Posts by QamarSyed:
The plight of Rohingya Muslims
January 30th, 2017
By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
The Currently held OIC moot in Malaysia has shown a touchy concern about the sufferings of Myanmar’s Muslims. The international community has acted as silent spectator since 2015, by watching the agony of the Rohingya Muslims at the hands of the Buddhist government in Myanmar. There are speculations too that such tyranny is being implied at the behest or the due to the corroboration of some neighboring states. It is only some days before that the newly elected UN chief has taken a diluted notice by deploying a special UN representative. Communal violence is not a new phenomenon, specially in this part of the world. Myanmar is a Buddhist majority country and the Muslim minority in Myanmar are the descendants of the Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, China (Yunnan Province).
The irony of the fact is that the Rohingya persons are also denied their right of citizenship which depicts the incapacity of the Myanmar government to ascertain the veracity of the citizenship claims. In this way, the Rohingya Muslims are becoming the targets of the state persecution as the government has miserably failed to check the human rights abuses including crimes against women and children.
In order to avoid such distress and fearing increase in torments, influx has started to pour in the neighboring countries which has further resulted into disastrous news of sinking the boats of the refugees and the disappearance of the migrant’s boats. In retaliation to such a level of persecution the The Rohingya Muslims are not far behind to retaliate this by skirmishes in the severely affected areas. The Western state of Rakhine has been the epicenter of this deepening crisis.
The situation was chiseled by the reports that the army is also involved in severe torture against the Muslims in the form of rape and child abuse. As per the reports of the Human Rights Watch more than 400 buildings have been devastated as a well- planned and organized procedure is being adopted to seek this ethnic cleansing from the territory of Myanmar. Even in the Rakhine state, the Rohingya Muslims are living in terrible state in the refugee camps, deprived of basic health and sanitation facilities.
With the Myanmar military preventing independent investigators from documenting the events taking place in northern Rakhine State, even after several commitments to open the area, there remains an ‘information black hole’. The most effective way for human rights groups to verify and document claims of abuses has been to compare photos, videos and personal accounts from the conflict zone to changes in the landscape using remote sensing analysis.
Such kind of communal tensions do take place in such a society, however the magnitude of the souring problem literally goes out of control where state protection is not available to the minorities. The Rakhine Buddhists protected by the government have remained indifferent in this regard, rather have been instigating the tortures against the Rohingya Muslims. Rohingya groups said the killing in village of Duchiridan, locally known as Kilaidaung, was unlawful. Rohingya Vision TV reported that Myanmar Border Guard Police shot the man after their search for methamphetamine tablets in his home came up empty-handed.“The group of the BGP didn’t find out any illegal materials at the residence of U Hamid (55). Yet the BGP commander simply dragged him out and shot him at his back at a point-blank range”, an eyewitness told Rohingya Vision TV on the condition of anonymity.
The most intricate issue in this regard is that the Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi can play a pivotal role in justifying her stature but the constitution of the country hampers her to do so. Another alarming situation is that militant groups which are well trained in the gruella tactics and have been funded from the outside countries like Harakah al-Yaqin (Faith Movement, HaY), is justifying its existence only due to the idle handling of this multifarious problem by the government in addition to the supporting go ahead signals given by the clergy from outside the country.
MEHROM( A Malaysian Human Rights NGO) has been echoing voice against human rights violations in Myanmar. Addressing a 5,000-strong rally in Kuala Lumpur, Najib Razak, Malaysian Prime minister said the Myanmar government must stop the bloody crackdown in its far west that has sent thousands of Rohingya fleeing, many with stories of rape, torture and murder.”What’s the use of Aung San Suu Kyi having a Nobel prize?” Najib asked a raucous crowd. While Aung San Suu Kyi sweet talked the nine other ASEAN foreign ministers about her government’s military operations in Rakhine State on Monday morning, a photo (graphic) of the bloodied body of a man killed in southern Maungdaw Township began circulating on social media.
Now this situation is again being taken by the government as a plea to keep the cleansing operation going as the insurgents or terrorists have to be eliminated in any case, as they challenge the writ of the state. The government denies that any incidents of rape or torture or child abuse have taken place in this regard, (though the human rights organizations and their reporters or workers have been banned to visit the troubled areas to discover the probity of the facts.
Discerning the facts without prejudice, it may rightly be concluded that it is not only the persecution which is the main problem, rather there is a multidimensional approach to calculate the agony; the denial of political and civil rights remains at the top which the Rohingya Muslims are suffering from. If such a situation continues for a long while, this crisis which involves human element in itself, would certainly result in screeching consequences, particularly in giving rise to Muslim insurrection.
Comments Off on The plight of Rohingya Muslims
China’s growing South Asian role
January 10th, 2017
By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
Given the imperatives of the rising of extremist forces that exercise ideological influence across the region and potentially in Xinjiang itself; or given the proxy battles in Afghanistan between India and Pakistan escalating tensions in South Asia, and given the exigencies of emerging economic order, China’s role in South Asia seems much emerging day by day.
China’s current strategic interests in Afghanistan are coped with a series of negative outcomes that it wishes to avoid: that the country seems to have become a safe haven for Chinese Uighur militant groups again, as it was in the late 1990s; China also has an ardent interest in ensuring that there is no long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, which it sees as an encirclement threat.
China’s close relationship– with Pakistan, which is central to the security dimensions regarding its policy toward both India and Afghanistan– has been mediated through its military, intelligence services, and senior political leaders. The PLA’s influence stems from its comprehensive network of relationships with the Pakistani military, spanning each branch of the armed services, PLA-linked companies involved in joint production of supplies and equipment, continued cooperation on nuclear and missile technology, and military intelligence (2-PLA). The intelligence services’ operation has been focused on– the terrorist threat in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia since the 1990s, as well as involving the role of non-state actors such as the Taliban and has been mainly focused on counterterrorism concerns.
Despite the fact that exposure to Pakistan and Afghanistan among Chinese business community has been significantly less than to India, Pakistan-china friendship seems much moored with good faith via strong bondage of people’s diplomacy.
As for the Indians, India is often perceived as a regional power, but a closer look reveals that New Delhi is in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis China in South Asia. The first reason is that Indian governments never utilized their political, economic, and military capacities to pursue their regional power ambitions with their neighbours in the long run. South Asian countries could always play and rely on their China card in order to evade India’s influence. Second, although India’s new South Asia policy with the focus on trade and connectivity has improved regional cooperation since 1991, but China still remains an economically more attractive and politically more reliable partner for India’s neighbours.
In the present scenario, the geo-economic dictates reflect maximum radiation of CPEC economic flows in the South Asia region. The absence of this link restricts India-China trade to $71 billion and India-Pakistan trade to $2 billion. The absence of the link with India seriously constrains the trade volumes of other Saarc members. Their dividend would remain limited unless India fully partakes of CPEC. Goods from the landlocked Bhutan and Nepal cannot access the Pakistani markets through the shorter land route passing through India. It is pragmatically suggested that Indian strategists must exercise a forward looking approach towards the CEPEC phenomenon which could provide a multilateral boon to the regional economy.
Likely, Bangladesh cannot access the shorter land route through India to Pakistan and onward to China or West Asia, North Africa and Gulf states. The island nations of Maldives and Sri Lanka can of course reach China through Gwadar. Bhutan and Nepal can directly link with China, while Bangladesh lies on the Southwestern route of the Silk Road linking it with Kinmin in Yunnan province of China. The one deriving factor behind India’s current move of suspending its participation in the SARRC is that New Delhi is does not want China’s leverage in the SAARC. This Indian parochial approach towards China and CPEC is detrimental to the future of SAARC economy.
Veritably, China’s major interests in South Asia include promoting stability in both Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to curb the influence of Islamist extremists, and to facilitate trade and energy corridors throughout the region that China can access. It is in this back drop that China is also inviting Iran to join the CPEC. China has been enhancing its influence over other South Asian states, including Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives, to further help it secure energy and trade flows from the Middle East and Europe, and as part of a global effort to extend its diplomatic and economic influence. Furthermore, China seeks to contain Indian power by building close ties with Pakistan and bolstering Islamabad’s strategic and military strength. China likely assesses that, by tilting toward Pakistan, it can keep India tied down in South Asia and divert its military force and strategic capabilities away from China.
China has a willingness to play a more active economic and diplomatic role in efforts aimed at stabilizing Afghanistan. Washington positively welcomes Beijing’s increased involvement in Afghanistan and views efforts such as the establishment of the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (made up of U.S., Afghan, Chinese, and Pakistani officials) as a rare opportunity for Washington and Beijing to work together toward a common security goal.
Despite the fact that India–China economic relations have expanded in recent years, but India remains wary of Chinese overtures to its neighbors and efforts to expand China’s maritime presence in the Indian Ocean Region ( that connects to forty two states of the Indian Ocean). On the other hand, the unresolved border disputes continue to undermine relations, and there have been border flare-ups that raised bilateral tensions on at least two occasions in the last three years.
More recently, China has agreed to join the U.S., Pakistan, and Afghanistan as part of the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) to facilitate peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. The first meeting of the QCG was held on January 11, 2015 in Islamabad, where the participants valued the need for direct talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, while also committing to preserving Afghanistan’s unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. It is noteworthy that China is now willing to be part of the U.S.-supported QCG peace effort. In the past, China did avoid any association with U.S. policies in the region, apprehending that doing so would land them in the cross-hairs of Islamist extremists.
Comments Off on China’s growing South Asian role
Europe and UK after Trump
December 26th, 2016
By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
Seen from the post US-election 2016, much seems in opaque about the US-EU relations. There appears no doubt to predict that under the new administration of Donald Trump, transatlantic relationship would face new frontiers of challenges. Apart from myriad other corollaries, EU has ostensibly appeared on the face of the globe on the most critical position of the US elections. Europe is already at loggerheads with each other on the refugee dilemma and when it is combined with the simmering knots of economic and demographic challenges, the situation appears to be too critical.
The political pundits and analysts in international relations are discussing the victory of Donald Trump in comparison with the coalitions and group formations early in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, however, on thing that has to be kept in mind is that now the global scenario has been changed out rightly in all aspects. The expectations of the public in general in terms of economic advancements have shooten up. The influx of information technology, communication and media advances have changed the mindset of the people in one way or the other. In this context, it may be observed that if the organizations, coalitions or political or economic configurations do come up with symmetry of the popular electoral inclinations, the outcome turns out to be Brexit.
The departing President of the US has emblazoned the flourishing democracies in Europe and the array of similarities that have converted the transatlantic relations into a bliss. Nonetheless, the European media is being sceptic about the same line of role by the US, after the Trump entry. Though the contribution of the United States, has been outstanding (sometimes for its own political and economic motives) in the European arena, specially after the two world wars, after the abatement of Communism and then the restructuring of the East European countries, in addition to the settlement of the political issues around Balkan peninsula.
In spite of all that has been said, the most important point that is roaming in the minds of many Americans (which is revealed in the recent American elections) is that the American Economy can’t afford to promote, protect and sustain democracies all around the globe, that too at the cost of American tax payer’s bucks. This is the core point, whereby Donald Trump has been able to convince the people that the post war alliances, may be that military ones or the political, would be given a rethinking, a reconsideration.
In this way, the American nationalism has come up with a new vigor and zeal, rejecting the idea of constant sticking to the agendas in Western Europe. The same views have also been expressed and endorsed by European powers themselves, especially Germany. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, remarked “The Americans will not see to Europe’s security forever.
We have to do it ourselves,” he said in a speech in Berlin. Former US Ambassador to Germany John Kornblum also expressed the same thoughts in an essay published by the German journalism consortium RND. “The American umbrella over Europe is gone forever. Trump’s election marks the end of the postwar order.” Apart from all these factors, the caution of the then-European Central Bank Chairman Jean-Claude Trichet warned that Europe was as tense as before World War I or II was worthy of given a thorough consideration. In addition to this, Germany also decided to endeavor its re-militarization drive, so that it might get itself free from the clutches of United States to initiate any military operation.
And while Trump often contradicts himself, as Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution has demonstrated, a core consistency has animated his understanding of foreign policy for decades. There are three pillars of his foreign policy thinking from which he has never wavered. The first is the idea that America is getting a bad deal from its allies; the second is that the American approach to free trade has impoverished American workers and weakened the United States; and the third is that as a strong leader he can secure better deals with authoritarian strongmen than by working cooperatively with European allies.
Trump is set on securing a better deal from US allies. A better deal, in Trump’s version of the transatlantic alliance, involves European allies like Germany paying for the privilege of American protection. If they fail to meet their “obligations”, they will not be defended. More than this, Trump’s view is that allies should not need American protection at all. He will expect Europe to shoulder the burden for dealing with conflicts that are primarily European problems, such as the war in Ukraine and the refugee crisis.
Trump had fervently endorsed the Brexit campaign during the UK’s EU referendum, thus distancing himself from the Obama administration’s stated preference for a strong and united EU. Obama seems affirmed that the UK could not expect favourable treatment upon leaving the EU and would instead be at the back of the queue for a trade deal, with TPP and TTIP given priority.
Trump’s protectionist rhetoric and stances on major trade deals should give cause for concern about whether Trump will be committed to putting the UK to the front of the queue for a deal. Even if he does, there is every reason to expect that he will play hardball; Trump will be able to utilize the leverage of the US’s economic strength to ensure that the deal favors US interests, and his background as a businessman suggests that he will not allow sentimentality to result in unnecessary concessions to the UK. The British government needs to remember that it is now in a weaker negotiating situation than it was when part of the EU, and that they need the deal much more than the US does.
Comments Off on Europe and UK after Trump
Cementing Ankara-Moscow ties
October 19th, 2016By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Istanbul on Monday, an official said, on his first trip to Turkey following a crisis sparked by the shooting down of a Russian war plane over Syria last November, Agence France-Presse reported. A Euromed and Nato member Turkey is trying to rebalancing its foreign policy pendulum towards both the West and the East. Yet, the most driving factors to influence the future relationship between Ankara and Moscow are: the US factor; the Syrian factor, the European factor, the Crimean factor; and the economic factor.
Putin and Erdogan demonstrated powerful personal chemistry in Istanbul, and both seemed at ease dismissing criticism from Western countries over human rights. In what appeared to be a careful piece of diplomatic choreography, during the energy summit Erdogan posed for photos flanked by Putin and another bogeyman of Washington’s, Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro.
Many good hopes in ejecting bilateralism notwithstanding, powerful and conflicting forces continue to influence Russian-Turkish relations, analysts caution. “It’s a misnomer to characterize this as a rapprochement,” said Sinan Ülgen, a visiting scholar at the Brussels-based think tank Carnegie Europe. Ulgen pointed out the differences over the Syrian civil war that culminated in the downing of the Russian bomber remain unaddressed.
In September, Erdogan rolled out the red carpet – although in Turkey, it is turquoise – for the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, as Turkey continues to build ties with countries with goals contrary to Russia’s in Syria. The Saudi visit was the latest in intensifying diplomatic traffic between the countries. Ankara has again been calling for the immediate removal of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, a demand that walks back a gesture to Moscow in which Ankara suggested the Syrian dictator could play a role in a transition of power.
The Putin-Erdogan summit at St. Petersburg on Aug. 9 marked the beginning of a new era in relations between Russia and Turkey. Murat Yetkin, editor-in-chief of Hurriyet Daily News, in an Aug. 9 article provided details of the “secret diplomacy” that eased Turkish-Russian tensions. According to Pekin, the Homeland Party believes it played a critical role in improving relations, but in the diplomatic corridors of Ankara, there are suggestions that the party is trying to make a name for itself through political maneuvering.
As Ankara’s relations with the United States soured over Turkey’s demand for the extradition of cleric Fethullah Gulen, Turkey was able to repair its relations with Russia thanks to quick, wise diplomatic initiatives. Just before his meeting with Putin, Erdogan told Tass, “The most important actor for bringing peace to Syria is Russia.” In late June, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologized to Moscow for the incident with the downed Russian plane that took place on Nov. 24, 2015 and triggered a seven-month-long crisis in bilateral relations.
The thaw in two states was orchestrated following the apology: Putin and Erdogan had their first telephone conversation since the November incident, the parties agreed to meet in person in the near future, andrestrictions on travel to Turkey for Russian tourists were lifted.
“In general, the situation should not have a negative effect on Russian-Turkish relations,”saidI lshat Sayetov, a Turkey expert and head of the Center for Contemporary Turkish Studies.
“The country is headed by a leader who has expressed a clear intention to restore relations. However, the overall instability in Turkey – terrorist attacks, semi-coups, polarization of society and so on – is, of course, not to the benefit of the two countries’ relations,” said Sayetov.
“The concentration of all power in the hands of the Turkish president increases the risk of ill-judged decisions, and the Russian authorities will be taking this into account,” he said.
And yet it goes without saying that the current mode is one of waiting to see if Ankara will soften its red line and adjust the priorities of its Syria policy. Beyond its geographic proximity to the peninsula in the Black Sea, Turkey also has deep historical ties to Crimea, once an Ottoman province, and strong interests there, especially with regards to the fate of Muslim Crimean Tatars, who make up an estimated 15 percent of the population.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu recently expressed his concern about how developments in Crimea might impact the Tatars and today his ministry issued a statement calling the upcoming referendum there on whether the region should become part of Russia as a “wrong” move. Meanwhile, Turkey and Russia will establish a joint investment fund with capital of $1 billion, Turkish Economy Minister Nihat Zeybekci was reported as saying by state-run Anadolu Agency.
Many experts are of the view that the normalization of relations with Russia will help Turkey to revive its tourism industry. As reported by Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News, Turkey’s “long-suffering” tourism sector might soon “reap diplomatic fruits” of ongoing efforts to improve bilateral relations.
By all fair strategic calculations, the Turkish government has been making the case that it is best positioned, both geographically and politically, to find a solution to Europe’s energy problem — the continent depends largely on Russian natural-gas exports for energy, even as it is locked in a confrontation with the country over its role in the eastern Ukrainian war.
Turkey seems to have been gaining from this Western conundrum. It has been participating in pipeline projects that benefit both Russia and the West. The proposed pipeline represented the Turkish Stream was catapulted into its next planning stage whereby Ankara and Moscow agreed on the route for the 700-mile pipeline, which could begin delivering oil as early as December 2016. It is assumed that the pipeline will run from Russia through the Black Sea to the Greece-Turkey border. The U.S. and its European allies are seen attempting to dissuade Greece and Serbia from signing on to the project as transport countries because they are worrying it would give Russia even greater energy dominance in the region.
There is much likelihood that the growing chemistry of relationship between Ankara and Moscow would bring about the impact on the ongoing currents-cross currents not only in the Middle eastern politics but also towards Ankara’s relations with Europe and America.
Comments Off on Cementing Ankara-Moscow ties
US-Russia recourse to peace diversion in Aleppo?
October 9th, 2016
By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
The ongoing interplay– of centripetal and centrifugal forces in Syria seems– to have caused the peace prospects more complicated than ever. The United States and Russia have grappled over plans to halt the fighting in Syria, as resurgent Moscow-backed regime forces tightened the noose around the beleaguered city of Aleppo.
In Geneva, secretary of state John Kerry was once more locked in talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, but US officials warned that negotiations could not be a sucess without a breakthrough. Washington views Moscow to help clinch a ceasefire, get humanitarian aid to civilians and — eventually — set the stage for political talks to end a five-year war that has killed more than 290,000.
The twin powers backed- scenario reflects opposite sides in the civil war, with Moscow supporting Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime and Washington behind a coalition of rebel groups it regards as moderate. Senior US official travelling with Mr Kerry said he would not have flown out once again to new face-to-face talks with Mr Lavrov (the Russian Foreign Minister) unless he thought there was a chance of progress.
A US official symbolises the talks as “crisp and businesslike”, focused on specific technical details of how the ceasefire would be observed. In a break in proceedings, the US delegation was to update Washington on progress. But officials warned there was no guarantee of a final agreement before both men return home later on Friday, just four days after the pair met in China and failed to narrow their differences.
Ironically, Aleppo has served as a major rebel base since 2012, when the Syrian civil war really took off in earnest. In late September 2015, Assad’s forces began a concerted effort to retake the city. The above map shows their progress: By December, they had made significant advances around the city and, by February 5, had essentially surrounded it.
Assad’s forces, weakened by attrition and serious recruiting problems, were unable to accomplish this alone. Russian bombing, as well as Iranian troop deployments, was absolutely vital to Assad’s offensive in Aleppo (as well as similar gains in southern Syria, near Daraa).
“The operations in Aleppo Province have hinged upon heavy military support from both Russian warplanes and Iranian proxy fighters,” Christopher Kozak, a research analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, concluded.
Retrospectively,on 10 September 2016, Russia and U.S. concluded a deal on establishing a cease fire between the Syrian Assad government and a US-supported coalition of so-called ‘mainstream Syrian opposition rebel groups’ including umbrella group ‘High Negotiations Committee’ (HNC), effective from 12 September, while jointly agreeing to continue attacks on Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (former al-Nusra Front) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia and U.S. had configured five documents to enable coordination of the fight against Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and ISIL and a revival of Syria’s failed truce in an expanded form.
But on 16 September, the heaviest fighting since weeks broke out at the outskirts of Damascus and air attacks elsewhere in Syria resumed. On Saturday 17 September, Russia accused groups supported by the US to have violated the ceasefire 199 times, and said it was up to the US to stop them and thus save the ceasefire. Later on 17 September, the US-led coalition with Danish, British and Australian aircraft bombarded the Syrian army near ISIL-dominated territory in northern Syria killing 62 Syrian soldiers, which for the Syrian government proved that “the US and its allies cooperate with terrorists”.While the US contended the bombs on Assad’s troups were by accident, Russia said it was on purpose.18 September, bombarding also in Aleppo resumed.
Monday 19 September, Assad’s government declared the ceasefire as ended, mainly because of the US-led coalition’s attacks on Assad’s troops. Soon afterwards a UN food convoy near Aleppo was bombarded or shot at, unclear was by whom. On the 3rd of October, the US has formally declared the suspension of diplomatic contacts with Russia over the Syrian situation, marking the end of the cease fire deal.
One week after the collapse of a tenuous ceasefire, tensions between the United States and the Russian-Syrian alliance appear to be at a boiling point, while the consequence of that political fall-out is “nothing short of a human catastrophe.”
At an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on Sunday, western powers blatantly accused Russia of “barbarism” and aiding the Syrian government in committing “war crimes.”
“What Russia is sponsoring and doing is not counter-terrorism, it is barbarism,” said Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “Instead of pursuing peace, Russia and Assad make war. Instead of helping get life-saving aid to civilians, Russia and Assad are bombing the humanitarian convoys, hospitals, and first responders who are trying desperately to keep people alive,” Power told the 15-member council.
A spokesperson from the Kremin rebuffed those accusations as “unacceptable,” while the UNSC’s Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin reminded the council that it was the U.S.’ bombing of Syrian government forces on September 17th, and its failure to convince so-called “moderate” rebels to disassociate with the al Qaeda-linked Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (previously the al-Nusra Front), that “sabotaged” the peace effort.
This followed similar statements made by Syrian President Bashar Assad, who told the Associated Press last week that he “believe[s] that the United States is not genuine regarding having a cessation of violence in Syria.”
According to Kyle Orton, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, Syria’s revolution is now unequivocally in the balance. He further points out that Aleppo– the last major urban—seems to have been holding of the mainstream armed opposition in Syria. If the political process– is to amount to anything other than a regime victory in all but name– the rebels have to hold Aleppo City. For its part, the regime, with Russian and Iranian help, has severely lessened the strategic threat from the insurgency already — for them to retake Aleppo City would kill it. Orton is blunt: “In short, the course of the entire war is in the balance with the fate of Aleppo.”
If the rebels succeed in breaking the siege then the pro-regime coalition will suffer a serious strategic setback. As Orton further notes, “the pro-Assad forces [are holding] out in northwestern Syria by some relatively tenuous supply lines through Hama and southern Aleppo.” If the rebel positions in Idlib Province and southwestern Aleppo are expanded to include areas of Aleppo City, Assad’s bases in the north come under serious threat, and with it Assad’s chance of crushing the rebellion entirely.
Needless to say — if the rebels get minor gains or they become successful in articulating a strategy of maintaining the status quo in the city — then once again it would be none but the Jabhat Fatah al-Sham group that benefits the most. In leading the charge to rescue the besieged population while the world looks on, it would have irretrievably bound itself to the armed opposition in Northern Syria. The Assad-supportive groups aligning with Russia may pose a new paradigmatic challenge to any peace prospects in Aleppo. And that is a scenario– that benefits no one : not the mainstream rebels and most of all, not Syria’s long-suffering people—and not those holding the prospects of any combined US-Russia operation against the rebels, and most of all, nor Syria’s long-suffering people.
http://www.asianage.com/international/us-russia-tussle-over-syria-deal-474
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Russia_peace_proposals_on_Syria
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11020140/russia-syria-bombing-maps
http://www.rferl.org/a/islamic-state-syria-aleppo-siege-change-war/27900375.html
Comments Off on US-Russia recourse to peace diversion in Aleppo?
India’s controversial surgical strike
October 7th, 2016
By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
It goes without saying that if the leadership of a country makes a wrong statement/claim or an impression just to gain its ulterior motive, not only damages its international image or clout but also punctures the morale of its nation both domestically and internationally. This is what has been a true case about India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi whose government’s fabricated claim regarding a surgical strike (on Sept.29) against Pakistan has caused a cringe worthy development for both its people and its military personnel.
A surgical strike, according to a widely accepted definition, is “a military attack which results in, was intended to result in, or is claimed to have resulted in only damage to the intended legitimate military target, and no or minimal collateral damage to surrounding structures, vehicles, buildings, or the general public infrastructure and utilities”.
But the circumstantial evidence gives no support to such an Indian held claim that it had made a surgical strike against Pakistan ( on Sept.29). Although one can better understand why it was so politically expedient for the Indian government to show its actions: the fact is that by doing such an act the Modi government has largely lost its credibility in the eye of its public.
Following the refusal from UN to confirm the Indian claims of ‘surgical strikes’, Pakistan Army on Saturday took independent journalists to the Line of Control (LoC) at Baghsir 20 kilometers from Bhimber to show the situation on ground.
Despite the fact that publicising such operations is tricky and devious, it logically appears that in today’s world of hyper media technology such concoctions and fabricated stories do leave a very negative impact. And furthermore, the publicity of such act confuses who the target audience really is, and sets unwieldy expectations of the public, i.e. a desire for “revenge” risks becoming an end unto itself.
Now while analysing the Modi government’s motive behind such development, one may reasonably argue that if the message was meant for Islamabad—as it appears to have been—then it is futile to make it public without clear long-term strategic benefits. Pakistan has been not been deterred in the past, and is unlikely to change its approach based on such strikes, which its army is used to. This Indian ploy has intensified a feeling that people of India are no safer today than they were yesterday.
The fact of the matter is: the success of any military conflict cannot be guaranteed. It might weaken India further and make it more vulnerable, if military action is unsuccessful. After 26/11, then prime minister Manmohan Singh had considered air strikes against Pakistan. But the air force chief had said India didn’t have accurate digital data on terrorist camps in Pakistan, and the army chief had said the Indian Army was not prepared for a brief, surgical strike. Military experts say it would take years for India to develop strategic capabilities for targeted cross-border operations. Politically, military action that is seen as a failure would hurt the Modi government more than not doing anything.
Be it a surgical strike or hot pursuit, any military action against Pakistan is a bad idea. It appreciates to be impossible to achieve the desired results. On the contrary, it could backfire .Following are some diplomatic reactions demonstrated by the respective governments regarding the ongoing situation along with the line of control (LOC).
With tensions escalating between the two neighboring countries, Britain asked India and Pakistan to “exercise restraint in the wake of surgical strikes by Indian troops across the Line of Control’. A spokesperson from Britain’s Foreign Office said: “We are monitoring the situation closely following reports of strikes carried out by the Indian Army over the LoC in Kashmir. We call on both sides to exercise restraint and to open dialogue.”
China has said it is in ‘constant touch with both countries to reduce tensions’. Geng Shuang, a spokesperson of China’s Foreign Office, said: “China was in communication with both sides through different channels and hoped that Indian and Pakistan can enhance communication, properly deal with differences and work jointly to maintain peace and security.” China expressed hope that “Islamabad and New Delhi will resolve the issue through dialogue and maintain regional peace and stability by joint efforts”.
The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a strong statement after the surgical strikes conducted by Indian troops. “We are concerned with the aggravation lately of the situation along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. We are calling on the parties not to allow any escalation of tension and to settle the existing problems by political and diplomatic means through negotiations…..”
Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for UN Secretary-General, urged both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and resolve differences through dialogue. He added that officials were following the increase in tensions in Kashmir with great concern. “UN military observers were in contact with both sides to try to obtain further information,” he said.
Pragmatically, Modi must recognise that his agenda of enhancing regional cooperation in South Asia will remain unfulfilled without mending the fences with Pakistan. At a time when interconnectivity seems a glaring norm across the world, two neighbours-India and Pakistan cannot afford to be locked in a spiral of perpetual hostility and violence.
But Modi’s decision to engage with Pakistan was seen by some in Delhi’s as India’s “on again, off again” inconsistent approach towards Pakistan. And yet some sections within his own party were against overtures to Pakistan. And then the Pakistani military also decided to reassert its supremacy on India thereby reasserting itself.
Given the ongoing scenario of tensions along the line of control (LOC) between India and Pakistan, it seems a glowing imperative of diplomacy to use its course bilaterally and particularly the Indian leadership must adopt political acumen-cum- enlightenment to pacify the plight of the Kashmiri people thereby tabling a statesman- like solution of the Kashmir problem which could only viably possible while honouring the UNSC’s resolutions on Kashmir. Needless to say, both India and Pakistan must try to diplomatically engage each other so as to water down the boiling temperature in the South Asian region-an emerging alarm of peace and stability.
http://www.indiawrites.org/world-reacted-indias-surgical-strikes/
Comments Off on India’s controversial surgical strike
India’s new game of water war?
September 30th, 2016
By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
A day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned “blood and water cannot flow together,” Pakistan has declared that if India opts out of a key water-sharing agreement, it would amount to “an act of war.”Water sharing, transparency and collaboration are the pillars on which the unique Indus Waters Treaty was erected in 1960.
Islamabad’s recently moved solicitation regarding the Indian violation before an international arbitral tribunal is an index of the Indian policy of playing with water shenanigans despite a treaty that is a colossus among existing water-sharing pacts in the world. The fact of the matter is that being an upper riparian state, India has to strictly adhere to the stipulations laid down under the said treaty.
In Asia, the vast majority of the 57 transnational river basins have no water-sharing arrangement or any other cooperative mechanism. Though through this comprehensively drafted Treaty both India and Pakistan have a balanced water sharing mechanism, there yet appear some windowing misunderstandings between the two sides.
Significantly, India’s treaties with Pakistan and Bangladesh are the only pacts in Asia with specific water-sharing formulas on cross-border flows. They also set a new principle in international water law. The 1996 Ganges treaty set a new standard by guaranteeing delivery of specific water quantity in the dry season. But unfortunately so far this approach has not been proactively adopted by India’s government as regard to the Indus Basin Water Treaty.
In 1951, Indian Prime Minister Nehru, whose interest in integrated river management along the lines of the Tennessee Valley Authority had been piqued, invited David Lilienthal, former chairman of the TVA, to visit India. Lilienthal also visited Pakistan and, on his return to the US, wrote an article outlining his impressions and recommendations (the trip had been commissioned by Collier’s Magazine-international water was not the initial aim of the visit).
After three weeks of discussions, an outline was agreed to, whose points included: determination of total water supplies, divided by catchment and use;determination of the water requirements of cultivable irrigable areas in each country; calculation of data and surveys necessary, as requested by either side; preparation of cost estimates and a construction schedule of new engineering works which might be included in a comprehensive plan.
In a creative avoidance of a potential and common conflict, the parties agreed that any data requested by either side would be collected and verified when possible, but that the acceptance of the data, or the inclusion of any topic for study, would not commit either side to its “relevance or materiality.”
The Indus Water Treaty seems to have addressed both the technical and financial concerns of each side, and included a timeline for transition. The main points of the treaty included (Alam, 2002): an agreement that Pakistan would receive unrestricted use of the western rivers, which India would allow to flow unimpeded, with minor exceptions provisions for three dams, eight link canals, three barrages, and 2500 tube wells to be built in Pakistan a ten-year transition period, from April 1, 1960 to March 31, 1970, during which water would continue to be supplied to Pakistan according to a detailed schedule a schedule for India to provide its fixed financial contribution of $62 million, in ten annual installments during the transition period additional provisions for data exchange and future cooperation.
Although the two countries have been managing to share the waters albeit with some major differences that Pakistan government has so far been showning over India’s construction of Wuller Barrage, Baglihar Dam and Krishanganga dam that India has bulit , and has been building on the Indus tributaries that seat in the IHK.The experts say that the agreement is one of the most lop-sided with India being allowed to use only 20 percent of the six-river Indus water system. Pakistan has also recently sought an international arbitration if India sought to build hydro power projects on the Jhelum and Chenab rivers.
Despite the fact that the agreement has been seen as one of the most successful water-sharing pacts, the current tension between the two South Asian neighbours might well lead to a flashpoint. The Security and Strategic affairs experts are of the view that future wars could well be fought over water.
But one cannot overlook the fact that the well defined characteristics of the Treaty set a precedent of cooperation between the two countries–accompanied by an emblem of confidence building measure–vindicated by the fact as it is the only treaty to have survived three wars and other hostilities between the two countries.
India has developed different Hydroelectric Power Projects (HPP), with the cross installed capacity of 2456.20 MW after signing Indus treaty, however the total electricity demand of IHK is 1589 MW. India has also developed several run-of-the-river projects. Moreover, other four projects, MW Uri-II, 120 Sewa-II, 45 MW Nimo Bazgo and 44 MW Chutak Hydro electric projects that have been completed in early 2012.
A strategy of implementing CBMs regarding the water dispute between the two sides, India and Pakistan can be virtually applied via invoking Article VII of the treaty which focuses on future co-operation between the two countries by mutual agreement to the fullest possible extent.
To further translate this into the best practices in managing shared water and the Baglihar Dam Judgment in 2007 are the guiding principles to develop consensus to make treaty 100% transparent in order to avert any potential conflict and pitch a win-win solution for both countries.
In this regards after efforts of three years and in-depth discussion and deliberation with Indian water and energy experts, intelligentsia, environmentalists and other experts during series of various dialogues held at New Delhi, Islamabad, Bangkok and Dubai, following recommendations have been unanimously reached that offer win-win doable, practical solutions, already replicated in Nile(Egypt) and Danube River Basins(a water distribution system between Central and Eastern European states):
1-Recognizing that Indus Water Treaty is evidently the most successful Confidence Buildings Measure (CBM) between the two countries, India has the right to use provisions granted in annexure ‘D’ and ‘E’ nevertheless there is a need to make treaty more transparent by using state-of-art information communication technology tools.
2-To remove mistrust on data exchange, install satellite based real-time telemetry system in IHK Kashmir at a minimum 100 loctions for monitoring water quality and quantity.
3-There is a need to setup an independent office of Indus Water Commission(IWC) comprising neutral experts outside of South Asian region, having unblemished record and integrity. This may also include experts from various international agencies such as the World Bank, the UNEP and the EU, etc. This independent commission of experts shall work directly under the UN to monitor and promote sustainable development in Kashmir and HP.
4-The Independent IWC will also arrange real time data of miner, major tributaries and at all head-works, dams, etc. by website including three dimensional models of dams, three-dimensional model to represent of geometric data of dams (flood storage+ Run of River Hydropower projects) for clarity for the global community.
5- It was agreed that environmental threats do not respect national borders. During last three decades, the watershed in IHK is badly degraded. To rehabilitate watershed in IHK and Himachal Pradesh (HP), both countries are to take initiative for joint watershed management in these two states.
6-To rehabilitate watershed in IHK and HP, an environmental impact assessment is the best instrument to assess the possible negative impact that a proposed project may have on the indigenous environment, together with water flow in rivers .The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context provides the best legal framework for Transboundary EIA for sustainable flow in Indus Rivers System, so that India should share TEIA before physical execution of any project including hydropower.
7-Glaciers are important and major source of Indus Rivers System. To preserve these glaciers, there is immediate need to declare all Himalayan Glaciers as “Protected Area” including immediate demilitarization from Siachen to preserve this second longest glacier of planet to fall in the watershed of the Indus River.
Technically, India does not have the resources, capacity or infrastructure to handle the increase in water in case the Indus Waters Treaty is dissolved. Ashok Swain, a teacher at the department of peace and conflict research in Uppsala University Sweden noted that India did not have enough storage to create supply problem for Pakistan immediately.
As for India’s revocation of the treaty, this seems an unlikely scenario since the treaty has survived three wars between the two countries. Although the Modi government in India has raised the issue, saying that for a treaty to work there had to be “mutual cooperation and trust” between the two sides, this seems to be more pressure tactics than any real threat to review the bilateral agreement.
And the idea that India can intimidate Pakistan by threatening to cut of river waters is nothing new; past is honeycombed with such envious Indian reflections. It has arisen before every major conflict. And it goes without saying that a unilateral abrogation as India threatens to do would also attract criticism from world powers, as this is one arrangement which has stood the test of time. Nonetheless, an insight given into the preamble of the treaty gives enough light to the understanding that India cannot unilaterally exercise a revocation of the treaty.
http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/research/case_studies/Indus_New.htm
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171996340255/BagliharSummary.pdf
http://todayinpakistan.com/india-indus-waters-treaty/
Comments Off on India’s new game of water war?
India: Modi’s war mongering hysteria
September 27th, 2016
By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
It goes without saying that from the very day Narendra Modi took charge as India’s new Prime Minister, it has been an idee fixe of Modi’s government to demonstrate a military misadventure against Pakistan without realising the harrowing consequence of such aggressive offensive.
Since the September 18 attack on an Indian army base in Uri, India’s war hysteria has increased exponentially. Heuristically, Indian media, politicians and analysts didn’t even waste a single minute and as soon as the story of the attack broke the attack was blamed on Pakistan. The circumstances and the Indian story of how the attack unfolded are sketchy at best.
The fact of the matter is that in some circles in India it is reported that that it was a false flag operation as the ‘alleged’ evidence provided by the Indian forces through which they are trying to link the attack to Pakistan is nothing but Indian tomfoolery– of concocting the story against Pakistan—vindicated by the fact that some in India are of the opinion that there was never any attack and it was merely an accidental explosion in some oil storage tanks. The relentless war mongering and propaganda against Pakistan by Indian media has well exposed Modi’s government’s policy evolving the negative Indian mentality and their love for violence and war-an RSS policy objective. And yet many Indian analysts took to Twitter to spew venom against Pakistan. Some were seen making polls whether a nuclear attack should be launched against Pakistan or not.
By all fair calculations and deliberations, the Indian war hysteria is not only unfortunate but highly irresponsible reflected by the fact that some Indian anchors vocally demanded their Prime Minister to launch a military attack on Pakistan. The above mentioned reflections are suffice to expose India’s real face to the world community. Au contraire, the response from Pakistan’s government has been much responsible. The Pak Army Chief Gen Raheel and the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made it clear that any Indian misadventure will be dealt with full force and India will have to pay for its miscalculation about Pakistan yet at the same time it has been made clear to the world community that as a peaceful country Pakistan wants to resolve all issue on the dialogue table.
Politically too, in today’s surcharged atmosphere, it is improbable that any opposition party will want to support Modi’s leap of faith toward Pakistan. They will only see Modi as grandstanding in the run-up to the elections coming up in Bihar — and later in West Bengal and UP — or as attempting to distract attention from the ongoing Kashmir stalemate. It also looks that Modi would know he is trying to cut the Gordian knot, but then, what is the alternative? India is getting isolated in its own region as a result of the deadlock in the relations with Pakistan entailed by India’s unwarranted, unjustified and intransigent Kashmir policy. India has no locus standi regarding its Kashmir occupation; it has been reduced to a marginal player in Central Asia; and the China-Pakistan relationship is assuming global significance. India is walking back to the pavilion run out in the great game.
Similarly, the resistance from within the establishment is going to be fierce. Strong vested interests exist within the Indian establishment. Besides, it won’t be surprising if sections within the ruling elite who militate (for their own reasons) against what Modi is attempting may quietly connive with the disgruntled elements within the establishment. Meanwhile, Modi’s own agenda of regional cooperation in South Asia is unable to take off because of India-Pakistan tensions. Most important, India lacks any leverage to influence Pakistani policies. The containment strategy pursued by India toward Pakistan seems doomed to fail. Obviously, the international community regards Pakistan to be a key regional power. Taken at face value, there appears to be some validity to this line of thinking. Indian defense spending has doubled in real terms since 1997, growing at an average of 6.3 percent per year. The Modi announced a further 11 percent hike, raising the 2015–2016 military budget to $39.8 billion. Moreover, India is presently the world’s largest buyer of conventional weapons, with upwards of $100 billion expected to be spent on modernizing its defense forces over the next decade.
Modi faces a policy dilemma. It is true that he leads the BJP, which is not overly friendly toward Pakistan. But as the old saying goes, war stifles reform. If India gets distracted by war, it will stifle his program of forcing through tough economic reforms. That program means far more to him and his party’s future than posturing with Pakistan. Launching strikes inside Pakistan or initiating a military excursion using army, navy and air force should not be a problem for the world’s third largest military.
Such an action may also cause a sharp spike in public approval of Modi government’s decision. But the major issue will be the outcome of crossing the Line of Control, or even violating the sovereign airspace which rests on India’s objective behind the move. Is it only to punish the alleged non-state perpetrators of the Uri attack or penalise Pakistan itself? The other fundamental question remains India’s capacity to zero in the target precisely and eliminate them in the shortest possible timeframe and with the least cost.
Each country has a good military reason not to fight. The Indian military weaponry is, frankly, backward. India has been on a shopping spree of foreign arms purchases. But it still has a long way to escape its situation after the Mumbai terror attack by terrorists from Pakistani-supported groups, when India’s land forces were simply not in shape to strike back.
Despite the fact that Pakistan has an internal war against militants, especially the Pakistan Taliban, the war is long past the point of full hostilities, And the Indian policy thinkers that it is perhaps an expedient time to intervene into Pakistan since by doing that Pakistan’s armed forces would face a two-front war if they took on India. Yet, this line of Indian thinking seems unfit since it must be admitted that it is never far from the minds of the Pakistani military that they might fight with India because of its negatively projected or adopted policy of military brinkmanship in Kashmir and clandestinely engaging its espionage to destablize Pakistan, and so they are probably ready to cope with India.
There is little clarity as to how both the countries will be adhered to a limited war scenario. Will Pakistan deal with an Indian intrusion in Azad Kashmir as a limited conflict or a full-scale war? The most probable answer from the Pakistani point of view may be that they are not planning a war offensive against New Delhi .But If war is imposed on them (Pakistanis) they are ready enough to response to it in any manner that may suit to Pakistan’s military and defensive expediencies. Strategists in India have not been certain about the prospects of a limited war with Pakistan for years. Given the grandiloquence of Modi’s promise, the chances for a Kargil-like incursion are negligible. Pakistan’s response so far has been very explicit and prompt. The arm-laden fighter jets takeoffs and landings from motorways, mobilisation of other vital military resources and launch of a diplomatic offensive on the sidelines of UN General Assembly and elsewhere have exposed Indian plans regarding the Cold Start.
Apparently New Delhi may be relieved by having a Rafale deal with France since the Indian air force must have had its anxiety about Pak air superiority over India. Evidently, there are no options available with Delhi bordering on good to appease the RSS cheerleader. The sabre-rattling may not satisfy Modi’s electoral, but fruitless if not humiliating incursion will cost him more dearly in every sense of the word. And yet the chances of a nuclear strikes between the two states cannot be overlooked keeping in view the uncertain psychological dynamics of war. The military strategists in India are well cognizant of nuclear capabilities of Pakistan.
Though, it looks that India will much likely to depend on funding its proxies in Pakistan and to intensify its diplomatic assault on Pakistan than to really engage in a military offensive against Pakistan, but an unfair and devious India’s policy of sponsoring proxies in Pakistan will be opening more windows to promote hostility and polarisation in both government and people of Pakistan against India. In the present state of deadlock between India and Pakistan, the imperative to be engaged diplomatically is seen not only in India’s interest but broadly envisaging in the interest of 1.45 billion people of the South Asian region.
http://dailythepatriot.com/indian-war-hysteria/
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?/sites/charlestiefer/2015/07/30/are-modis-india-and-sharifs-pakistan-sliding-toward-war-lets-hope-
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1186493/analysis-indias-limited-war-option/
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-indias-military-really-crush-pakistan-13247
Comments Off on India: Modi’s war mongering hysteria
India’s Kashmir faux pas & UN role
September 12th, 2016By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
Kashmir remains an international humanitarian, political and legal issue. Years after years both the governments and leaderships remained changing in India but what has not been changed is the toxic Indian policy or attitude in the Indian held Kashmir. Unfortunately the Indian thinking for the last 69 years has been that as longer as India delays a resolution on Kashmir the better. Yet what India cannot be changed is the irrevocable, unmutable and irrefutable truth: Kashmir legally, ethically, morally and culturally does not belong to India.
The territory of Kashmir belongs to its people. India can suck every drop of Kashmir blood but it can never make the soul of Kashmiri people sick under its ‘tutelage’. This is why the truth of Kashmir is as live today as it was 69 years before. Same rest with the truth about the UN’s resolution on Kashmir. The ‘resolutions’ which are never moribund. As per the compliance of the UN’s Charter, the UN’s resolutions can never be inapplicable or ineffective.
Today India has been deploying more than 80,0000 military troops in the Kashmir vale. About 3rd fouth of the Indian Army has been positioned in the valley. This holds sufficient warrants to the fact that India is terrified with the psyche of the Kashmiri people whose unflinching, unwavering and uncompromising commitment to the cause of Kashmiri freedom is the real might against the Indian military and its government. Every fragment of the Kashmiri community, man, woman and child is strongly determined to foil the Indian military occupation of Kashmir.
But Kashmir, even according to India’s constitution is a ‘disputed territory’ and the more than six-decade-old bloody conflict in the region has so far claimed at least 98, 000 human lives, including civilians, Kashmiri and freedom activists. While the unfamiliarity of majority of Indians vis-à-vis Kashmir issue can’t be neglected, a major chunk, despite being aware of the legitimate rights of the kashmiri people, are playing deliberately attempted tactics because of their ‘ultra-nationalism’.
On 1 January 1948, India brought the Kashmir issue to the attention of the Chairman of the Security Council of the United Nations. The ‘Presentation’ of the Indian case, the Pakistani reply, and the series of debates which followed over the years, have all tended to obscure the ‘original terms’ of that Indian reference. This was made under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations in which the mediation of the Security Council was expressly sought in a matter which otherwise’ threatened’ to disturb the course of international relations. The issue was an Indian ‘solicitation’ for United Nations mediation in a dispute which had transcended the ‘diplomatic resources’ of the two parties directly involved, India and Pakistan, and not, as it is frequently represented, an Indian demand for United Nations condemnation of Pakistan’s aggression.
This point, despite much Indian and Pakistan rhetoric, can be determined easily enough by relating the contents of the reference to the ‘specifications of Article 35’ of the United Nations ‘Charter’. The United Nations was asked to devise a formula whereby peace could be restored in the State of Jammu & Kashmir so that a fair and free ‘plebiscite’ could be held to determine the State’s future. The matter of the Maharajah of Kashmir’s accession to India was not in this context of the slightest relevance.
Pakistan’s army chief General Raheel Sharif has spoken about “raining” of bullets on people in Kashmir and made veiled references to India by talking of “covert and overt intrigues of enemies”.
Describing Kashmir as Pakistan’s “lifeline”, he said the true solution to the Kashmir issue lies not in “raining bullets” upon people in the Valley but in “heeding” to their voices and respecting their aspirations. “Kashmir issue can only be resolved by implementing the UN Resolutions,” he said during a ceremony marking ‘Defence Day’ in Rawalpindi . “The international community, especially the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the European Union have an important role to uphold the principles of human rights and international humanitarian law,” said the adviser to the prime minister on foreign affairs Sartaj Aziz.
The United Nations itself principally promised the people of Kashmir the opportunity to express their wishes regarding their governance and the international status of their country through a fair plebiscite. Even absent that express recognition of the right to determine their status, the Kashmiri people meet all international law tests for the right to self-determination.
The right to self-determination is end-all and be-all of fundamental principle of human rights law, is an individual and collective right to freely determine political status and to pursue economic, social and cultural development. The International Court of Justice refers to the right to self-determination as a right held by ‘people’ rather than a right held by ‘governments’ alone. The right to self-determination is indisputably a norm of jus cogens.
The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to ‘possession’ of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self- governance.The cases of Kosovo and East Timor are the current examples.
The Kashmiri claim– to the right to self-determination–seems an exceptionally strong. The area had a long history of self- governance pre-dating the colonial period. The ‘territory’ of Kashmir has been clearly defined for centuries. Kashmiri people speak Kashmiri, which, while enjoying Sanskrit as a root language as do all Indo-European languages, is clearly a separate language from either Hindi or Urdu. The Kashmiri culture is similarly ‘distinct’ from other cultures in the area in all respects — folk-lore, dress, traditions, cuisine.
The war in Kashmir between the Indian armed forces and Kashmiri freedom fighters automatically invokes the ‘humanitarian law’. Humanitarian law will remain in effect for the duration of an armed conflict or as long as India occupies Kashmir, a territory to which it has no ‘legitimate claim’. Humanitarian law rightly became applicable in Kashmir in 1947 with the first military actions of the Azad Kashmir forces.
The Kashmiri War is a war of national liberation in ‘defense’ of the right to self-determination. It is legally invalid, unfair and unfit to refer to this war as a ‘civil war’. Such a ‘characterization or frame of reference’ would assume that India’s occupation of Kashmir is legitimate and the Kashmiri resistance is composed of dissident or opposition groups within the meanings set out in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 Article 3 or Protocol Additional II to the Geneva Conventions. It is also legally incorrect to refer to resistance groups as ‘terrorists’, given their status as military resistors to foreign occupation in a war of ‘national liberation’.
The Kashmiri people first ‘established’ military units in the late 1940s to defend themselves against the ‘maharajah’s forces’ and then the Indian forces and to vindicate their right to self- determination. At present there are manifold opposition military factions of Kashmiris resisting India of which the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) is one of the oldest and widely supported and espoused. It is reasonably reported that several other groups also enjoy wide following. Kashmiri armed militants operate under their own military commands. Since the Indian forces entered into combat against the Azad Kashmir forces in 1947, military actions against the Kashmiri people has continued to the present. It blatantly worsens in response to renewed demands by the Kashmiri people for their self- determination.
The Modi government’s policy to suppress the cause of Kashmir freedom by dint of military might can no more be a successful tactic in preventing the Kashmiris to defend their substance of freedom granted and protected by the UN Charter.
The herein abovementioned arguments are sufficient enough to draw the attention of the international community to play its ascribed moral, legal and ethical role in the Indian held Kashmir. In the upcoming session of the UN at its New York based headquater, the matter must be given an urgent consideration. And for course the issue has to be rightly upheld and tabled by the would-be Secretary General of the United Nations whose election is being currently processed and operated by the UN.
Comments Off on India’s Kashmir faux pas & UN role
Moscow-Ankara move towards rappochement
July 6th, 2016
By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.
Moscow-Ankara move towards pacification
On 29 June 2016, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan held a 45-minute-long telephone call in which they “highlighted the importance to normalise bilateral relations” and declared the need to make joint steps to improve political, economic and humanitarian co-operation.
This comes after what the Kremlin described as a letter from Erdogan to Putin, on 27 June, officially apologising for the shooting down of a Russian Su-24 fighter by the Turkish Air Force on the Turkey-Syria border in November 2015. This led to the introduction of numerous Russian restrictions on trade, investments and tourism, damaging bilateral economic ties.
The events of tensions
On 3 October 2015, a Russian Su-30 entered Turkish airspace after a bombing run in northern Syria. The jet departed after two Turkish F-16s scrambled in response. The move was interpreted as deliberate by Turkey, while Russia claimed that it was merely a navigation error. In response, the Russian ambassador inAnkara was called to the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in protest, after which Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu’s made a direct phone call to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.
A second incident took place on October 4, during which an unidentified MiG-29 coming from Syrian airspace locked its radar on Turkish jets for a duration of five minutes. The following day, another unidentified jet “painted” eight Turkish jets with its radar lock, after which missile systems inside Syria locked on to Turkish planes for about four minutes. In response to such continued escalation, NATO has stepped up its criticism of Russia, with Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg denouncing the violations as “deliberate.” The White House also stepped in, criticizing what it sees as “provocation U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the incident could lead to more intense escalation if violations continued.
The Turkish initiative
After seven months of stalled relations–barbed comments and sanctions–Russia and Turkey may be moving toward a rapprochement. On Monday, according to the Russians, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sent a letter “in which the Turkish President expressed his desire to settle the situation concerning the downing of a Russian military aircraft.”
In the letter, Erdogan “expressed his deep regret for what happened” regarding the November 24, 2015, incident in which Turkey shot down a Russian jet along the Turkish-Syrian border, resulting in the pilot’s death. The incident led to a breakdown of relations between the two countries: Russian President Vladimir Putin called Turkey “accomplices of terrorists” and imposed imposed sanctions on Turkey as well as suspending visa-free travel and package vacations to the country.
Since Turkey shot down a Russian jet in November 2015, tensions with Moscow not only had negative effects on the Turkish economy but also limited Ankara’s involvement in the Syrian civil war. In recent months, the threat of Russian attacks against Turkish jets prevented Turkey’s participation in coalition missions as Moscow placed Turkish interests at risk by actively supporting the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the PKK’s Syrian franchise. In recent months, Turkish leaders had made it clear that they would like to leave the dispute with Russia behind them. To facilitate rapprochement, a high-level Turkish delegation recently visited Moscow and shared Turkey’s side of the story. At the same time, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on multiple occasions stated that it made little sense for Turkey and Russia to let a Russian pilot’s mistake derail mutually beneficial relations.
In response, the Russian government announced that they would like Turkey to meet three demands – issue an apology, offer compensation and hand over those responsible for the jet’s downing to Russian authorities. Obviously, Ankara found the demands unacceptable. Provided that the Russian jet had violated Turkish airspace, accepting the Kremlin’s terms would mean accepting the charges.
On July 1, at the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation’s foreign ministers meeting in Sochi, Russia, the Turkish and Russian foreign ministers met. The two presidents also reportedly agreed to work towards meeting in the near future. The Kremlin categorized the call as “business-like, constructive, and focused,” an improvement over the rhetoric of late 2015 between the two leaders.
But it’s not necessarily smooth sailing from here for Ankara and Moscow. The two nations still don’t see eye-to-eye with regard to Syria; Turkey is staunchly in favor of booting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who enjoys Russian support. At the same time, Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian tendencies have put him more at odds with the West and politically closer to Russia, perhaps generating some of the energy in Ankara to repair relations with Moscow.
Steps towards pacification?
It would appear that Turkey and Russia are ready to take the necessary steps to settle the dispute through dialogue. Needless to say, turning over a fresh leaf would serve the interests of both countries, who suffered unnecessary setbacks in recent months. But it’s important to note that Ankara and Moscow will continue to disagree on the future of Syria and the Russian invasion of Crimea. And new confrontations won’t be off the table unless Moscow stops bothering Turkey and the international community.
Officials have encouraged Russians to spend their holidays inside Russia as part of a resurgent nationalism in recent years and a drive to boost national industries. This was aided by the 2014 run on the ruble amid falling oil prices and Western sanctions on Moscow that made foreign travel beyond the reach of many ordinary Russians.
Russians traditionally flock to resorts on Turkey’s Mediterranean and Aegean coasts year-round — but the number of visits collapsed seven months ago because of the Kremlin ban and some beaches are reportedly empty. Russian tourist numbers in the popular resort of Antalya in the first half of June were down 98.5 percent, the Association of Russian Tour Operators said last week.
While experts are divided over how quickly airlines and tour operators will be able to reintroduce the sale of package holidays to Turkey, most agreed that large numbers of Russians could return to Turkey by the end of August, in time for the last two months of the summer season.
Comments Off on Moscow-Ankara move towards rappochement
A Britain without an EU: The hovering impacts
June 24th, 2016
By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.
The verdict of the Brexit’s referendum is out. With exception of cosmopolitan London’s no to leave– espoused by Scotland and the Northern Ireland, the rest of the British voters have decided to leave the decades old UK’s partnership with the European Union- a decision that will unveil far reaching global effects, particularly for Britain, Europe, and the United States. The vote counts for ‘Leave’ have been 51.89 against those of the ‘Remain’ that are 48.11. This could affect UK Passport Renewal, and make relations with Europe problematic.
The point in time when the UK would secede from the EU, including its institutions as well as agencies, and once again become an independent sovereign nation would be precisely two years after the result of the referendum in favour of a UK withdrawal from the EU. The withdrawal agreement would also have to be ratified by Parliament – the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.
It adds: “If the Commons resolves against ratification, the treaty can still be ratified if the Government lays a statement explaining why the treaty should nonetheless be ratified and the House of Commons does not resolve against ratification a second time within 21 days (this process can be repeated ad infinitum).”
The Leaving criteria
Negotiating for the EU would be a team nominated by the Commission and approved by the Council. Article 50 requires any withdrawal agreement contain both a deal for the withdrawal of the member state and a framework for a post-withdrawal relationship with it. This whole deal would have to satisfy the remaining EU member states through a vote in the European Council, and receive the support of the European Parliament.
This timetable arrangement for Britain to secede from the EU is in keeping with the stipulations contained within the Treaty of Lisbon (2009. This stipulation will be activated after notification of a nation state’s decision to secede from the EU, in which there will be a two year period which constitutionally obligates the EU to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA) with a withdrawing member state, and arrange the terms of such an agreement and the specific features of the arrangement in preparation for the member state after the two year period.
This official notification of the UK’s intention to secede from the EU should also be supplied to Britain’s economic and geo-political partner nations and organisations, such as Britain’s partners in the Commonwealth; the President of the United States; the Heads of State and Government of European countries and other nations; and to the Secretaries-General of the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the world Bank amongst others.
Impact on Asia and Australia
Britain has made a concerted effort in recent years to boost its involvement in the politics of Asia, knowing the growing wealth of China is tilting the global balance of power to this region.
But Britain without Europe will be a weaker actor in Asia.
For a long time Australia’s relationship with Britain had drifted into the realm of nostalgia, a matter of symbolism rather than strategy. But renewed British engagement with our region, arresting a decline from the days of Empire, presented Australia with a familiar partner to share perspectives, intelligence and goals.
Europe’s grand economic experiment is gradually evolving into a deeper relationship for a shared outlook on the world. This internationalism makes intuitive sense, as collectively, Europe has immense weight as one of the world’s largest economies.
Australia could lose influence if Britain exits the European Union.
With Britain inside the corridors of Brussels, there was also chance to shape views. British influence helped in the decision last November for the European Union to start free trade negotiations with Australia.
This allowed Australia to jump ahead of a push by other countries, notably Latin American nations, for their own deals.
Impact on Europe & related institutions
An EU without Britain might be a more united union that functions better. It might also become more divided, with a Brexit unleashing centrifugal forces that unravel the EU. It might also become more divided, with a Brexit unleashing centrifugal forces that unravel the EU.
A Brexit could also have significant implications for NATO, wider European politics, transatlantic relations and Europe’s position in the international system. It is concerns over such implications that will shape the way countries such as the USA, Russia or emerging powers will view a Brexit. A Brexit that added to Europe’s divisions and security weaknesses, or turned it inwards would be of serious concern to Washington D.C. A focus in UK political debate on US-UK relations distracts from how geopolitical thinking about a wider transatlantic relationship will shape the response of the USA to a Brexit. The context within which a UK withdrawal takes place could therefore be another period of considerable EU institutional change, naval-gazing and tense relations between individual leaders and national elites.
Any institutional naval-gazing would also be the result of the EU needing to make changes to its own institutions and procedures to fill the gap left by Britain. The EU would face the never-easy task of negotiating changes to the voting system used for making decisions in the European Council, a reallocation of seats in the European Parliament, changes to staffing quotas, and increases in budgetary payments to make up for the loss of the UK’s large net contribution (£8.5 billion in 2015).
When combined with possible changes to the Eurozone, a Brexit could add to shifts to the EU’s balance of power and changes to the EU’s policies and outlook. If the UK and other non- EU members thrived and the Eurozone continued to struggle, then Britain’s withdrawal could trigger centrifugal forces leading other member states to question their membership and commitment to integration, in turn stalling integration and beginning a process that unravels the EU. The key here is likely to be Germany. In writing about the potential for the EU to disintegrate, Douglas Webber notes that the EU has never faced a ‘crisis made in Germany’, the EU’s driver, paymaster and indispensable nation.
What that crisis might be is not clear, but a Brexit that combined with another crisis in the Eurozone or Schengen could strike deep into the EU’s heart leading both Germany and other members to question their membership. Any such ‘domino theory’ by which a Brexit makes other EU members states question and abandon their membership or commitment to integration, has to be set against the likelihood of another domino effect within the EU should the UK secure a renegotiated relationship that provokes envy elsewhere. Other states could then demand concessions, creating the aforementioned EU ‘a la carte’.
The impact on EU’s power geometry
The centre of power in the EU could also shift. Germany’s already strong position could be further strengthened with implications for the Franco-German axis. Britain has sometimes played a role in this bilateral relationship. France could be left facing an EU where the centre of gravity has shifted further eastwards and where Germany’s ‘culture of restraint’ and preference for geoeconomic thinking over the geopolitical, comes to shape the EU’s international standing. However, Germany might also be left feeling uneasy at the withdrawal of an ally that has helped it push an economically liberal, free-market agenda. The political and geographical centre of the EU could shift eastwards and southwards. Some member states may gain from a withdrawal, seeing it as a chance to enhance their position within the EU.
Impact on the UK politics
The European Question is not simply about whether to be or not to be in the EU; it is more about tensions within the UK’s party politics, changing constitution, identity politics, political economy, responses to globalization and place in a changing Europe.
Impact on the USA & Nato
Speaking alongside British Prime Minister David Cameron in London in April, Obama called the referendum “a matter of deep interest to the United States because it affects our prospects as well. The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner. And the United Kingdom is at its best when it’s helping to lead a strong Europe.” But U.S. officials have also stressed that whatever the result of the vote, it will not change U.S.-U.K. relations. State Department spokesman John Kirby said last week, “We don’t anticipate anything changing the special relationship that we have with the U.K.” But the commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, warned on the BBC that if the EU begins to become unraveled, there “can’t help but be a knock-on effect for the NATO alliance.”
Comments Off on A Britain without an EU: The hovering impacts
The Brexit paradigm: winds of change?
June 16th, 2016By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.
UK’s former Prime Minister Sir John Major has launched a scathing attack on the Leave campaign accusing it of misleading people.
A supporter of remaining in Europe, Major accused the Leave campaign of being “dishonest” and “verging on the squalid”.
“I’m not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt [to the Leave campaign]… this is a deceitful campaign,” he said appearing on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday morning.
Research from the Economist Intelligence Unit forecasts that in the first instance there will be tumultuous financial market volatility, followed by a “swift impact on the real economy with households and businesses reining in their spending until the dust settles”.
The research joins the likes of the Treasury, International Monetary Fund and Bank of England in predicting a negative economic shock from a Brexit vote.
Specifically, there would be a sell-off in UK assets and a depreciation of the pound, with yields increasing, consumer confidence slumping and companies delaying investment and hiring decisions.
In January and February as David Cameron sought an agreement with other European Union leaders to change the terms of Britain’s membership. He says the deal, which will take effect immediately if the UK votes to remain in the EU, gives Britain “special” status within the 28 nation club, and will help sort out some of the things British people say they don’t like about the EU, such as high levels of immigration and giving up the ability to run our own affairs.
Why the Brexit?
The proponents of the Brexit believe Britain is being held back by the EU, which they say imposes too many rules on business and charges billions of pounds a year in membership fees for little in return. They also want Britain to take back full control of its borders and reduce the number of people coming here to work. One of the main principles of EU membership is “free movement”, which means you don’t need to get a visa to go and live in another EU country. They also object to the idea of “ever closer union” and what they see as moves towards the creation of a “United States of Europe”.
For Eurosceptics, ‘ever closer union’ threatens Britain’s sovereignty, democracy and allows immigration to pressure its social unity, meaning Britain’s security and stability would be better preserved by leaving. But Britain’s departure could allow the EU to further unite. One of Britain’s longest standing international aims has been to prevent any single power dominating Europe. The EU would be a benign power compared to previous attempts, but such an outcome warrants careful consideration.
Significantly, if the first concern of any state is its own survival then the referendum could tear the UK apart. The immediate concern is Scotland: a vote by the rest of the UK to leave the EU while the Scots vote to stay could trigger another independence referendum. This would lead to an avalanche of political, economic and social costs to say nothing of the costs for UK defence and national security, most notably over Trident. Northern Ireland might seem peaceful from the perspective of the UK mainland, but the peace process is under constant pressure and a Brexit could test it to breaking point. A descent into violence in the province should not be overlooked.
Brexit could also add to tensions within England. In focusing on Scotland we have overlooked that the part of the UK that is increasingly different is London. An international metropolis that doubles as the UK and England’s capital, London has thrived from immigration, Europe and globalisation, much to the chagrin of some elsewhere in England and Britain who feel they have been left behind.
Why retaining the EU membership?
Those campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU say it gets a big boost from membership – it makes selling things to other EU countries easier and, they argue, the flow of immigrants, most of whom are young and keen to work, fuels economic growth and helps pay for public services. They also believe Britain’s status in the world would be damaged by leaving and that we are more secure as part of the 28 nation club, rather than going it alone.
The campaign UK- stronger Europe
The main cross-party group campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU is headed by former Marks and Spencer chairman Lord Rose. It is backed by key figures from the Conservative Party, including prime minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne, most Labour MPs, including party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Alan Johnson, who is running the Labour In for Britain campaign, the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance party and the SDLP in Northern Ireland, and the Green Party
Vote Leave – A cross-party campaign that has the backing of senior Conservatives such as Michael Gove and Boris Johnson plus a handful of Labour MPs, including Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer, and UKIP’s Douglas Carswell and Suzanne Evans, and the DUP in Northern Ireland. Former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson and SDP founder Lord Owen are also involved. It has a string of affiliated groups such as Farmers for Britain, Muslims for Britain and Out and Proud, a gay anti-EU group, aimed at building support in different communities.
The impact on the transatlantic relations?
A British exit from the EU would add to growing strains on the United States’ relations with Britain and the rest of Europe, but by itself would not lead to a breakdown in transatlantic relations due to the scale of shared ideas and interests, institutional links, international pressures and commitments by individual leaders. It would, however, add to pressures on the US that could change the direction of the transatlantic relationship. From the perspective of Washington, Britain risks becoming an awkward inbetweener, beholden more than ever before to a wider transatlantic relationship where the US and EU are navigating the challenges of an emerging multipolar world.
The geometry of EU-UK relationship
European integration has long had a security side to it whether as Franco-German reconciliation or integrating former Communist states in Eastern Europe. To what extent the EU has itself been able to keep the peace is open to debate. Nevertheless, for post-war prime ministers such as Harold Macmillan, Britain’s ability to shape the world around it was declining as rapidly as its economic base. Joining the then European Economic Community was, in part, a step forward for the security and stability of a country that had recently ended its retreat from empire and was struggling internally and externally to find a place in the world.
Support for membership amongst Conservative MPs in the 1970s was driven by hopes that EEC membership would lock Britain into a capitalist, free market club allowing the country to shed its ‘sick man of Europe’ label, a reason some on the left resisted membership. Membership would also enhance Western European unity in the face of a still formidable Communist world, Saigon having fallen to North Vietnam only a month before the 1975 referendum.
Today, EU membership still means a lot to Britain’s national security. As the UK’s Strategic Defence and Security Review showed, Britain’s own economic and military capabilities remain substantial, but being able to draw on the EU as a force multiplier has become increasingly central as they have been stretched to their limits. For David Hannay, the EU allows Britain to better manage challenges as diverse as a newly assertive Russia through to climate change and instability in the Middle East. Working through the EU is not without its flaws, but other options for Britain to pursue its interests such as by rebuilding the Commonwealth, developing the ‘Anglosphere’, joining NAFTA, or becoming a ‘Switzerland with nukes’, are either limited or overplayed.
Leaders from around Europe and the world have regularly cast doubts on whether a Brexit will boost Britain’s international standing and security. Eurosceptics will argue that Britain is weak in the EU, frequently outvoted and sidelined. Such an approach views the EU through the prism of Westminster’s majoritarian politics: a zero-sum game where the Britain either wins or loses. Through such an outlook every EU member state struggles to win. The one thing that does set Britons up for failure is isolating themselves, an approach the UK has in recent years adopted more than ever before.
And yet the verdict– of the British people on June 23 regarding losing or retaining their old partnership with the European Union–will not only herald a new history with regard to EU-UK relationship, but it will also cast an organic impact upon Britain’s relationship with the United states.
.
Comments Off on The Brexit paradigm: winds of change?
US-India relationship vis-a-vis Pakistan
June 8th, 2016By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi .
US-India relationship & Pakistan
The Indian premier Narendra Modi and the US president Barack Obama seem to have lost their love during a recently held rendezvous at the White House. The modes– between the two sides-swings towards new rejuvenation. But this show of improving bilateral talks happened at a times when the climate of relationship between Washington and Islamabad and also between India and Pakistan touches the low-ebbs. Amid this situation of US- India promising relationship, the question arises is: How would a strong relationship between the United States and India affect America’s relations with Pakistan?
Senator Ben Cardin’s question, asked at a recent hearing of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, led to a long debate on this issue among US lawmakers, a senior State Department official and think-tank experts.
The hearing, called to review US-India relations, moved on to Pakistan when Senator David Perdue, a Republican member of the committee, asked Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Nisha Desai Biswal for an update on the Pakistan-India security issues and to share the State Department’s perspective on the relationship between the two countries.
Senator Cardin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, however, further expanded this debate when he asked the participants to help the panel “understand how the United States can strengthen its ties with India as it relates to our relationship with Pakistan”.
Senator Cardin, while widening the debate, noted that the US had made a decision several decades ago to have a more strategic relationship with Pakistan.
“We have many issues with what Pakistan does, but we have a strategic partnership that’s critically important to our counter-terrorism activities,” he said. “As a result, there are economic issues between our two countries, including military issues that advance US interest.”
US-Pak strategic dialogue
The United States and Pakistan had the sixth round of their strategic dialogue in Washington recently. The U.S. Pakistan Strategic Dialogue Joint Statement issued after the talks details extensive ongoing cooperation in the fields of energy, trade, investment, education, and science and technology, and reiterates the commitment to continue it. It also speaks of close cooperation in counterterrorism, especially action against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)/Da’esh. But on regional security issues, strategic stability, and non-proliferation, there were largely hints of policy differences glossed over by generalities, with Afghanistan being the exception where the need as well as desire for cooperation was obvious.
Overall, the statement, though strong on rhetoric was mixed on substance. It was essentially an aspirational statement. And given the complexities of the U.S.-Pakistan relations and their recent history, one would say much work needs to be done by both sides to realize its objectives.
The United States and Pakistan had the sixth round of their strategic dialogue in Washington recently. The U.S. Pakistan Strategic Dialogue Joint Statement issued after the talks details extensive ongoing cooperation in the fields of energy, trade, investment, education, and science and technology, and reiterates the commitment to continue it. It also speaks of close cooperation in counterterrorism, especially action against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)/Da’esh. But on regional security issues, strategic stability, and non-proliferation, there were largely hints of policy differences glossed over by generalities, with Afghanistan being the exception where the need as well as desire for cooperation was obvious.
Overall, the statement, though strong on rhetoric was mixed on substance. It was essentially an aspirational statement. And given the complexities of the U.S.-Pakistan relations and their recent history, one would say much work needs to be done by both sides to realize its objectives.
Afghanistan’s quandary
Over time, both the U.S. and Pakistan governments accepted the losses grudgingly and gains ungratefully and still found each other relevant in times of need. But times have changed. Since the September 11 attacks, the relationship has gotten entangled with the ongoing war in Afghanistan. It is never easy to handle a war-related relationship, especially when that war has not been going well. This is even more so when there are multiple issues and stakeholders with competing interests and priorities. Also impacting the relationship is Washington’s growing ties with India, along with a whole set of new security issues which have agitated public concerns, fueled by a 24-hour news cycle and an activist think tank community.
CPEC & US-India anxiety
And yet obsessed with the ongoing CPEC’s development, the Indian policy makers with a tacit US approval, seem to have been orchestrating a game of ‘negative trajectories’ via RAW, Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS), and Afghanistan’s Intelligence agency Riyast-i-Amoor-o-Amanat-i-Milliyah (RAAM) collaborated negative role to destablise Pakistan. The propellers of new advocacy regarding US relationship towards Pakistan emphasise that Washington must end its support for the country’s turgid ‘military establishment’ which sustains a perverse strategic culture that has ill served Pakistani and U.S. interests for decades.
Counter-terrorism
Pakistan feels bitter about Washington’s embrace of India and the blowback from US counterterrorism policies. Washington feels embittered by Pakistan’s decisions and seeming incapability of changing course.
In retrospect, the last stand of wishful thinking in the US was the 2010 Kerry-Lugar-Berman (KLB) legislation. Washington’s strategy then was to put more money on the table to incentivise a reconsideration of Pakistan’s policies towards internal threats, Afghanistan, ties with India, and its nuclear posture.
From Washington’s perspective, the timing of KLB seemed right. A new civilian government was in place and in need of reinforcement. A thaw with India – a necessary condition to spur Pakistan’s economic growth – seemed possible. Perhaps Pakistan could be persuaded to not veto negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, since it was harming Pakistan’s standing without constraining India. And maybe both countries could collaborate on finding a workable political settlement in Afghanistan.
KLB did not fare very well. Well-meaning but tone-deaf members of Congress included a provision supporting civilian control of the military, prompting a backlash and antagonising those capable of changing Pakistan’s national security policies.
US-India trajectory vis-a vis Pakistan
India should also be more confident of its own ability to shape the future trajectory of Indo-U.S. ties. After all, Lockheed Martin, the builder of the F-16, recently offered to move its production line to India from the United States to support the Modi government’s “Make in India” program. Indian elites too need to de-hyphenate New Delhi from Islamabad in their own minds. Any overture that Washington makes toward Pakistan is immediately pounced upon as a sign of American duplicity. The reality is that Washington’s ties with New Delhi are truly strategic while its relationship with Pakistan is at best transactional, whatever gloss the two sides might want to put on it. India and the United States are today talking of jointly working on aircraft carriers, discussing joint patrols in the South China Sea, and are nearing completion on an agreement to share military logistics.
As New Delhi and Washington chart an ambitious trajectory in their bilateral ties, they need to find a more effective way of dealing with Pakistan. The Pakistan factor cannot be allowed to derail the positive momentum in this very important bilateral relationship, one that will be key in shaping the larger Indo-Pacific balance of the power in the coming years
.
US’s unwarranted Indian support for NSG membership
The U.S. has argued that despite its status outside the NPT, India is sufficiently like-minded regarding nonproliferation to merit membership. Yet the facts speak about a different version and that is that India is escalating nuclear arms race in South Asia by means of nuclear build-ups. For making its deserving case for the NSG, India needs to sign the NPT, CTBT and FMCT treaties .It is here that will work hard to meet such conditions. Like the waiver, India and the United States will have to invest significant diplomatic energy to get the required consensus for NSG membership. To build support in the NSG, which operates by consensus, India will need to take additional steps to demonstrate its commitment to nonproliferation.
Given these ‘perceived deficiencies’ in Indian behavior, certain Western European states (and many nonproliferation experts) argue that India is not a fit case to be eligible for the NSG membership.
US Task of keeping the balance
Fifty years after gaining independence, India and Pakistan remain at odds. Given both countries’ de facto nuclear capabilities, their continued rivalry flirts with disaster. U.S. interests in South Asia, although not vital, are important and increasing. These interests include preventing major war and further nuclear proliferation; expanding economic growth, trade, and investment; promoting robust democratic institutions; and cooperating on issues ranging from enhancing stability across Asia to combating terrorism and drug trafficking.
On the other hand, as part of its post- cold war politics, in 2010 the US had signed agreements of strategic partnership and nuclear deal with India as a counterweight to the rising China, although India’s excess to western civil nuclear technology and military hardware and technology as a consequence of these agreements have become a source of eroding strategic balance in South Asia. Using its very close relations with the US although India is enhancing its influence in Afghanistan to the detriment of Pakistan, as already mentioned, the US also wants to build closer relations with Pakistan.
A message of ‘prescience’ that has to be rightly and pragmatically reckoned by the political and legal mentors in the US Congress, the military policy strategists in the Pentagon, and the diplomats/ policy experts in the US-State department is that engaging cooperatively and patiently with Pakistan remains the only viable option for the US.
Under the ongoing South Asia environment it appears that it would be in the strategic interest of the US to keep good relations with both Pakistan and India. In this regard while India may be useful to the US in Asia Pacific, Indian Ocean and other parts of the world, as a friend, Pakistan will be significant for the US for keeping peace and stability in Afghanistan, Central Asia, Middle East, Persian Gulf and even Far East (being close friend of China), as also propounded by a renowned US scholar Danial Murkay in his book titled, “No Exit from Pakistan”.
To conclude, it can be said that it will serve US interests better if it keeps good and balanced relations with both Pakistan and India. For this purpose the US should seriously consider signing of agreements of strategic partnership by constraining India from destabilizing Balochistan and facilitating resolution of Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India.
Comments Off on US-India relationship vis-a-vis Pakistan
Upbeat in Russia-Greece Relations
June 2nd, 2016By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has met with Greek leaders in Athens as he makes a first visit to the European Union this year shortly before the bloc is due to weigh whether to extend sanctions against Russia over Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed to build closer relations with Greece as he wrapped up a two-day trip to the EU state by visiting the monastic community of Mount Athos, one of Orthodox Christianity’s holiest sites. Russia and Greece are both largely Orthodox Christian countries and share close religious ties.
Europe’s alarming
Deepening ties between Greece’s new government and Russia have set off alarm bells across Europe, as the leaders in Athens wrangle with international creditors over reforms needed to avoid bankruptcy.
While Greece may be eyeing Moscow as a bargaining chip, some fear it is inexorably moving away from the West, towards a more benevolent ally, a potential investor and a creditor.
The new government’s intention to forge closer ties with Moscow became evident as soon as the leftist Syriza party won the 25 January election.
Within 24 hours, the first official to visit the newly-elected prime minister was the Russian ambassador, whereas it took German Chancellor Angela Merkel two days to congratulate him with a rather frosty telegram.
On becoming foreign minister, Nikos Kotzias questioned the rationale and effectiveness of EU sanctions against Russia over Ukraine and, from day one, the defence minister advocated stronger relations with Moscow.
Like most members of the Syriza cadre, Mr Tsipras and Mr Kotzias descend politically from the pro-Russian Greek Communist Party.
Mr Kammenos, in common with other hard-right European politicians, also has longstanding ties to Russia.
Samuel Huntington’s controversial thesis on “the clash of civilisations,” which places Greece squarely in the Russian-led Orthodox axis, is rejected by many scholars, but widely accepted by Greeks.
A global survey by the Pew Research Center from September 2013 found that 63% of Greeks held favourable views of Russia.
Only 23% of Greeks had a positive view of the EU last autumn, in the latest Eurobarometer survey.
Historical linkage
Relations between Greece and Russia were established in 1828 and have been maintained since, aside from a short pause between the October Revolution in 1917 and 1924, when they were reestablished. On December 27, 1991, Greece recognized Russia as the legal successor to the Soviet Union.
Moscow and Athens engage in active political dialogue, over 10 official and high-level working visits have taken place since 1993. The most recent one was Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’ visit to Moscow in April 2015.
At the May 9, 2015 events in Moscow devoted to the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, the Hellenic Republic was represented by Parliament Speaker Zoe Konstantopoulou.
Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias was in Moscow with a working visit in February 2015, at the invitation of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Greece is linked to Russia by strong historical ties of friendship based on shared spiritual and cultural values. Contacts between the two countries are frequent and include reciprocal visits of the ministerial and political leadership. The most recent visits of Russian officials to Greece were those of the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov (October 2013), Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu (December 2013), and Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Meshkov (November 2014). There is a Joint Interministerial Committee between the two countries on issues of economic, industrial, scientific and technological cooperation. The Greek-Russian JIC last convened in 2013 and a new meeting is being pursued for 2015. There are also broad prospects for cooperation in the cultural sector, and by joint decision of the two sides, 2016 will be a ‘Year of Greece’ in Russia and a ‘Year of Russia’ in Greece.
An additional important factor contributing to the development of the relations between the two countries is the historical presence in the Russian Federation of a significant number of Russian citizens of Greek origin, who reside mainly in the southern Russian periphery, on the Black Sea. The Greek language is taught at a number of Russian universities, including at the Byzantine and Modern Greek Philosophy Department of the Lomosonov Moscow State University, the Modern Greek Department of the Moscow State Pedagogical University, the Greek Literature Department of Kuban State University, and the chair of Philology of Petrozavodsk State University, in Saint Petersburg.
What Americans think
Russia may find some pleasure in threatening to punish the sanctions-fixated EU with counter-sanctions—much in the same way the Greeks found joy in rejecting the EU’s demands for financial discipline. Tsipras called Putin the morning after the referendum and received hearty congratulations for Greece’s exercise in democracy. But he didn’t get a single ruble in urgently needed credits. Escalating budget cuts in Russia have begun to inflict pain on Putin’s own oligarchs, not to mention pensioners. The international arbitration court’s ruling that Russia must pay $50 billion for expropriating the assets of former oil giant Yukos looms large over the stressed and shrinking Russian state budget.
Nevertheless, Putin and Tsipras keep pretending that they could somehow join efforts in resisting EU pressure. While this is perhaps only a minor irritation for Brussels bureaucrats, it is to the great detriment of the deeply troubled Greek and Russian peoples.
Economic ties
According to Russian customs statistics, Russia’s trade turnover with Greece in 2014 amounted to $4.17 billion and to $2.28 billion in 2015.
The decline in trade is related, in particular, to the ban of EU food products import imposed by Russia in August 2014 in response to sanctions against Moscow.
Russian direct investment in Greece was estimated at $653 million in the first nine months of 2015.
The Joint Russian-Greek Commission on Economic, Industrial, Scientific and Technical Cooperation has been in place since 1997. The commission is chaired by Russian Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov and Greek Deputy Foreign Minister Dimitris Mardas. The most recent meeting of the joint commission was held in the Russian Black Sea city Sochi in November 2015.
Cultural ties
The countries also maintain cultural cooperation. In January 2016, Putin and his Greek counterpart Prokopis Pavlopoulos announced a cross-cultural year at an opening ceremony in Moscow. The event program includes not only cultural exchange but also the boost of political, defense, economic, tourism, science and technology cooperation.
According to the Russian Federal Agency for Tourism, Greece was the third most popular country among Russian tourists for the first nine months of 2015. However, this figure is 48 percent lower than that for the same period in 2014, which is attributed to the ruble exchange rate fluctuations, while the number of Greek tourists traveling to Russia increased by 7 percent during the same period.
Comments Off on Upbeat in Russia-Greece Relations
Netanyahu’s peace bete noire
May 25th, 2016By Syed Qamar Afzal Rivzi.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has renewed rejection of a French peace initiative, telling the visiting French prime minister that peace cannot be forged through international conferences but only through direct negotiations.
“Peace just does not get achieved through international conferences, UN-style,” Netanyahu said on Monday at a press conference with French Prime Minister Manuel Valls.
Negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians have been at a standstill since a US-led initiative collapsed in April 2014.
Palestinian leaders say years of negotiations with Israel have not ended its occupation and have pursued a strategy of diplomacy at international bodies.
An upsurge in violence since October has killed 204 Palestinians and 28 Israelis, though the unrest has steadily declined in recent weeks.
Many analysts say Palestinian frustration with Israeli occupation and settlement building in the West Bank, the complete lack of progress in peace efforts and their own fractured leadership have fed the recent unrest.
Netanyahu’s Play of Gimmick
In a short statement issued a few hours before the start of the second Passover holiday in Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu’s office insisted formally that it saw no benefit to a proposed French peace conference mooted for later this year. The announcement comes ahead of a summit of foreign ministers at the end of May in Paris where participants had been expected to try and hammer out a “political horizon” to bring the two sides together later in the summer.
“Israel adheres to its position that the best way to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is direct, bilateral negotiations,” the statement read. “Israel is ready to begin them immediately without preconditions. Any other diplomatic initiative distances the Palestinians from direct negotiations.”
Neither Israel nor the Palestinians were to be invited to the summit on 30 May, which is expected to include some 30 countries and international organisations – including the “Quartet” of the UN, the EU, Russia and the US – though they would be expected to attended the peace conference slated for later in the summer.
“I have to be honest: I wrote a letter to Francois Hollande and expressed my shock that France had voted for a decision denying the Jewish people’s link to the Temple Mount, which spans thousands of years,” Netanyahu related. “And the reason that this vote was so troubling for us is that it implies that the Jewish people have no right to be here. And I think that remains the core of the conflict, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to have a nation-state in their ancestral homeland. “Peace just does not get achieved through international conferences, UN-style,” said Netanyahu. “It doesn’t get to fruition through international diktats or committees from countries around the world who are sitting and seeking to decide our fate and our security when they have no direct stake in it.
“Peace is achieved through direct negotiations between the parties and in direct negotiations, the Palestinian leadership must face a stark choice and this choice is simple: recognize the Jewish state or continue educating your people that one day Israel will be gone.”
France says the goal is to eventually restart negotiations that would lead to a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu in particular has criticized the initiative and called for direct negotiations between the two sides.
While addressing the AIPAC-2016 conference in Washington, Netanyahu said:
“I was glad to hear the presidential candidates from both parties reaffirm this basic principle. Peace won’t come through UN Security Council resolutions, but through direct negotiations between the parties.
The best formula for achieving peace remains two states for two peoples, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state finally recognizes the Jewish state.Now, I know there’s some skepticism about my views on this. So let me state unequivocally, and here’s the acid test: I am ready to begin such negotiations immediately, without preconditions, anytime, anywhere. That’s a fact. But President Abbas is not ready to do so. That’s also a fact. There is political will here in Jerusalem. There’s no political will there in Ramallah”.
Israeli policy: from occupation to annexation
First, one hast to distinguish between annexation and occupation. International law recognizes the legitimacy of an occupation, i.e. a state in which one power occupies a territory where a local population lives. But the assumption of international law is that occupation is a temporary affair; the occupier is considered to be a trustee who maintains what he has conquered until the conflict is over. Furthermore, the occupier is not allowed to make long-term changes in the region. An annexation is a one-sided takeover by a state of a territory by use of force or threats of it, and is impermissible under international law – a part of the lessons of the Second World War on which so much of international law is built on.
In view of some liberal Israeli thinkers, the present situation of occupation is actually good for Israel. It confers partial legal legitimacy to its military presence (not its civilian presence) in the West Bank. If the West Bank is not occupied, then the situation looks suspiciously like annexation. And as we noted earlier, annexation is prohibited.
Secondly, no one in the world would accept the legitimacy of Israeli control that leaves Palestinians devoid of rights. An official adoption of the Levy Report would be a hasbara catastrophe; no one in the world would accept the Israeli claim that nearly 50 years of military control is not an occupation.
But even though the Israeli government never officially adopted the report, it effectively began implementing it. On the legal front, the Israeli Foreign Ministry published a document in late 2015 that adopts the spirit of the Levy Report. According to the document, Israel has a right to build settlements, based on the British Mandate charter. This claim became part of the Foreign Office Cadet Training Program and was distributed to all Israeli delegations in the world, accompanied by a directive saying this is the Israeli position and that it should be translated and published on the website of every delegation.
US–Israel thinking
The U.S. and Israel want to limit Palestinian sovereignty, to demilitarize their state, to prevent a Palestinian return and to implement any agreement in stages. But in order for the two-state solution to have a chance at working, they need to do the exact opposite.
The deadlock in the peace talks has generated another American diplomatic push, one that seems like the first stage in the administration’s proposal for a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (or, more accurately, the Ramallah-based half of the Palestinian Authority). According to reports, the American team led by Secretary of State John Kerry put forward a proposal for security measures that would address some of Israel’s concerns regarding a withdrawal from the West Bank.
The workable paradox?
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far refused to discuss the future borders of the Palestinian state in public, and leaks from the talks suggest that Israel will only discuss the territorial aspects of an agreement after the security aspects are resolved. The American proposal is designed to tackle this new hurdle or at least prepare the ground for a full American two-state proposal.
If Israel, for example, maintains an army presence on the Jordan border or anywhere inside the Palestinian state – even on a temporary basis – any Palestinian political force with a grudge will make this presence the object of his campaign. There will be political attacks, and then there will be physical attacks. For the same reason all Palestinian prisoners need to be released; keeping them in Israeli prisons will create a political time bomb and an on-going sense of resentment.
If the Palestinian Authority doesn’t control its borders or airspace, or if it needs to give up valuable land in the north and around Jerusalem for the settlements and get desert hills in return – in the spirit of some of the recent land swaps maps – the whole idea of statehood becomes meaningless to the average Palestinian. A chair at the UN, after all, is not the object of the Palestinian national struggle. Freedom and dignity are.
Comments Off on Netanyahu’s peace bete noire
London’s Muslim mayorship ushers in new heraldry
May 15th, 2016By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi .
In the given European situation where in Islamophobia is at its zenith, the rising of a Muslim mayor of London serves to hold sufficient warrants to the fact that to the Londoners the choice regarding the would –be- mayor was judiciously based on’ liberal and neutral thinking’ as reflected by the result of election. By all means, the Muslim mayorship of London ushers in a new heraldry.
The British Labour party’s Sadiq Khan has been sworn in as London’s new mayor after comfortably beating his nearest rival, Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith.
Speaking at the ceremony at Southwark Cathedral on Saturday, Khan called the city the “greatest in the world”, adding he was “proud” and “deeply humbled” by his win.
“I want every single Londoner to get the opportunities that the city gave to me and my family…the opportunities not just to survive, but to thrive,” Khan pledged.
Roger Evans, the outgoing deputy mayor, said Goldsmith’s “very foolish” campaign left a “negative legacy which we in London are going to have to clear up long after the people who ran Zac Goldsmith’s campaign have gone on their way”.
Andrew Boff, a senior Tory on the London assembly, said: “I hope we don’t do this stupid thing again by trying to bring Sadiq down by saying he is an extremist. He is not an extremist. He went out and engaged with people with orthodox religious views. Dialogue is not assisted by shutting people out.”
The borough of Harrow, which has the largest Hindu population in London, voted for Khan, as did Brent which is home to Wembley Stadium and Modi’s brethren from Gujarat. Both these boroughs in north-west London are traditional Labour supporters as most ethnic minorities prefer this party over the Conservatives because of their more inclusive policies and tough stand on racism.
The office of the mayor
The office itself is also something of an anomaly. British governance tends to favor councils of local officials and collective government by cabinets of ministers. London’s mayor, by comparison, is elected by millions of voters from the city and its surrounding suburbs. Because most of Britain does not directly vote for the ministers in Parliament, let alone the House of Lords or the queen, the mayor can claim a stronger democratic mandate than perhaps any British politician other than the prime minister (who herself is not directly elected to that post, but assumes it as leader of the largest party in Parliament).
His resolve’s against extremism
In his latest interview given to Time, he says: ‘’But clearly, being someone who is a Muslim brings with it experiences that I can use in relation to dealing with extremists and those who want to blow us up. And so it’s really important that I use my experiences to defeat radicalization and extremism. What I think the election showed was that actually there is no clash of civilization between Islam and the West. I am the West, I am a Londoner, I’m British, I’m of Islamic faith, Asian origin, Pakistan heritage, so whether it’s [ISIS] or these others who want to destroy our way of life and talk about the West, they’re talking about me’’. What better antidote to the hatred they spew than someone like me being in this position?…. My experience in relation to taking on the preachers of hate was saying to them it’s compatible being British, being Western, being Muslim. I’ve experienced the receiving end of this extremism, whether it’s the extremists campaigning against me when I stood for Parliament in 2005 and 2010 and 2015, saying somehow it was haram — sinful — to vote, let alone to stand for Parliament. I’ve been on the receiving end of a fatwa when fighting for equality in relation to same sex marriage [in 2013], so I understand what that’s like’’, he adds.
His pro EU’s stand
Mr Khan said the Brexit campaign was putting at risk the rights of around a million EU citizens in London to live and work here. If Britain left the EU they could end up “having to leave London”, he said. The army of Europeans in London could become a significant political force as they make up around 10 per cent of the capital’s electorate. Conservative MEP for London, Charles Tannock, said it could be the first major election where EU citizens are a major factor. “Generally EU citizens don’t turn out in large numbers for local elections and have been traditionally ignored by mainstream parties and candidates for that reason,” he told the Evening Standard. Mr Khan said that Euro-voters could become a significant factor because of the In-Out referendum. “Britain’s role in Europe is absolutely critical for all Londoners — supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs, and helping us keep Londoners safe,” he told the Standard.
“But our relationship with Europe is of even greater concern for the half a million European citizens in London. If Zac Goldsmith has his way and drags London out of Europe, they face massive uncertainty and even the prospect of having to leave London altogether.
His reaction to Trump’s views
Sadiq Khan accuses Donald Trump of making the world ‘less safe’ because of his ‘ignorant view of Islam’. Mr Khan said his call to ban Muslims entering the US ‘risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of the extremists.’
He added: ‘Donald Trump and those around him think that western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.’
Yesterday the newly-elected London Mayor said he was planning to visit the US before this year’s presidential elections in November ‘in case Donald Trump wins.’
But Trump, asked whether his proposal to ban Muslims would affect Mr Khan, said: ‘There will always be exceptions’.
London’s mayor & Multiculturalism
Being as London Mayor who symbolizes as the person to serve the interests of all social groups without making any distinction to their cast creed and faith, he may seems to be the true representative of a multiculturalist London. Khan, for his part, does not see his identity as a British Muslim in binary terms. “I’m a Londoner, I’m European, I’m British, I’m English, I’m of Islamic faith, of Asian origin, of Pakistani heritage, a dad, a husband,” he said in a New York Times interview.
Assimilation may be more appropriate in terms of national language acquisition before naturalization; individualist-integration may provide the model for non-discrimination in the labour market; yet multiculturalism may be the basis for supplementing electoral representation (if minorities are under-represented) and in creating new attitudes of inclusivity and in rethinking national identities. Thus perhaps the ultimate meaning of multiculturalism is not as one mode of integration but as the perspective which allows all modes of integration their due, including, crucially, communitarian multiculturalism.
This is particularly important at a time when many centre-left critics of multiculturalism celebrate hybridity, fluidity and cosmopolitian identities. These are indeed worthy of celebration but we should not overlook the conservative, community-maintaining aspect of multiculturalism. Communitarian multiculturalism may currently be viewed as undesirable by various publics and policymakers. Given how central groups such as Muslims have become to the prospects of integration on a number of fronts, it is unlikely that integration can be achieved without some element of this approach. Perceptions of Muslims as groups, by themselves and by non-Muslim majorities, are hardening.
The key question is whether Muslims are to be stigmatised as outsiders or recognised as integral to the polity. The enlargement, hyphenation and internal pluralising of national identities is essential to an integration in which all citizens have not just rights but a sense of belonging to the whole, as well as to their own ‘little platoon’.
The Cosmopolitan London versus Communitarian Europe
It goes without saying that the rift between cosmopolitan English society and the communitarian Europe has paved the way for Brexit. If Britain votes for Brexit, or (more likely) votes to stay with a perilously narrow margin, many will fault the governments that, it is and will be said, have let in more immigrants than the country is capable of absorbing. Such arguments will be inadequate. Concerns about strained services and undermined wages are not just about those services and wages. They also express the growing gap in perceptions and culture between the “cosmopolitan” parts of the country and “communitarian” ones.
The gulf in attitudes towards immigration and the associated divide on the EU is just a symptom of this. And the enticingly simple but quack remedy of slamming the door on the continent and its citizens is no answer. The real one—which probably involves letting the generational churn towards liberal attitudes take its effect while improving adult education and retraining programmes and better connecting left-behind parts of the country with the booming cities—will prove altogether harder work. Under these circumstances, the role of London’s mayor seems very significant. The phenomenal victory of a pro EU mayor in London may positively influence the result of the referendum that is going to be held on 23rd June.
What Europe needs today
The former human rights lawyer and the son of a bus driver from Pakistan may not see himself as a role model for the million plus Muslims who have entered Europe in search of shelter, safety and jobs.
But he should. And so should the many other European Muslims — whether practising or not — who are proud Britons, French, Dutch, German or Belgian. Because unless their stories are told and retold, the pervasive narrative of Muslims as “the other”, as aliens who can never become “true” Europeans will go on and on.
The counter-narrative to the anti-Muslim discourse is more imperative than ever. It is needed to ensure that as European governments struggle to deal with the challenge of receiving the newcomers, including thousands of children, their focus is not just on the misfits and extremists but on the millions of Muslims who are an integral part of Europe’s politics, society and economy. The anti-Islam rhetoric has already seeped into the political mainstream.
Talk to any European policymaker and the discussion soon turns to Muslims and their “failure to integrate”. Attitudes of Muslims towards women and gays are often cited as one glaring example of the disconnect between “real” Europeans and Muslims. Certainly, the increasingly virulent — and increasingly popular — Far Right parties see the unwanted newcomers as a threat to Europe’s values and to European security. Many governments in Eastern Europe make no secret of their fear of Islam.
The message should be clear: integration is a two-way street, requiring adjustment efforts by migrants and host societies. Newcomers must abide by existing rules so that they can become part of the conversation. But in exchange they should be accepted as full-fledged members of society.
Comments Off on London’s Muslim mayorship ushers in new heraldry
Congress’ aid cut & Pakistan’s concerns
May 9th, 2016
By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.
The US Congress has recently put a spanner in the sale of F16s to Pakistan on concessional rates. The Congress’ no puts a big question mark on the US-Pakistan synergies regarding the ongoing war on terror. While US State Department seems to have been convinced that the F-16 planes would enhance Pakistan’s forces’ professional capabilities with regard to its counter-terrorism combat against terrorists in Afghanistan & the Fata area in Pakistan; the US law makers are skeptical about the use of this technology by Pakistan. Congress has also withheld $450m that the US administration previously agreed to pay Pakistan.
F-16s: Role in counter terrorism
The State Department, however, maintained that the sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan would assist counter- terrorism and counter-insurgency operations. Richard Olson strongly defended the decision of the Obama Administration saying that this is in the best interest of the United States.
“The administration is supportive of the F-16 sale to Pakistan. This is been developed between our military coordinating groups over the course of time that is consistent with our overall program of support for the Pakistani military, which is based on counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism. The Pakistanis have developed a precision strike capability that they use in the F-16s they have right now to take out targets,” he said.
As a result of this move, Pakistan may have to foot the bill of $700 million for the eight fighter jets. The original plan was to sell eight F-16s to Pakistan and finance most of the $699 million deal through FMF. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Republican Bob Corker and Democratic Ranking Member Ben Cardin, in early March, announced that they would not approve FMF for Pakistan until it demonstrated “behavioral changes” in its support of terrorism and its dealings with India. The State Department, however, maintained that the sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan would assist counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations.
The planes became a symbol of all that is wrong with US policy on Pakistan. It has been money for nothing and deaths for free. Even after $25 billion in US military and economic aid and 2,300 American soldiers dead in Afghanistan since 9/11 largely because of Pakistan’s complicity, the US State Department and the White House continue to believe in the unbelievable – that eventually Pakistan will behave.
Pakistan’s role in the US waged war on terror
Since Pakistan has been a key ally of Washington; it has contributed more than any other coalition partner of the U.S. in this ongoing War against Terrorism including sacrifices of more than than 50,000 civilians, including 6,000 security personnel, in the fight against terrorism during the past decade. The country has lost US$103 billion (S$135 billion), the direct and indirect costs of terrorism incidents. It captured many high value Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists thus extending full length support to the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies in rooting out terrorists’ network. After successful military operations against terrorists in Swat Valley and South Waziristan Agency, the Pakistan Army has now launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan Agency and Khyber Agency, respectively.
These operations have been admired globally, as the Pakistan Army has broken the back of the militants and successfully eliminated terrorist hideouts. The operations are directed against all militants; as a result, around 4,000 terrorists have been killed. With every passing day, Pakistan’s sacrifices are multiplying.
Since 9/11, Washington and Islamabad have different perceptions and strategies to combat terrorism with outstanding differences but somehow both unequal partners in War against Terrorism have tried to manage their ties. Undoubtedly, the most important and grave concern from the Pakistani military perspective has been the U.S. unreliable role in this War against Terrorism and the way it has been showing its distrust regarding Pakistan’s military efforts to fight terrorism.
U.S. is very much aware of the fact they could not have killed and captured terrorists without the co-operation and support of Pakistani intelligence. But on the other hand, American officials believe that Pakistani military is not playing an effective role to combat terrorism. They often blame that Pakistani military is playing a dual role with the United States-a fact that needs to be verified. Yet there have been reflections on trust-deficit between Washington and Islamabad.
US development aid Programme?
After the World War, the strategy manifested itself in the form of post-war reconstruction and state-building in countries like Japan and Germany. In order to consolidate its political and economic leadership, the US started the Marshall Plan, a generous reconstruction and state-building enterprise that helped a war-devastated Europe stand on its feet to confront the rising menace of communism, and also get integrated into the Bretton Woods-defined global economic system. Though it was a political imperative to provide military cover through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) and an economic necessity to help devastated European economies stand on their own feet,this American policy revitalized US-Europe relationship. But unfortunately the US did not replicate this ‘reconstruction and rehabilitation’ progamme in the post Soviet Afghanistan phase. This ill driven US’s strategy paved the way for the evolution of radicalization and extremism in the region.
US-South Asia policy hangs in balance
Ambassador Richard Olson said that Pakistan now had to make a strategic choice, “with the Taliban having refused to come to the table, it seems to us that it is time to address more robustly the question of groups that threaten Afghanistan”.
But Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen disagreed. “We need to leverage our military sales to Pakistan in order to get some more cooperation within the region,” she said.
It goes without saying that since the very inception of US war of terror, the policy makers in Washington seem to have been tilting towards India. This change– in US policy has been evident of the US-India nuclear deal in 2006– and can rightly be appraised by other developments that revitalized US-India strategic partnership. In the current phase of Indian RAW’s involvement in Pakistan,Washington’s policy of remaining indifferent on this issue has also reactivated Pakistani concerns. And subsequently, the US administration’s conceived future plan to sale the drone technology to India may also put a big question mark about Washington’s South Asia policy. If US wants to maintain its durable relations with Pakistan, it would have to seriously think about preventing its unbalanced approach towards Pakistan.
The inevitability of US-Pakistan strategic partnership
Given Pakistan’s geostrategic position and the exigencies entailed by the US-indoctrinated war against terrorism, both Washington and Islamabad cannot afford to redefine their sixty years old relationship. In a recently held bilateral meetings in Washington between Pakistan foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz and the US Secretary of State John Kerry, the two sides positively affirmed to strengthen this relationship.
The two countries agreed on the need for effective action against all violent extremists, specifically underscoring that no country’s territory should be used to destabilize other countries. The United States expressed appreciation for the sacrifices of Pakistan’s security personnel and civilians in the fight against terrorism and violent extremism. Both countries reaffirmed their commitment to countering terrorism including by targeting all terrorists without discrimination. The United States and Pakistan committed to continue promoting peace, stability, and transparency in the region and to eliminate the threats posed by violent extremism and terrorism.
The two sides looked forward to the upcoming Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism working group meeting where the United States and Pakistan will work together to further bolster the capacity of Pakistan’s judicial and law enforcement authorities to enforce the rule of law and combat terrorism, including the financing of terrorism.
Pakistan’s warranted aid exigencies
Pakistan needs the high performance aircrafts for precision strikes against the terrorists holed up in the forested mountain fastnesses of one of the most difficult terrains in the world. The F16s, if delivered, would most certainly decimate the marauding capability of the terrorists. The US Congress’ decision, influenced by lobbyists with blinkered vision, threatens to undo the US commitment to counter-terrorism and to lay the basis for long-term stability, founded on aid for development.
The conflation of the Indo-Pakistan conflict with the counter-terrorism aid, under the influence of some parochial lobbyists in Washington, neither redounds to the US’s credibility as a reliable anti-terror coalition partner, nor to the efficacy of a puissant counter-terror strategy in Afghanistan.
At this crucial juncture, the US has to show its far-sighted vision via its practical smart power doctrine by jettisoning Duffield’s neo-Monroe development paradigm, which related aid to the selfish interests of the West. The US aid to Pakistan, therefore, has to transcend the counter-brushfire stage to a stability inducing stage, in the interest of both countries as well as regional security.
Comments Off on Congress’ aid cut & Pakistan’s concerns
Revisiting the Indus water treaty
May 3rd, 2016By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.
Revisiting the Indus water treaty
The Pakistan Senate passed on Monday a resolution asking the government to “revisit” the 46-year-old Indus Waters Treaty on water sharing with India. “This House recommends that (the) government should revisit Indus Waters Treaty 1960 in order to make new provisions in the treaty so that Pakistan may get more water for its rivers,” says the resolution.
Many in Pakistan accuse New Delhi of wantonly exacerbating the country’s dire water shortages, choking its agricultural production and ruining livelihoods.
India’s Indus Water Commissioner G. Aranganathan says that after India fills its reservoirs in the initial stages of each project, it only uses the water it needs to run its turbines and doesn’t prevent any from flowing into Pakistan. “There is absolutely no question of interrupting or reducing Pakistan’s water supply,” he tells TIME.
What was the Indus water treaty about?
The Indus Water Treaty was ultimately signed in September 1960 when Prime Minister Nehru visited Pakistan. Following protracted and painstaking negotiations, both India and Pakistan signed an accord in 1960 called the Indus Waters Treaty that determined exactly how the region’s rivers are to be divided. In the treaty, control over the three “eastern” rivers — the Beas, Ravi and Sutlej — was given to India and the three “western” rivers — the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum — to Pakistan. More controversial, however, were the provisions on how the waters were to be shared.
Since Pakistan’s rivers flow through India first, the treaty allowed India to use them for irrigation, transport and power generation, while laying down precise do’s and don’ts for Indian building projects along the way. Indeed, India has ramped up its hydroelectricity projects in recent years to try to boost its woefully inadequate power supplies.
The Treaty grouped the five rivers of Punjab into two categories. The Eastern rivers: the Ravi, Sutlej and Beas; and the Western rivers: the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. The waters of the Eastern rivers can be stored by India. As we know, these are being extensively used for irrigation and power supply to Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Harayana and Delhi. The Western rivers are available to Pakistan. India can only use their running waters but is not permitted to store those waters. However, it can use the Jhelum and Chenab for generating power, and store water on tributaries of the Jhelum and Chenab for irrigation or power supply. The Treaty was welcomed both in Pakistan and India.
The Treaty had an unstated quid pro quo: the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. It was then felt that the resolution of this issue would pave the way for resolving the J&K dispute.
The utilitarian deliberations vs. new realities
The reverberation of IWT in both aspects necessitates its detailed understanding. Anyone interested to understand the IWT and its allied issues in the language of foreign policy that is best expressed through vehicle of international law must read two short but conceptual articles: first is Hamid Sarfraz’s ‘Revisiting the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty’, and second is “The Indus Basin: Challenges and Responses by Erum Sattar, Madison Condon, et al. Besides, the 1997 “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UNWC)”, and “The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers,” 1966 may serve as a legal guide on the point as though UNWC is not yet in force, it does offer wisdom extracted from international water jurisprudence and may, at times, highlight principles of law that may be regarded as of customary international law value.
The IWT, determination by neutral expert in Bagliar Hydroelectric Plant in 2007 and partial award by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2013 are, of course, must read stuff on the point. Fortunately all the material is just a google away.
The Harmon doctrine and Indian thinking
Lt. Gen (Retd) Eric A Vas in his article ‘Troubled Waters: Should We Revisit Indus Waters Treaty’ has acknowledged the impact of Harmon Doctrine on Indian thinking at the time of negotiations of IWT. This begs for understanding the Harmon Doctrine. Water has been essential for human existence since time immemorial. However, with the sophistication and evolution of human society, water got recognized as a resource. Its watercourses got more attention and the uses of those were divided into navigational and non-navigational by the end of late nineteenth century with former category regarded more valuable than the latter.
It is with the industrial revolution and advancement in technology that irrigation, hydropower and flood control became sources of progress, and the non-navigational value of water came at par with its navigational significance. This gave rise to riparian, utility and storage disputes of non-navigational waters.
“The fundamental principle of international law is the absolute sovereignty of every nation against all others, within its own territory.”
The mindset of India led to manipulation of its position and natural location. The ultimate result was apportionment of western and eastern rivers in IWT. Conversely, Pakistan’s viewpoint was based on a competing legal principle that transcended above the selfish and parochial Indian approach.
The legal principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, which is now the cornerstone of UNWC (Article V), was rejected by India. It may also be stated that the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization of watercourse was not an invention of UNWC, but was based on case law of international legal adjudicatory bodies as well as of Helsinki Rules of 1966. On the basis of equitable utilization principle, Pakistan was entitled to 90% of waters; however, it confined its claim to 75%, but with the domination of Harmon Doctrine, the rationalized equitable claim of Pakistan didn’t materialize.
The aforementioned research paper lucidly captures the essence of IWT in the following words: ‘…the two countries agreed to allow principles of engineering and economics to drive the process rather than using legal considerations.’
Although India is permitted to exploit the hydro-electric power potential of the Jhelum and Chenab, all Indian projects have to be vetted by the Pakistan Indus Commission which can exercise a virtual veto; this enables it to put conditions that are patently disadvantageous to India.
For example in the Salal Hydro Electric Project, Pakistan objected to the use of under sluices. This necessitated a change of design, which has resulted in very heavy siltation of the reservoir. Over the years, the silt level in this 113 m high dam has reached 90 m, and the 30 km long reservoir has shrunk to just 14 km. This would not have happened had the use of sluices been permitted. India was determined that this should not happen again.
Indian stand over its hydro- Projects
India says that the construction of projects is endorsed by the treaty and all projects are within the limitations of the Treaty’s criteria. India replied, citing the norms of the treaty and Indian experts have expressed frustration over long delays in approval of these projects due to objections held by Pakistan, as around 27 projects on the western rivers have been questioned by Pakistan.
Indian analysts and media are of the view that the provision of neutral experts should be the last option and not the recourse for each and every project that India proposes. The reference does cost time, money and efforts, in terms of delaying the projects, thereby increasing the cost of not only construction but also related expenditures in not making use of the hydro potential.
Pakistan’s concerns over Indian projects
First, Pakistan, as lower riparian has apprehensions over the projects such as Salal, Baglihar, Kishanganga, Wullar Barrage, Uri Nimo-bazgo etc. and it considers them as the existential threat to its inhabitants, as stored water can flush out the land and property. Secondly, Pakistan also fears that these projects will reduce the water flow in critical times, especially during the sowing seasons.
From a security point of view, some strategic analysts in Pakistan are of the view that the Indian intentions are directed towards flooding Pakistan during military action and that flood waters could destroy Pakistani defence. Pakistan has also certain economic and defensive apprehension on the construction of projects, especially on Jhelum and Chenab River.
In 2008, after filing of the Baglihar project and subsequent reduction of the water flow in Pakistan, the project has drawn serious concerns and gained critical attention in Pakistan’s political circles. With regard to Wullar Barrage, it has also incurred political and strategic voices from Pakistan, as it fears that with the construction of the Wullar Barrage in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK), India could close the gate of Wullar Barrage during a warlike situation, enhancing the ability of Indian troops to enter Pakistan.
The Revisiting vision & other examples
The question of revising unfavourable treaties has many global precedents. Hungary and Czechoslovakia had gone to the International Court of Justice [ICJ] over Hungary’s going back on a 1977 Treaty pertaining to the construction of a project on the Danube River. Interestingly, the ICJ gave its ruling not on the basis of the 1977 Treaty, but on a customary international law of sharing water resources in terms of “equitable utilization”. Apart from equality, there is the question of national interests. The USA has recently abrogated the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty that it had signed in the 70s as it felt that it no longer conformed to the security compulsions and realities of the 21st Century.
Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that in order to offset population growth, improve agriculture and horticulture, and enhance the generation of power, every state has the right to revise old treaties and redefine what constitutes an equitable share.
(the Baglihar dam )
The bitter lessons for Pakistan
Deciding victors in two cases: the Baglihar dam and the Krashnaganga dam may not be healthy. Suffice is to say that the threshold of dispute avoidance under IWT has been crossed in both the cases as matters were ultimately not decided in the way they were decided since inception of IWT. Why Pakistan is in more trouble
The fact that, unlike India, all of Pakistan is wholly dependent upon the Indus River system is a geographical reality.
Another reality that compounds this one is the fact that, as the upstream riparian on all five of the main Indus tributaries that flow into Pakistan, India has the strategically advantageous position with regards to control and flow of water.
John Briscoe, a subcontinental water expert, former World Bank senior water expert and currently a professor at Harvard University, recognised Pakistan’s unhappy position in the following words: “This is a very uneven playing field. The regional hegemon is the upper riparian and has all the cards in its hands.”
Pakistan is all too aware of its vulnerable position vis-a-vis water and the fact that more than half of independent Pakistan’s time has been spent under military rule has not helped to de-escalate or ‘de-securitise’ the water discourse in the country.
Over the years, water has been raised as an issue directly linked to Kashmir. Pakistan’s political leaders and military elites have emphasised that if they are forced to let go of their claim to Kashmir, that will mean letting go of the source of Jhelum and Chenab as well and being at the mercy of India for water.
Though it is unrealistic to assume that India could readily and easily violate the terms of the Indus Water Treaty, John Briscoe, the Harvard expert emphasises that Pakistan and India do not have “normal, trustful relations”. The trust deficit along with the fact that India once blocked water flows to Pakistan has the military establishment convinced that they must hold on to their claim to Kashmir in an effort to maintain the country’s water security. “Even if it were assumed that some mistakes were made at some short period, which in any case did not exceed one or two weeks,” he said.
Throughout the history of the dispute, India has rarely, if ever, acknowledged that it has tampered with the supply of water flowing into Pakistan.
(Pakistan senate)
The argument why Pakistan should revisit the treaty
The nexus of foreign policy and international water law, if fully explored, takes it to the Kashmir dispute, where the ultimate control of the western rivers lies. Pakistan needs to introduce input of a highly specialized foreign service into its policy formulation as the challenges of the new and emerging realities in highly globalized world are necessitating fresh and erudite approach. As far as IWT is concerned, it is not a perfect document; as is the case with any treaty in the world. The shortcomings of IWT include its failure to address climatic variance, environmental considerations and insistence on water apportionment instead of coordinate management of natural resources as precious as watercourses of the two countries.
Comments Off on Revisiting the Indus water treaty
Expansion of India’s civil nuclear program via US backing?
April 27th, 2016By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.
Thanks to the US-India nuclear deal, there have been new developments regarding the expansion of Indian nuclear power programme, offering serious deliberations. Apparently the course of these developments comes within the frame of civil nuclear energy, yet there is growing concern in the international community that on the pretext of making expansion of its civil nuclear energy Programme, India may manufacture more fissile material that can be used in the armament of other nuclear weapons.
Since the US-India nuclear deal signed in 2006, there have been serious concerns in the international community about the harrowing repercussions of this controversial deal- subsequently endorsed by US president Obama’s last year visit to India. At this critical juncture, where the call of nuclear disarmament is getting pace day by day, the US backing to India exposes the Western double standard on the nuclear policy. The ongoing expansion in Indian civil nuclear program without fulfilling the IAEA’s safeguards poses a big question mark on the transparency mechansim of this expansion.
The Harvard Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs debates this issue in its recently published paper : The Three Overlapping Streams of Indian Nuclear Power Programs
Apart from the pivotal points raised by the Harvard Belfer Centre regarding the IAEA’s safeguards, the issue of this expansion of Indian civil nuclear program– via US-India nuclear deal—remains exclusively questionable with regard to the establishment of international norms accompanied by the raising concerns of the international community.
Ability to produce more nuclear weapons
Nuclear cooperation: Under the proposed deal, India would separate its military and civilian nuclear reactors, and place many—but not all—of its civilian nuclear reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Military facilities, and stockpiles of nuclear fuel that India has produced up to now, will not be subject to inspections or safeguards. Meanwhile, the US will be allowed to build nuclear reactors in India, and provide India with nuclear fuel for its civilian reactors.
The missile proliferation
The space cooperation aspect of the deal could result in transfers of technology and expertise relevant to nuclear missile development. For example, India will use its rocket Chandrayaan-1, which has previously been used to launch satellites into orbit, for its unmanned mission to the moon. Experts have long warned that the same rocket could also be armed with a nuclear warhead and turned into an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The methods for integrating payloads into space vehicles, which US engineers will assist Indian engineers in doing for the joint lunar mission, are also relevant to integrating multiple nuclear warheads into ICBMs. US assistance on Indian civilian space exploration ventures could help India develop the know-how for further developing its ballistic missile capabilities.
Transgression of NPT
The deal violates Article I of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which states that “Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.”
The deal also violates other positions agreed upon by consensus by NPT members, including a 1995 agreement on principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, which states, “New supply arrangements for the transfer of source or special fissionable material or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material to non-nuclear-weapon States should require, as a necessary precondition, acceptance of the Agency’s full-scope safeguards and internationally legally binding commitments not to acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
UNSC resolutions
It also contravenes United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 of 1998, which encourages all States to prevent the export of equipment, materials or technology that could in any way assist programmes in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons or for ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, and welcomes national policies adopted and declared in this respect.”
Nuclear race in South Asia
In response to the proposed US-India deal, Pakistan’s National Command Authority stated that its “credible minimum deterrence requirements” will continue to be met, indicating the possibility of an expansion of fissile materials stockpiles in Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan’s stocks, however, already far exceed the fissile material requirements for a “minimal” nuclear arsenal. China’s response will likely be similar if the deal goes through.
The space cooperation element of the deal provides India with the opportunity to increase its missile technology expertise. This in turn could lead to an increase in quantity and quality of its delivery systems, to which its neighbours would surely respond.
US involvement in East and South Asia features policies of selectively favouring or opposing nuclear activities that strongly affects the regions’ strategic balances. For example, the geostrategic benefits of using India to assert its interests in Asia is likely one of the primary rationales behind this deal for the US. Former RAND Corporation analyst Ashley Tellis says, “accommodating India on the issue of nuclear cooperation” would “buttress its potential utility as a hedge against a rising China” and “encourage it to pursue economic and strategic policies aligned with US interests,” helping to “shape the Asian environment in a way that suits our interests.” This estimate reflects that political expediency dominates over the legitimacy of international law/norms.
India’s honeymoon with Nuclear Supplier Group
Following the Nuclear Suppliers Group agreement which was achieved in September 2008, the scope for supply of both reactors and fuel from suppliers in other countries opened up. Civil nuclear cooperation agreements have been signed with the USA, Russia, France, UK, South Korea, Czech Republic and Canada, as well as Australia, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Namibia. A further nuclear cooperation agreement was signed with the UK in November 2015, with “a comprehensive package” of collaboration on energy and climate change matters involving £3.2 billion ($4.9 billion) in programmes and initiatives related to energy security and energy access. However, there is no civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Japan, which may be a limiting factor for some technology provision involving GE Hitachi and Westinghouse. Negotiations with Japan continue, and a preliminary agreement was signed in December 2015, with a lot of detail still to be negotiated. A joint statement said that the final document sealing the agreement would take some time.
On the basis of the 2010 cooperation agreement with Canada, in April 2013 a bilateral safeguards agreement was signed between the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), allowing trade in nuclear materials and technology for facilities which are under IAEA safeguards. A similar bilateral safeguards agreement with Australia was signed in 2014 and finalised in November 2015. Both apply essentially to uranium supply.
The initial two Russian PWR types at the Kudankulam site were apart from India’s three-stage plan for nuclear power and were simply to increase generating capacity more rapidly. Now there are plans for eight 1000 MWe units at that site, and in January 2007 a memorandum of understanding was signed for Russia to build the next four there, as well as others elsewhere in India.
A further such agreement was signed in December 2010, and Rosatom announced that it expected to build no less than 18 reactors in India. Then in December 2014 another high-level nuclear cooperation agreement was signed with a view to Russia building 20 more reactors plus cooperation in building Russian-designed nuclear power plants in third countries, in uranium mining, production of nuclear fuel, and waste management.
India was also to confirm a second location for a Russian plant – Haripur in West Bengal being in some doubt. Most of the new units are expected to be the larger 1200 MWe AES-2006 designs. Russia was earlier reported to have offered a 30% discount on the $2 billion price tag for each of the phase 2 Kudankulam reactors. This was based on plans to start serial production of reactors for the Indian nuclear industry, with much of the equipment and components proposed to be manufactured in India, thereby bringing down costs. However, at the end of 2015 the approved cost of Kudankulam units 3&4 was Rs 39,747 crore ($5.96 billion), according to the Minister for Atomic Energy, more than twice the costs of units 1&2, due to liability issues.
.jpeg)
India needs to distinguish its civil and military nuclear programmes
There is little distinction between military and civilian nuclear affairs, and all matters of atomic energy come directly under the Prime Minister, not parliament. This means the nuclear establishment is under no obligation to disclose information on the nuclear power sector to citizens. There’s no excuse for this opacity in a country with an ambition to use nuclear energy for electricity. Regardless of these flaws, India is one of the few countries in the world that is expanding its nuclear power sector at an enormous rate. Seven more nuclear reactors are under construction, of 4800 MW installed capacity. At least thirty-six new nuclear reactors are planned or proposed.
The Western dichotomy
I have argued in my piece, published in the World Review ( Expansion of India’s civil nuclear programme is bad omen for peace)
“It also highlights Western double standards: it is no secret that the West has put pressure on Iran to follow the IAEA protocol regarding the UN nuclear watchdog’s inspection procedure. However, India has entered into no legal bindings regarding its nuclear activities and has not even signed the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), and is free to expand its nuclear programme. For the world’s 137 developing nations, India’s unjustified nuclear muscling provides no comfort for they think their quest for a civilian nuclear energy programme is being exploited by P5 – the official legal nuclear club and a powerful global lobby.… This Western attitude strongly suggests that it adopts a legal and moral segregation on the nuclear technology issue”.
Comments Off on Expansion of India’s civil nuclear program via US backing?
Rethinking about the European security model?
April 22nd, 2016By Syed Qamar Rizvi.
The recent terrorist attacks in Brussels have proven that Europe is facing an era of unprecedented challenges to its security architecture. The migration crisis, the ever approaching armed conflicts and the persistent threat of global terrorism call for immediate attention and urgent response.
The fact of the matter is that the European security mechanism is vertically and horizontally generated among different intergovernmental and transnational institutions via different policy frameworks :Nato; the European defense community; the Common Security & Defence Policy(CSDP) ;European security and Defense policy ESDP ; andthe Organisation of Security Cooperation on Europe (OSCE)
The Role played by the GLOBSEC
GLOBSEC is determined to significantly contribute to the effort of building a better European security and counterterrorism paradigm. For the past several months, this organisation has been working on the GLOBSEC European Security Initiative which is to be presented and thoroughly discussed at the 2016 edition of GLOBSEC.
GLOBSEC puts Central Europe on the map of transatlantic thinking. Regional dimension of the forum is emphasized by the participation of highest level decision- -makers from the visegrad Group and wider Central European region alongside their Euro-Atlantic partners. GLOBSEC moves the region from the periphery to the core of transatlantic policy shaping, giving Central Europe a respected voice in the creation of the transatlantic agenda.
Due to the surge of terrorism on the European continent, which we deeply condemn, Europe clearly needs to rethink and augment its security and adopt a comprehensive strategy that will work across the borders of national states. Very few people in the world are more qualified to propose such measures than those who have been united by GLOBSEC to work on this Initiative. The aim of the Initiative is to create a set of national as well as European-level policy recommendations designed to increase the continent’s capacity to counter this increasingly sophisticated and challenging security threat.
The Initiative is led by the Honorary Steering Committee which unites senior policy-makers from all over the world. It is chaired by Mr Michael Chertoff, former US Secretary of Homeland Security. Other distinguished members of the committee include former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, former UK Home and Defence Secretary Lord Reid of Cardowan and August Hanning, former Director of the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND).
The Brussels attacks revealed the shortcomings of the Belgian security establishment, which is relatively small compared to the growing numbers of jihadists returning from abroad authorities must now monitor — on top of a large number of potential terrorists radicalized domestically. For EU member states, the terrorist threat justifies a return to public spending after years of austerity
The European Union faces obstacles to establishing a unified security network. For one thing, the organization’s 28 member states have different priorities, resources, and levels of expertise when it comes to fighting international crime and terrorism. Large countries such as France, the United Kingdom and Germany have significant counterterrorism experience and enough human and material resources to maintain sophisticated intelligence and anti-terrorism agencies. A new paper, Towards a ‘Security Union’: Bolstering the EU’s Counter-Terrorism Response, published on April 20 by the European Political Strategy Centre(EPSC), takes up this issue.
New resolve & reorientation
Despite the discord, additional cooperation on security issues is not impossible for the European Union. In the months to come, agencies such as Europol and Frontex will probably be given more resources, and the European Union will discuss plans for a stronger continental border and coast guard. The European Commission will also push for greater integration among security databases and an increase in security measures at airports. But the bloc will continue to encounter problems related to its fragmented security environment, simply because its very nature makes achieving a coherent response elusive. In fact, future EU governments may choose to reverse some aspects of continental integration to improve domestic security.
Measures to neutralise the financial sources of international terrorism
The European Union and Member States must strengthen their cooperation in order to cut off Daesh’s financial sources. In Spain’s case, improvements are necessary in the area of money laundering and the financing of terrorism. In its 2014 report on Spain, the FATF (Financial Action Task Force, intergovernmental organisation aimed at developing policies to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism) mentioned, amongst other areas where there is room for improvement, the low level of criminal sanctions for money laundering offences in our country; Spain’s refusal to freeze financial assets in the fight against terrorism; the lack of political and operational cooperation among the authorities in charge of export controls and those responsible for money laundering prevention; or the lack of sufficient regulations of financial intermediaries in electronic transfers.
There is a need to fix these shortcomings and to promote and encourage Europe-wide initiatives to tighthen the control of opaque capital flows inside and outside our continent. To that effect Europe will need to contribute to experience and knowledge in the field of financial regulation and control, as well as our tax inspection, intelligence, police, and customs services. In the fight against terrorism, nothing would be more useful than a coordinated action to combat tax havens and reinforce the mechanisms of control and supervision of international capital flows.
Likewise, the Europeans must strengthen the existing legislation and checks in all European countries in matters of arms control so they fully comply with the Arms Trade Treaty and other international treaties. This must also include drastic measures to neutralise the burgeoning black arms market in Europe, as sadly we’re seeing that the weapons used in the attacks are of European origin: Yugoslavian Zastava M70 assault rifles were found in the Bataclan concert hall; the Belgian police raids in Brussels found several AK-47, the Russian origin assault rifle that can be bought for a mere 300 euros in the Balkans, a region that has become a bridge for other markets.
To control this illegal market there arises exigency to establish a harmonised legal framework for arm ownership across the European Union that includes a register of arms sales in each European country, as well as the strengthening of police, intelligence, and judicial cooperation between States.
The response to violence, barbarism, and threats cannot be to sacrifice the core values of our societies, values that result from centuries of advancements and conquests that allow us to enjoy a life in democracy, freedom, and civil rights. Therefore, Europe today needs a different approach that guarantees the effectiveness of police, judicial, and intelligence cooperation within the full respect for human rights and international norms.
Restrictive laws in Spain -such as parts of the Penal Code, the Gagging Law, solitary confinement practices, the reform of universal jurisdiction, the Political Parties Act and so on- that do not contribute to reduce or eliminate the spiral of violence and undermine freedoms and the habeas corpus, must be modified. It is here that the European policy managers must also develop policies to fight against misogynistic violence and inequality in access to rights (including economic, social, and cultural ones) in vulnerable communities, both in Europe and in other countries where radicalisation is taking place.
Novel Approaches to Counter Radicalisation
Governments are too slow to respond to the means that ISIS uses to galvanise and mobilise networks. This calls for novel and innovative approaches to tackling this new security challenge, with a special focus on digital activities, especially at the grassroots level. ISIS exploits the ability of tech-savvy operators to produce attractive and professional propaganda material to justify and promote the idea of jihad. Its bottom-up approach allows it tailor to cultural nuances and operate in as many as 12 languages.
Governments should fight ISIS with its own tools, by helping unleash the potential of individuals and communities to counter ISIS propaganda. This could be done by promoting competitions and hackatons on ‘What is wrong with ISIS?’ To this end, grants and prizes could be given to schools and universities, grass-roots organisations and NGOs to produce counter-narratives. In addition, grants could train and support communities and NGOs to sharpen their digital skills and produce professional Internet-based content with the potential of going viral. Major Internet companies could fund these efforts as a concrete contribution under the framework of the EU Internet Forum, and grants could be operated by a foundation set up with the express purpose to fight radicalisation and offer young people alternative pathways.
Military capabilities
To reach military autonomy and the ability to intervene in the strategic neighbourhood when required, the EU should meet two general targets: i) capacity to support NATO and Nordic, Baltic, Central and Eastern European countries in deterring and countering conventional and hybrid warfare tactics. This entails capabilities for identifying, evaluating and responding to threats through a mix of special, permanent and rapid reaction forces, cyber defence and public diplomacy; and ii) political and military autonomy to conduct intervention operations in order to respond to or deter crises. Such operations will typically be conducted in partnership with regional actors, regional organisations or the UN to protect, inter alia, respect for fundamental rights, the rule of law, the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, as indeed the Union’s own fundamental interests, security and independence (cf. Article 21 TEU). This includes rapid deployment task forces across the three components (air, navy, and army), sustainable logistics, satellite communications, and security of supplies.
Facilitating Political Dialogue on Islam
Europe is home to a large and diverse Muslim population, including a second-generation migrant youth that faces significant challenges of socio-economic and cultural inclusion. Disenfranchisement, discrimination and social exclusion create a fertile ground for radical interpretations of Islam that explicitly reject the core of our common values.
In the framework of the dialogue established by Article 17 (3) TFEU, European Muslim community leaders have a defining role in the fight against radicalisation and jihadism. Their engagement at the local and European level requires positive role-models and outspoken thought-leaders to step into the limelight. The European institutions should play their role in animating and facilitating dialogue within and with the Muslim community. They should support a network and platform for Muslim thinkers in Europe engaged in moderate Islam.
Many in Europe think that EU must create a new security outlook paradigm, In order to solve the problem, other than the specific solutions of raiding one house or another, Europe will need to work on a master plan of close security and intelligence cooperation, and a multi-system program dealing with education and integration. The program needs to also include other states around the world.”
Enhancing transnational security
The transnational nature of new threats implies that development and cooperation policy needs to be an essential part of the basket of tools to ensure security. This would also imply a review of current spending, especially in the Middle East and Africa, both in terms of where money is invested and of how projects are carried out – for example, favouring direct execution of programmes vis-à-vis relying on external consortia.
Recent events have, indeed, uncovered failures in cooperation with partners around the Mediterranean, despite shared concerns. EU home affairs diplomacy and counter-terrorism cooperation must be developed as a matter of priority with essential partners from Turkey to Morocco. They should be encouraged to cooperate with the ECTC network to ensure adequate information sharing and police cooperation, in particular through the Interpol system. A transnational network of liaison officers could also be established in key countries to facilitate law enforcement and judicial cooperation on counter-terrorism, in addition to the experts already deployed by the European External Action Service.
The strategists firmly believe that the time has come for the creation of a European Defence Union (EDU) that supports NATO in its task to provide territorial defence. An ambitious EU foreign policy aimed at reducing instability and state fragility at the Union’s borders will take on and live up to security responsibilities in the strategic neighbourhood through the use of military force and rapid response as needed. It will also stimulate investment in innovative research programmes, leading to the creation of a competitive defence and technological industrial base. Increased unity is the only road to greater EU resilience in a changing world.
The European Council should define a roadmap with practical and realistic steps to move, by stages, from the blueprint to the launch of the EDU. To that end, EU leaders should appoint an independent committee, supported by the EEAS and the relevant branches of the European Commission acting under the authority of the HR/VP, to propose such a roadmap, similar to the approach to create the EMU and involving the attainment of harmonisation criteria and mandatory milestones for upgrades in each basket of reform.
Comments Off on Rethinking about the European security model?