in east Ukraine and declared “Donetsk People’s Republic”, which NATO ally declared the referendum illegal. Heavy fighting in separatist’s stronghold continues. Ukrainian government and NATO ally countries have blamed Russia for instigating the unrest by sending in Russian military-intelligence officers. But Moscow has denied any role in the armed uprising and accused the Western countries of being responsible for bloodsheds. This has been a sort of proxy war between NATO and Russian interest. What may be the situation, but after all it is the Ukrainian people who have suffered the most.

Comments Off on NATO expansion in East Europe: Alarm to Russia

EU Parliament Elections 2014: What happened

June 6th, 2014

 

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 

2014 European Parliament Elections faced the most uneasy circumstances in history. Anti-European Union and anti-immigrant far-rightest parties are sure to triumph in the European elections and gain the seats of all time high. This backdrop is not a good news for EU designer. The directly-elected decision-making body and trans-national political groups have a significant role to protect intregrated European Union. This time voting across the EU underwent moral difficulties indicating certainly anti-EU and anti immigration far-right party representatives dominance. Their voices seem to be louder inside the parliament. The voting trend has adversely broken the voting trend and traditions of EU intregation and rise of the right wing .

Far rightist have dominated in Britain, France, Belgium, Greece, Denmark and elsewhere. Anti-European Union parties are sure to get their strong position and get around 140 of 751 seats in the only major and directly elected new legislature, up from around 60 seats in previous elections. Unusually anti MEPs are elected is a significant meaning but not much greater influence on decision-making process. However, this scenario has increasingly pressurised and alarmed the institution. Atmosphere of growing Euro-skepticism has been a serious problem for better EU future. Deep-rooted political and financial crisis will be major debatable and doubtful issues in the parliament. EU countries have faced unemployemnt, bailout, economic upheaval since the start of the eurozone crisis in early 2009 and the hangover of financial crisis is still on.

France, the founding father of European integration and political heart of EU country, will have an affect and a significant meaning of this election. Turnout has been just over 40 percent in France but the result is surprising since the far-right National Front has led the polls with 25 percent with first position representation in the EU parliament . French ruling Socialist Party received just 14 percent of the vote with third position. Meanwhile, in the UK, UKIP emerged as the biggest party for the first time of history garnering 27.5% of the votes with 24 EU MEPs .

Turnout was 33.8 percent in the UK but results surprisingly anti-EU sentiment. The party garnered over 13 percent in comparision with the the 2009 European elections.  That seems difficult for Britian to remain in the EU membership.

The nationalist far rightist Golden Dawn party gained three seats. Rise in Greece is also a surprising result. The extremist party leaders, among other five lawmakers, which still face criminal organization charge garnered 9.4 percent votes with third position in the country. Golden Dawn came in the fifth position in 2012 Greece general elections.  Danish anti-EU party, Danish People’s Party received around 23 percent of the vote with 3 seats. Likewise, Germany’s anti-Euro party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) won nearly 7 percent vote with seven seats in the European parliament. But in Germany, central right rulling party is comfortable.

Turnout across Europe is estimated at 43.01 percent – the first time highest in EU previous elections. The election total average vote percent in 2009 was 43 percent. The centre-right European People’s Party appears to have won 213 out of the 751 seats, with 28.36 percent across the bloc. The Socialist Alliance has 25.3 percent of the vote, the Liberals 9 percent, and the Greens 7 percent. The Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group appeared to have about 5 percent. Anti-EU parties’ significant gains in the parlament elections result is an alarming sign. However, majority of the seats remain in control of pro-EU parties.

Far right has no mandate to suffle the integrated EU policy. Centre-right European People’s Party won the most seats in the 751-member EU legislature but no party has a clear majority. Pro-EU parties still are not yet defeated but if they fail to strongly initiate to reform EU institution and create a new hope, they might face more difficult elections positions in future elections. Communists have also gain in this election. In Greece, anti Austerity far-left Syriza party gained 28 percent of the vote, the largest representive in the country. Similary, the United Left coalition in Spain secured 10 percent of the vote securing third position .

EU parliament elections and turnover

In 1979, EU parlament had 9 member states – Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the UK, Denmark and Ireland and the average vote turnover was 61.99 per cent. In 1984 elections, EU had ten members (with in Greece joining in 1981) and the average turnover was 58.98 percent. In 1989 elections, EU had 12 nations (with Spain and Portugal joining in 1986) the average turnover was 58.41 percent.

In 1994, EU had 12 Member States and the average turn over vote was 56.67 percent. Likewise, in 1999, the EU had 15 member (Austria, Sweden and Finland joining in 1995) and the average vote turnover was 49.51 percent. Similarly, in 2004, EU had 25 nations (with Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Malta joining in 2004 ) and the vote turnover was 45.47 percent. In 2009, EU had 27 states (with Bulgaria and Romania joining in 2007)  and the turn-over was 43 percent. Likewise, in 2014, EU has 28 States (after Croatia joining in 2013) the turnover is 43.1 percent.

System of EU MEPs and overview of elections

With the joining of Coratia in 2013, the European Parliament (MEPs) had 766 members. However, the number in the 2014 elections has come down to 751. These MEPs will represent over 500 million citizens of the 28 member states allocated on the basis of countrys population. According to EU election officals, seats are allocated among various states, by the EU treaties, on the basis of ‘degressive proportionality’ (meaning countries with larger populations have more seats than smaller ones but the latter have more seats than strict proportionality would imply). Since 1979, EU has been directly elected by five-year term.

Seats per country in 2014 are Austria 18, Belgium 21, Bulgaria 17, Croatia 11, Cyprus 6, Czech Republic 21, Denmark 13, Estonia 6, Finland 13, France 74, Germany 96, Greece 21, Hungary 21, Ireland 11, Italy 73, Latvia 8, Lithuania 11, Luxembourg 6, Malta 6, Netherlands 26, Poland 51, Portugal 21, Romania 32, Slovakia 13, Slovenia 8, Spain 54, Sweden 20, and United Kingdom 73 seats.

According to THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: ELECTORAL PROCEDURES book, which was provided to election reporting journalists in Brussels, some EU states set a minimum threshold, which may not exceed 5 percent  for the allocation of seats.

Several Member States apply a threshold: this is set at 5 percent in France (depending on the constituency), Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary; at 4 percent in Austria, Italy and Sweden; at 3 percent in Greece; and at 1.8 percent in Cyprus. In the two decisions taken in 2011 and 2014, the German constitutional court declared the country’s hitherto existing thresholds for European elections (5 percent, and 3 percent) to be unconstitutional. EU nations – Belgium, Cyprus, Greece and Luxembourg have compulsory voting system.  Austria has a voting age of 16 but the voting age in most of the EU nations is 18. However, the voting age in Slovakia is 21, 23 in Romania, and 25 in Italy and Greece.

According to parliamentary regulations, every political group must be made up of 25 MEPs from at least 7 Member States. Parliament has different groups such as Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, European Conservatives and Reformists Group, Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, Europe of freedom and democracy Group, Non-attached Members. In 2014 EU parliament, the record low turnout was in Slovakia with just 13 percent and compulsory voting implement highest turnover in Belgium with 90 percent .

(Writer is in field coverage the EU parliament elections 2014 )

Comments Off on EU Parliament Elections 2014: What happened

Prisoner swap: Risk or safe for peace in Afghanistan

June 4th, 2014

 

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



After three years of intensive negotiations with Taliban, the only one American captivity, US Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was released from the Taliban prison. After five years of captivity, Bowe was released following negotiation of swap between him and former high-ranking Taliban figures languished in Guantanamo Bay detention camp . The US endured the most costly deal to secure the service man’s life. As a negotiated settlement with Taliban, the US released the most prominent and dangerous former Taliban officials. The released five Guantanamo Bay prisoners are – the Taliban deputy minister of intelligence, Abdul Haq Wasiq, the senior Taliban commander in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif – Mullah Norullah Nori. One of the few men, who had direct ties with Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden and a key Taliban leader was Khairullah Khairkhwa, who was also the former Interior Minister in the Taliban regime.

Another key person was the chief of security for the Taliban in Qalat and radio operator for the Taliban’s communications – Mohammed Nabi. Likewise, suspected war criminal Mohammad Fazl was also released. Human Rights Watch accused him for war crimes and mass killings of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 during the Taliban regime. However, the release of these most dangerous militants has been troubling a significant number of people across the US. The US intelligence and military hugely invested their blood and treasure to capture these central and influential figures of Taliban.

Geopolitical strategy in Afghan war

Afghanistan – the strategic geography of Central Asia and important footholds in the region has faced a century of battle and decades of bloody war.  If we go through the Afghan history, we find interesting and unbelievable facts to justify it’s importance – rise and fall of different rulers and dynasties, buffer state between British India and the Russian Empire, focal point of the ancient Silk Road to human migration, modernization to ultra-extremism, invasion to civil war, Cold war to present unsuccessful and endless wars. The important geo- cultural hub, Afghan connects the Middle East culture with Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent but the war-torn country identifies itself as the most country of dangerous assassinations and suicide attacks and even land and centre of global war on terrorism.

In 1979, with the invasion of Soviet Union in Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal, Afghanistan experienced a real cold war. After the Soviet invasion, the CIA was determined that Afghanistan could be a prime strategic priority to operate covert operation through ISI and other Islamic fundamentalist country secret service and fund. CIA was temporarily successful to serve the US strategic interests not only in the Communist USSR but also in the Balkans and the Middle East countries having anti-American ideology. Under the Geneva Accord on 15 April 1988, the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan began on 15 May 1988 and executed on 15 February 1989.

Withdrawal of Soviet forces did not complete the Afghan war but the situation remained uncontrolled thus plunging the country into civil war. Some figures showed that more than forty Islamic countries joined Afghanistan in its fight between 1982 and 1992. Scuffles and struggles among numerous militia factions operating in Afghanistan triggered a civil war. Former anti-USSR low rank militant Mullah Omar conceptualized the Taliban party in 1994 that later grew and spread throughout Afghanistan. After bloody fight with different militant groups, the Pakistani military supported and Saudi Arabia funded the Taliban. This resulted in Taliban seizing the power and ruling the government from September 1996 until December 2001. With the Taliban seizing the power in Afghanistan, the country became a new hub of terrorism and ground of Islamic extremist development, training, funding, weapons, growing extremist fundamentalism throughout the world.

The safe heaven for Jihadi, Afghanistan changed the global war on terrorism after 9/11 attacks. US responded quickly with the US and its allies carrying out massive air raid against militia target. The Northern Alliance gaining the ground swiftly took control of Kabul and other al-Qaeda and Taliban hotspots. After the US invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan had a doubtful role tat risked extremist control. US Navy Seal killed Osama Bin Laden – the number one enemy of the US and the world’s most wanted man in 2011 by the helicopter raid by U.S. Naval Special Warfare Development Group (known as SEAL Team Six) on Abbottabad, suburb of Pakistan capital Islamabad. “Operation Neptune Spear” (mission code name) was accomplished properly. However, America’s war on terrorism has not been complete. Allied forces are yet to achieve their final goal in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan holds geopolitical importance to US and it is difficult to completely withdraw from there. According to several figures, the cost of Afghan war has already crossed half trillion dollars. Despite the cost, the Obama Administration has already revealed its principle strategic priority to Asia to boost its force in the region. The US desire is not a back yard in central region but to maintain the force to support the extending their influence in region. Afghani ground is a key part to influence the Middle East as well as South Asia.

Afghanistan also has strategic borders, such as – emerging world economic power and US competitor China in the far northeast, volatile nuclear powers and unreliable partner Pakistan border with south and the east, major US enemy Iran’s border in the west, energy-endowed former Soviet states Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the North. The US still remains to play a dominant, influential and powerful role in Afghan political, military to judiciary. According to media reports, US will pull out most of the 32,800 troops from Afghanistan by the end of the 2014 and withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016. Combat troops have been completely withdrawn and NATO Mission remains to train, advice and assist role to the Afghan Security. But operation readiness has to remain, if necessary. CIA contingents, drone operators, and of- course, other various intelligence personnel remain in Afghanistan to serve the interests of the United States. Drones are expected to play a major role in battle and surveillance in post 2014. Drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to increase.

Post 2014 US presence in Afghanistan could block the Taliban recapturing the Afghan power but the number of US remaining troops will not be sufficient to control Taliban insurgency that has spread across the complex geography. Afghanistan’s strong security is the prime requirement to defend the regional and world peace as well major strategic objectives of international super power. If the instability grows uncontrolled and leads to a new kind of terrorism threat, western countries might face another attack. Afghan needs to strengthen its forces to combat international terrorism. Control of Afghan terrorism is the real challenge.

Peace: Still Confusing

The age-long historic civilization, diverse geography and rich culture Afghanistan (many analysts compare it with Egypt) faces a bloody war. It will still take some more time for a peaceful future. Post 2014 could boost the anti-government militant groups. But resumption of peace talk’s faith is still no signal of goodwill that will lead start path to peace path. Taliban has publicly refused to engage with the Afghan government, accusing the Afghan government of being an American puppet. Taliban extremist elements and regional country role is still difficult to the engaged in dialogue of conflict. Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar claimed that the swap was a “big victory”. This exchange has boosted the Taliban moral because all the five prisoners were influential former officials of the Taliban regime. It is a remarkable political victory for Taliban after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks and fall the regime. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid indicated the “difficulty” to future peace talks saying that “it has only been an exchange of war prisoners, there is nothing political in it, it has not been done for peace process”. The Afghan government accused the prisoner swap as a violation of international law by transferring detainees to a third country. No one is still optimistic about Afghan peace future. Neither the government nor the Taliban side has genuinely committed towards peace talks. The US said that the ‘militants’ release is a possible first step toward an Afghan peace accord”, but it is not easy.

Comments Off on Prisoner swap: Risk or safe for peace in Afghanistan

Africa: the western next frontier of terrorism

May 23rd, 2014

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.



African local Islamist militant groups have posed threat to the country following the path of Afghanistan conflict. This, definitely, is an alarming scenario to the Western world. In the last half decade, some of these groups continued ties with international jihadis and Western African Jihadis, which can be dubbed as dangerous. The kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls and women from a school in northeast Chibok on April 15 by Boko Haram has drawn the world’s attention. Following this incident, for the first time, West African countries – Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Benin together declared war on Boko Haram and agreed to share intelligence, coordinated action, border monitor, coordinated patrols and rescue operations thus putting in place a mechanism to prevent weapons’ smuggling. Western countries have already put a new strong priority and focus in the African Region.

Western super power seems to empower local African and regional forces to find solutions to the African crisis. However, lack of moral, financial and technical power has obstructed the African force to perform better. Moreover, the significant presence of western forces in the continent has been unpredictable. French President Francois Hollande has dubbed the Boko Haram as an al-Qaida-linked group. After Paris meeting with West African leaders, President Hollande told a news conference, “The message we want to send is that we know the threat. It is serious…serious for the region, for Africa and so for Europe.

We have deployed our military and intelligence system to find these young girls.” Nigeria, Africa’s top oil producer has faced continued unprecedented violation since 2009. Demand of imposing Islamic law and campaigning of Boko Haram (literary meaning western education is a sin in the Hausa language) founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002 is now a threat to the entire western African nation.  Boko Haram has been expanding its safe haven in western African countries like Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Benin. Its growing influence is a threat to further destabilizing the region and growing terrorist attacks.

Terrorism and extremism is rising rapidly in the entire African region. Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Somalia, Eritrea and Sudan) to the West and North Africa has become the hotspot of extremist groups. Several terrorist groups have carried out killings, bombings, kidnappings and attacks on civilian and military targets. Al-Qaeda-affiliated extremist groups have strengthened their positions and continue to overtake local insurgents. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) operates in several Sahel countries including Mali, Mauritania, Chad and Niger. Al-Qaeda-linked groups in North Africa, Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM also operate in Algeria, Tunisa and Morocco. A Somali-based group is already associated with al-Qaida and continues to carry out attacks not only in Somalia but neighboring countries like Kenya and Uganda.

Last year, al-Shabaab carried out a deadly attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya and demanded Kenya withdrawal its defense forces from Somalia. After the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, the country has become a hub for extremist militants groups. Central African Republic (CAR) sectarian conflict continues despite the French and regional military presence. Fragmented politics, fragile security and power vacuums create a new extremist wave and they gain new grounds in the African region. Military planner of Paris to Washington is busy these days making strategy – how to tackle the uncomfortable situation and wide ranging regional threat? Western intelligence are already in battle with the anti terrorism groups at the African frontier. They have been tracing the African major terrorist organizations, leadership and strength.  Currently, Africa has become a threat of counter-terrorism for major western countries. In should be noted that France and US have traditionally been rivals in Africa but now they have intensified joint efforts against terrorism in Africa. In February 2013, US deployed some 100 troops to Niger for intelligence-sharing and other assistance to the French troops in Mali. US troops started tracking and monitoring the militants’ activities through drone surveillance in the volatile borders.

France boosts military presence in Africa 

Africa is France’s priority region. It has long maintained influence throughout the African Region and it has a special strategic, business, cultural and political ties. France has not only historical links with the African continent but still has a dominant role. French militarily intervened in January 2013 to prevent militants from taking over Mali. French intervention has also become necessary in the Central African Republic (CAR) following a takeover by mainly Muslim rebels. In December 2013, France sent its troops where ethnic clashes were escalating. More then 6,000 French troops are operating in the African continent, where at least 240,000 French nationals are registered as living in Africa. French companies have special resources, constriction, banking communication and other trade interest in the region.

However, currently, they have started to face complex challenges. France had earlier reduced the size of the military and bases between 1997 and 2002.  France has however announced that it will deploy 3,000 more troops to combat extremist forces in parts of Africa. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, “This redeployment will cover about 3000 troops which we are about to reorganize and re-deploy all over the area”. He added, “I wanted to say all this to you because we think that the intervention in Mali is not enough.

We have to go beyond”. French Defense Minister indicated the scenario of post Gaddafi  Libya – where power vacuum is now the shelter of various radical groups. “We have to protect ourselves against different risks, new risks and especially, tomorrow, against the risk of a Libyan chaos”. The Sahel from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the Red Sea in the east is key strategic geography for anti terrorism operation which spans 5,400 kilometers. The EU door step country, Africa has been witnessing instability and violence, which will have a direct impact on migration to security in the European territory.

US unpredicted military boost in Africa

US has a new strategic interest in Africa Region and surprisingly expanded its military presence in this region. US military has a major influence and dominance in the Sahel region. According to official information, AFRICOM began initial operations on October 1, 2007, and officially became an independent command on October 1, 2008. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) – one of the U.S. military’s six regional commands and the newest one expanded its presence in the African region. In 2013, it conducted joint exercises with fourteen African nations leading the operations of land, sea, and air. In 2013, U.S. military carried out a total of 546 activities on the continent and analyst estimated 217% increase in operations, programs, and exercises since the command was established in 2008. AFRICOM – the “3D” approach known as defense, diplomacy, and development,” describes as coordinating “low-cost, small-footprint operations” throughout the African continent.

According to http://www.defensenews.com/ figure there are 5,000 to 8,000 US military personnel on the ground in Africa. But AFRICOM official figure shows that the number is approximately 2,000 and about 1,500 work at the command’s headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. A 2013 investigation by Tom Dispatch analyzing revealed that the U.S. military was involved with at least 49 of the 54 nations on the African continent during 2012 and 2013 in activities that ranged from special operation raids to the training of proxy forces.

Comments Off on Africa: the western next frontier of terrorism

EU defense force: Comprehensive View

March 14th, 2014

By Pramod Sedhain.



European Union has agreed to send 500 troops to Central African Republic (CAR)- the failed and virtually lawless country. France sought support of coalition in its effort to calm down the situation in Libya, Mali and CAR. However, unwillingness of some other EU members persuaded France to carry out unilateral intervention in Africa – the EU’s doorstep. Other EU nations described the situation as neither a priority nor an emergency. France – Europe’s leading military power – has been continuously advocating for the strongest European defense forces and essential number of troops ready to mobilize for emergency and crisis. Lack of collective action among the member states and common defense policy has been major challenge towards formation of a coalition. European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) is the most controversial issue among the 28 nations. French President Francois Hollande proposed to create a common EU fund to finance any one member state’s military operation. The progress has been delayed.

After UN Security Council unanimously allowed the mandate, French troops along with African peacekeeping force took action in the uncontrolled sectarian violence-escalated country CAR. The regional and international community requested French intervention which still faces lot of challenges at a time when clashes between rival Muslim and Christian militias continues. After the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a military intervention, French and African troops on December 5 intervened to end the chaos that followed Seleka’s coup in March.  France deployed 1,600 troops and announced it would send 400 more soldiers to the CAR. 5,000 African Union peacekeepers assisted French force on the ground. However, analysts have to say that at least 10,000 AU troops are necessary to tackle the problem.

Even after the deployment of the French and African Union forces, the progress is slow-paced. CAR sectarian violence has claimed more than 2,000 lives forcing more than one million people to flee. Failed state, lawlessness, rebellion and counter-rebellion, sectarian chaos, spill-over of violence, difficult demography, and political unwillingness are some of the major problems that the foreign forces are currently facing in the CAR.

Challenges remain for the EU force, if deployed, to tackle the wide range of crisis in CAR. UN’s refugee agency UNHCR has estimated that a total of 510,000 people (more half of the capital population) are sheltering in 67 sites in Bangui, or have moved to live with host families due to the ongoing sectarian violence. Some 60 per cent of those displaced are children.

 

Slow progress: delay formation

EU needs to increase its collective defense ability to ensure its strategic objectives. However, European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) has been the major controversial issue among the members. Defense integration and deployment to prevent international conflicts or reinforce global security policy – independent from Nato – has been EU’s consideration. Groups were launched in 2004 and have been fully operational since 2007, with 1,500 soldiers permanently on standby and member states alternating command of the units.  Europe’s contribution to global security and stability is mainly composed of training and support, small-scale rescue missions, conflict prevention and the full-scale separation of warring parties that might involve the whole 60,000-strong force. The headline goal is for a force of 60,000 with supporting air and naval assets. The catalogue of forces to be drawn up will be significantly larger, enabling planners to mix-and-match units for any given contingency. In 2012, Nato handed over its peacekeeping duties in Bosnia-Hercegovina to the European Union. With 6,600 personnel, Eufor is the largest EU military operation to date. EU has smaller missions in Africa: supporting the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo and offering logistical support to the African Union’s mission in the Darfur region of Sudan.

European Council has set itself this goal in September 2013.  EU drafted the new command defense strategy which includes the crisis HQ nature, military mobilization as well as command and control. The draft mentions the definition of European defense interests, priority, strategic objective and its geographical priority zones, common defense interests, frame of operational deployments, comprehensive EU security and defense policy, cooperation, military integration, costs of war, and mechanization of force. Decades of reliance on the United States and NATO, EU formed the force in 2004 and have been fully operational since 2007, with 1,500 soldiers permanently on standby. Its tasks include humanitarian and rescue, conflict prevention and peace-keeping, combat forces in crisis management. Recently they added three new tasks to this list – joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks, and tasks in post-conflict stabilization.

According to EU official website, the Euro-forces are divided in four sectors. Eurofor – regrouping land forces between Spain, France, Italy and Portugal. Eurocorps – regrouping land forces between Germany, Belgium, Spain, France and Luxembourg. Euromarfor – regrouping maritime forces between Spain, France, Italy and Portugal. The European Air Group, regrouping air forces between Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

 

Why EU needs collation defense force?

Most of the EU countries’ military has not been in a modern form. They still have passive strategic mobility, lack of better strong warfare equipment (Navy and Air Power) and determination. EU countries have been debating wide range of issues, including effective defense policy, clear strategic priorities, interests and intention and values. EU has not yet carried out military operation but involved in humanitarian operations. EU has expeditionary power despite the economic hardship. These countries need to have a collective defense strategic focus as an option for an effective force.

Europe’s southern neighborhood, the African countries have been the most fragile states and currently spreading instability across Sahel to the Horn of Africa  as well as new emerging challenges in Asia to Middle East. These problems cannot be resolved easily without the demonstration of its military power. EU needs to be able to collectively carry out military operation in future. In the current strategic and military context, EU needs to prepare to use military power, if necessary, in a proper manner. Operational readiness is necessary to protect their interest. Without military might, EU’s international influence will sharply decrease. With the growing strategic threats and challenges, EU’s non-military approach cannot sustain. EU needs a realizable and credible military power as well as common external interests.

 

Challenges ahead

Integrated Defense policy and wider European strategy has been a challenging task since the beginning of its concept. EU is yet to setup its defense policy. Facing the new rising military powers might overlap EU military capacities and strength. The past two decades have been financially not sound for the EU states when it comes to defense budget. International Institute for Strategic Studies data shows that the Asian defense spending has already exceeded European expenditure in 2012. EU governments spent €194 billion on defense in 2011, down from €251 billion in 2001. Defense Research and Development spending also fell by 14 percent between 2005 and 2010, to €9 billion. The US spends seven times more on research and development than the EU’s 28 member states put together. Russian defense spending exceeded both that of France and Britain in 2011. Russia and China are expected to double their defense spending by 2015 when compared to 2011. China’s defense budget will surpass the collective spending of the European members of NATO by 2020, according to some defense analyst’s projections. In this context, EU nations must be prepared for common strategic view, competitiveness and capability built-up.

Comments Off on EU defense force: Comprehensive View

NATO pullout: Afghan vital security challenges

January 17th, 2014

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.

 



NATO pull-out from Afghanistan in 2014 indicates grave crisis in the war-torn country. Time seems to be uncertain and critical for Afghanistan after the NATO pull-out. Currently, the United States, which is leading the NATO and collation forces, remains engaged for the 2014 transition strategy. The possibility of post-2014 force of roughly 10,000 to 13,000 troops remaining in the country seems high. However, transitional success is still questionable while stability and security remain to be a challenge ahead. The drawn-out presence of the US Army in Afghanistan (for 12 years) is probably longest war in US history.

The capability, confidence, strategy and sustainability of approximately 350,000 Afghan soldiers remain uncertain. Afghan force took the lead in June 2013 taking control the country’s security from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Despite combating the Taliban a number of times, Afghan forces have not made any significant progress to gain victory against the insurgents. It has suffered significant losses with the insurgents. The ability of Afghan force has been built-up in recent years but they are still struggling for better performance. The rate of injury and death is increasing every month. Casualties among the Afghan army and police rose to 2,767 in 2013 up from 1,870 in 2012. The figure indicates possible rise of Taliban and other insurgents’ aggression and attacks.

Afghan civilians are sure to face the country’s worst violence and threat after coalition’s pullout. There are total 84,271 troops from 49 contributing nations, with a majority of 60,000 from the U.S. The war’s total cost to $700 billion (appr.) claiming lives of some 2,300 U.S troops, some 1,100 coalition forces’ and thousands of Afghan civilians. In 2013, the ISAF forces suffered lower casualties in Afghanistan in the last six years. Afghanistan war has been unpopular among the American people. A recent CNN/ORC international poll showed that only 17 percent of Americans supported the 12-year-long war. In 2008, 46 percent Americans disapproved the Afghan war but now a significant 82 percent U.S. citizens has opposed the ongoing conflict. This data indicates domestic pressure for the withdrawal of U.S. forces at the earliest.

Whatever the consequences be, the U.S. goal has not been fulfilled yet. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups still remain hiding in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. Afghanistan might turn into a safe heaven for the terrorist groups following the pullout of the coalition troops. This might even encourage them (terrorists) to expand its ability and capability to conduct terrorist attacks inside and outside. Several of such groups are already active in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and several other countries. Peace negotiations began in 2012 and Taliban opened a liaison office in Dubai for talks but failed to materialize.

After the departure of foreign forces, Afghanistan might see a re-emergence of Taliban insurgents with a high moral. The country might undergo numerous challenges, including implementation of law, economic conditions and political instability. Afghanistan is holding Presidential election in April 2014. The political situation is unprecedented. With the NATO combat mission changing its role to countering terrorism training and providing advices, Afghan security forces might not be able to handle the fragile situation since vital strategic challenges remain in Afghanistan.

Afghan: Don’t want historic repetition   

Soviet Union forces invaded Afghanistan to protect the Communist ally President Nur Mohammad Taraki, who grabbed the power through “April Revolution” in 1978. In fact, this was a military coup backed by the then Soviet Union. Taraki was the founder leader of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan. In December 1979, Soviet Union intervened in support of the Afghan communist government and directly fought Muslim guerrillas until February 1989.

Afghanistan become a major player in the cold war between the then USSR & U.S. Anti-communist guerilla forces – Mujahideen received support from the US, Saudi Arabia and received training from the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter Service Intelligence (ISI). With bitter experience, Kremlin’s goals collapsed and eventually withdrew its troops resulting to heavily economic and human loss.

Communist regime in Afghanistan survived more than three years without Soviet military. After the fall of Kabul and collapse of Soviet-backed Mohamad Najibullah in 1992, Afghan political parties agreed on a peace and power-sharing agreement “Peshawar Accord” and commitment to form an interim transitional government.

Several regional powers tried to influence their geo-political strategic neighboring country and supported several rival militia. Militia party broke the agreement that led to conflicts and fights among themselves to prove their dominance. Afghanistan entered a new bloody civil war leading to lawlessness.

On the backdrop of uncertainty and anarchism, Pakistan’s ISI trained low-level Mujahideen member Mullah Omar during the 1980s which saw the emergence of a new power base. He started his movement with fewer than 50 armed loyalist students in his hometown of Kandahar.

The Taliban saga began with a populist stunt in 1994 by successfully freeing two school girls from the captivity of a local governor and hanging him in public. Some 30 Taliban fighters initiated the struggle.

Mainly ethnic Pashtuns Taliban insurgents emerged in Afghanistan as a new power in 1994. A four-year long bloody civil war and lawless Taliban regime start from September 1996 to December 2001 with hardliner ruthless rule. Fundamentalist Taliban regime has been recognized for its brutality and power abuse.

After 9/11 terrorist attack, the U.S. gave an ultimatum to the Taliban regime to hand-over Osama Bin Laden, which Taliban government flatly refused. The US-led multi-national coalition force invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. The Taliban regime had totally collapsed in the first week of December paving way towards formation of a new government. Taliban, however, steadily extended their influence and remerged by 2006 and infiltrated parts of the southern Afghanistan. The country now faces a new level of insecurity and violence. Since 2008, insurgents have started spreading out north towards Kabul and eventually south-western Afghanistan.

 

Comments Off on NATO pullout: Afghan vital security challenges

Why France involved alone in CAR conflict?

December 29th, 2013

 

 

By Pramod Raj Sedhain.



France deployed some 1,600 soldiers to prevent further conflict in war-torn Central African Republic (CAR) on December 5, 2013. French expects that the military intervention “Operation Sangaris” in its former colony would be quick and easy. It is hopeful that the involvement would last for just over four to six months where the troops would try to stabilize the lawless potential dangerous sectarian war-torn country. The African Union (AU) forces made their place in the frontline backed by French troops to boost its existing peacekeeping mission to 6,000 soldiers.

France thought it necessary to intervene following international and regional approach. The UN Security Council unanimously approved the decision and passed Resolution 2127, which mandated and authorized the French forces to take “all necessary measures” in CAR. The French-speaking unstable, landlocked and least-developed country CAR has slid into anarchy since the Muslim Seleka fighters seized capital Bangui on 24 March, 2013 ousting President Francois Bozize. The country with a population of 4.6 million entered sectarian conflict facing deep humanitarian crisis.

France sent a right message to African ally while showing its commitment of global security effort. France flexed its military muscle and proved a greater influence in the African region. Without French intervention in CAR, the deadlock would continue resulting to possible threat and destabilization of the whole region . CAR has six borders – Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of the Congo and Cameroon. Nearly about the size of France, CAR’s (622,984 km²) risk of spiraling into genocide nearly ended and the French troops along with African troops tried to restore security and disarm militants.

If French had not acted on time by undermining the conflict, the world would see a new regretful tragedy (ethnic massacres and even genocide) in the 21st century. The UN presence and its credibility would have been insignificant. Since 2011, France has intervened in four African countries – Libya, Ivory Coast, Mali, and currently in the Central African Republic. The success in the battlefield has recognized the French Military as a superpower.

 

Interest of Intervention

Most of the French model of successful intervention in Africa has avoided accusations of neo-colonialism since they are mandated by the UN Security Council. Unlike the missions in Iraq or Afghanistan, French intervention in Africa is an act of protecting civilians with regional and international support and the country’s request and clear mandate of the UN. French forces’ prompt action prevented the war. France has more than 5,000 troops stationed at bases across Africa and the cost of maintaining them stands at 400 million Euros per year.

Since 1960 (independence from France), CAR – rich in gold, diamond, uranium and agriculture – faces decades of deep instability. With natural, cultural and ethnical diversity, CAR has witnessed several coups, power struggles, conspiracies, rebellion and corruption. Thousands have been displaced and scores of civilians have been killed in CAR due to internal rife. Data shows that more than 50 percent of the French public has supported military intervention. The support is growing. Prior to the launch of the operation, polls showed that 64 percent of the public opposed to military intervention criticizing the government of spending taxpayers’ money.

France has already spent around 500 million Euros in CAR operation. The EU had earlier assured of providing 50 million Euros for the initial phase of the operation. However, EU countries have not come together when it comes to supporting France in this complicated intervention.

Africa has remained France’s top priority. Top French ministers, leaders, top businessmen, military officials, diplomatic and even government employees frequently travel to the African Region. France also organizes exchange programs of senior African leaders on a regular basis. French President also pays special attention to Africa rather than other regions. Since 1975, France has organized Africa-France summit and held several rounds of talks with African leaders.

France has long been involved in the leading role in the African continent and continues to bolster its influence in the region. It has carried out dozens of military interventions. The recent unilateral intervention is to show the real support of its ally and protect the national interest in the region. President Francois Hollande hosted about some 40 African leaders at a Paris Summit before CAR intervention and clearly mentioned France’s interest to double France’s exports to the African region over the next five years.

 

Root of conflict

Several militia groups participated in peace talks with the government. Several peace agreements have been signed in 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Peace agreements have given the recognition to militia groups as political party while several of the fighters have been integrated into the national army. The 2008 agreement also led to reconciliation, formation of a unity government, and holding local elections in 2009 and parliamentary and Presidential elections in 2010.

The new unity government was formed in January 2009. Rebel groups accused the government of President Francois Bozize of failing to abide by the peace agreements. In March 2013, the coalition government was dissolved and rebels seized the capital. Seleka – literally meaning of Union Joint group overthrew the government on March 24, 2013. The CAR’s longest-running civil war rebels, mostly Muslim members group is an alliance of – Democratic Front of the Central African People (FDPC), Convention of Patriots for Justice and Peace (CPJP), Union of Democratic Forces for Unity (UFDR), Patriotic Convention for Saving the Country (CPSK) is currently threat of Peace troop. Democratic Front of the Central African People and the Chadian group Popular Front for Recovery (FPR), also announced their allegiance to the coalition.

The joint rebel collation launched a series of attacks on government-controlled towns in the northern and central parts in early December 2012. They participated in peace talks in early January 2013 that resulted to the formation of a coalition government under the rebel’s leadership. After the collapse of a power-sharing deal, the rebel groups advanced the town and moved to the capital. The Economic Community of Central African States force – South Africa, Republic of Congo, Gabon, Chad, Cameroon and Angola sent troops to block the Seleka rebel advance to protect the capital. But the rebels seized the capital on 24 March 2013 and President Francois Bozize fled the country.

Rebel leader Michel Djotodia self-proclaimed as the country’s President and after seizing the power, he announced a post-coup caretaker government and became the Defense Minister and promised elections in 2016. The new government headed by Tiangaye, with 34 members, 9 members of Seleka along with eight Bozize opposition party representatives, 16 civil society members, one member of the government was associated with former President Bozize’s party. But the parties were unhappy with the composition of the government and announced protest.

Political dispute turned into sectarian violence and destabilized the entire country. The state totally failed and the conflict worsened further. Fighting between Seleka (mostly Muslim) and Bozize supporters rebels (mostly Christians) continued. Human rights abuses including use of child soldiers, rape, torture, extrajudicial killings, looting and forced disappearance is widespread the country. Despite the lack of interest from the European countries, America and NATO ally to send troops to CAR on the ground as well as failure to extend reliable western power military support France intervened in CAR. However, legal, moral and humanitarian ground and widely regional and international support have boosted French military might and international supremacy.

No Comments "

North Korean regime is not crumbling

December 21st, 2013

 

By Pramod Sedhain.



The unpredictable development of the North Korean politic has not only shocked the world but has made its motive clear. Kim Jong Un is now the only most powerful person in North Korea after the execution of his own Uncle Jang Song-Thaek. The North Korean young leader has sent a message to the ruling party and the military disloyal to him. Once the second-most powerful North Korean Leader Jang Song-thaek was executed for a string of alleged crimes, accused of factionalism, corruption, drugs, gambling and ‘dreaming different dreams’. He was also branded as a “traitor”.

It is a rare move to North Korea’s communist ruling history and humiliation of its own dynastic blood relation family member. The latest dramatic move is a sign of power struggle in one of the most isolated countries. Purged from the country’s second-most influential figure after Kim Jong Un show the rift between the party, military and Government rival faction. Jang had emerged as the most influential figure in North Korea after Kim’s father’s death in December 2011. Jang held several topmost positions as the country’s National Defense Commission Vice-Chairman, head of the Administrative Department, Politburo Standing Committee member, and the Chairman of the State Sports Guidance Commission.

 

His last public appearance with Kim Jong-un was during the 68th celebrating event of the Workers’ Party of Korea on October 10 wearing military general’s dress. In November 2013, Jang was characterized as Chairman of Sports Commission. After keeping out of the public eye, North Korean watcher suspected his future fate and power. Earlier disclosed by the North Korean media, the South Korean National Intelligence Service reported in a closed-door parliamentary session, Jang was removed from his positions while his closest two confidants were executed last month.

Young Kim’s power base giant military influence and retaining the support of the military Kim has consolidated his own power and most of the alternative rival faction has been sidelined. The North’s media described Jang’s execution saying that Jang had been plotting to overthrow Kim Jong Un and had “a fantastic dream to become premier… to grab the supreme power of the party and state”.

North Korean media termed Jang a “traitor to the nation for all ages” and “worse than a dog.” There is a possible sign of internal power struggle between party and military but Kim Jong Un is powerful within the North’s 1.2 million army and his Leadership seems to stable and not see immediate collapse. Yong Kim’s two years in power has bolstered his own power in the army and has a full control of the country power base. There are no signs of instability at present. Around one hundred core powerful North Korean ruling workers party leaders’ state influence power is zero.

 

Kim has demonstrated his grip on power to mark the second anniversary of the death of his father. The Military Chief urged the troops to protect Kim Jong-Un “at the cost of their lives” and become “human bullets and bombs” for him. On the occasion of the second anniversary of the country’s former leader and current leader’s father Kim Jong-il’s death, thousands of North Korean publicly pledged their loyalty and allegiance to Kim Jong-un.  North Korean Army Chief, Vice Marshal Choe Ryong Hae said, “It will always remain the army of Kim Jong Un defending him unto death and upholding his leadership only”. The most trusted and confidant adviser to young leader Kim Jong Un, Choe addressed a gathering of soldiers after the dramatic purge of Kim powerful uncle stressing the army’s ceremony “our supreme commander under any storms and hardships”. The powerful military figure also indicated the latest high profile purging and execution and said “maneuvering of betrayers” North Korean troops, undeterred by “strong winds” to defend the young leader despite the to death .

on the marks anniversary opening , Country’s ceremonial head of state, Kim Yong-Nam, said “We should be warriors to safeguard the party centre with our lives… with the conviction that we know no-one but the great comrade Kim Jong-Un,”. This is fresh political and militray fresh public pledged their full loyalty to the young leader.

This dramatic event is not a sign of collapse of the regime. Over the past two decades, many analysts made predictions of imminent collapse that have proved to be wrong and the current scenario and situation is a similar one. In 1997, the US intelligence agency CIA determined that North Korea was likely to collapse within the next five years. Analysts and scholars have failed to predict the North Korean developments. Inside North Korea, there is no possible threat to the young leader. Country’s powerful military is the protector of the regime. Global communism collapsed in the1990s. However, despite all odds, including power transition, worst famine, economic crisis, natural disaster and other difficulties, North Korean regime is stable and the ruler is unquestionable. Currently, there is no existential regime crises either high-risk but China-style liberalization and transformation is possible.

North Korea’s key ally and main economic backer China has helped sustain Kim Jong-un’s regime and economic reform encouragement. North Korea’s relations with China might not affect after Jang’s ouster and execution. China’s economic reform hope is still possible and there can be no signal to policy change. China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei said that “China will stay committed to promoting its traditional, friendly and cooperative relationship with the DPRK.” Despite the harsh international economic sanctions, China continues meaningful economic assistance and support North Korea to avoiding regime collapse. China cannot take action against North Korea. It has signed a treaty with North Korea which declares the two nations guaranteeing to adopt immediately all necessary measures to oppose any country or coalition of countries that might attack either nation.

No Comments "