NATO Seeks to Disintegrate Libya and Plunder its Rich Oil Resources, Russia and China Concerned By Western Interference in Middle East and North Africa, Condemn the Idea of Ground Military Operation, Russian Special Forces Kill Top Militant in Breakaway Chechnya, Moscow Will Hold Large-Scale Naval Drills With Norway, China Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan Hold Counterterrorism Drill in the Breakaway Region of Xinjiang, the Scenario Called on the Three Countries to Coordinate a Manhunt for anti-China Separatists, Beijing Sees a Role amid Pakistan-U.S. Rift, Urges World to Back Pakistan in Terror Fight, Indian Prime Minister Plans Trip to Afghanistan
NATO Seeks to Disintegrate Libya
A senior Libyan politician warned of the NATO’s suspicious moves in his country, saying that the West is seeking to prolong the war in Libya in a bid to disintegrate the North African country to plunder its rich oil resources.
“We know that the NATO coalition seeks its own interests by prolonging the war and wants to divide the country into several parts, but the Libyan nation is opposed to this option,” Secretary-General of Libya’s National Movement Meftah Lamloum told FNA on Sunday.
Lamloum expressed his deep suspicion about NATO’s goals in Libya, and cautioned that the western countries are seeking to plunder the country’s rich oil resources.
He further opposed foreign military intervention in his country, and underlined that the crisis in Libya can only be settled by the Libyan people.
Since the revolution against Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi’s regime began in mid-February, hundreds have been killed and injured in clashes between Libyan revolutionaries and pro-Gaddafi forces.
Many civilians have reportedly been killed since the Western coalition unleashed a major air campaign against the Libyan regime forces on March 19 under a UN no-fly zone mandate.
The Western military alliance has refused to apologize for the deadly bombardments.
Meantime, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also cautioned that the West is using the conflict in Libya as an excuse to sell its arms productions.
“They (the West) have frozen (Libya’s) funds under the pretext of the war and right now they are selling their stockpiled armaments and they withdraw the money for these arms sales from the account of those killed (in the war),” President Ahmadinejad said in Tehran on Thursday.
Fars News Agency | May 8, 2011
____________________
Russia, China concerned by western interference in Middle East
Russia and China are concerned about the situation in the Middle East and North Africa and will tighten cooperation in the region. The two countries’ foreign ministers made the decision during talks in Moscow.
Continue Reading >> Press TV | May 6, 2011
____________________
Russia kills top al-Qaeda militant in Chechnya
Hot on the heels of the United States special forces operation that ended in the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, Russia says its own forces have killed a top al-Qaeda militant in Chechnya.
Continue Reading >> Mail & Guardian Online | May 4, 2011
____________________
Russia, Norway to hold joint naval drills next week
Russia and Norway will hold large-scale naval exercise Pomor 2011 on May 11-16, a spokesman for Russia’s Northern Fleet said on Friday.
The drills in the Barents and Norwegian seas will involve Russian Udaloy class destroyer Vice Admiral Kulakov from the Northern Fleet, Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class frigate Helge Ingstad, coastal guard vessels and naval aircraft.
“The drills will include artillery firing at air and surface targets, anti-submarine warfare, an anti-piracy mission, and the freeing of an oil platform or a commercial ship from armed extremists,” Capt. 1st Rank Vadim Serga said.
Continue Reading >> RIA Novosti | May 6, 2011
____________________
China, Central Asian states hold anti-terror drill
Security forces from China and two Central Asian neighbors practiced hunting down violent separatists in a counterterrorism drill along a border area where ethnic Muslim rebels have staged attacks against Beijing’s rule, the government said Saturday.
Friday’s one-day exercise involved forces from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan as well as China and took place along their borders in the western Chinese region of Xinjiang, the government and media reports said.
The scenario called on the three countries to coordinate a manhunt for anti-China separatists who had set up a training camp on the Chinese side of the border, the China News Service said. Flushed out, the rebels hijacked a tourist bus that television footage showed black-suited tactical units storming, shattering the windows to get inside.
Continue Reading >> The Associated Press | May 7, 2011
____________________
China sees a role amid Pakistan-U.S. rift
Renewed strains in relations between Pakistan and the United States following last week’s killing of Osama bin Laden have been seen in China as opening the door for closer engagement with Islamabad.
According to officials and analysts here, China is keen to further tighten its already close relationship with its long-term strategic ally, driven by the view that the country is going to play a crucial, even defining, role in Afghanistan, amid declining U.S. influence there.
Continue Reading >> The Hindu | May 8, 2011
____________________
China urges world to back Pakistan in terror fight
China reaffirmed its support on Thursday for efforts by its ally Pakistan to combat terrorism after the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US forces, and urged the world to help Islamabad.
Foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu stopped short of directly criticising the daring raid by US special forces on Pakistani soil that ended with bin Laden’s death but said national sovereignty “should be respected” at all times.
Continue Reading >> AFP | May 5, 2011
____________________
Eye on Afghan endgame, PM plans trip to Kabul
[...] Though Singh has been planning the visit to Afghanistan for sometime now, the recent developments there as well as the killing of Bin Laden have “brought a sense of immediacy to the whole thing”, sources explained.
Continue Reading >> Hindustan Times | May 7, 2011
Blast Rocks Minsk Metro Near Lukashenko Office, Rouble Down By a Third against the Dollar, Lukashenko Says West “Trying to Strangle Belarus With a Slipknot”, Russia to Deliver More S-300 Air Defense Systems to Belarus, Seeks to Expand Its Customs Union, Kremlin Joy as Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan Sign up, Putin Urges Ukraine to Join New Space Center Project, Poland-Lithuania Relationship in Downward Spiral, Russia-Poland Rapprochement against a Backdrop of Contradictions, Moscow’s Star On Rise Again In Kyrgyzstan, Armenia Agrees Long-Term Russian Army Presence Boosting Moscow’s Military Influence in the South Caucasus Region, Turkey “Will Defend Rights of Azerbaijan”, Georgia Annuls Russian Military Transit Agreement, Saudi-Born Militant Killed in Chechnya, Israel Claims Russian Missile Hit School Bus, FSB Calls for Skype Gmail Ban in Russia
Belarus: Blast Rocks Minsk Metro Near Lukashenko Office
Belarus’ President Alexander Lukashenko says 11 people were killed and hundreds injured in an explosion in the metro system of the capital, Minsk.
He called for a moment of silence to honour those killed in the blast, which struck a metro station close to his main office and residence.
[...] Mr Lukashenko said it was aimed at undermining “peace and stability”.
And he hinted at foreign involvement, linking the explosion to a blast at a concert in 2008 in which about 50 people were injured.
“These are perhaps links in a single chain. We must find out who gained by undermining peace and stability in the country, who stands behind this,” Mr Lukashenko said.
“I do not rule out that this [blast] was a gift from abroad.”
Continue Reading >> BBC News | April 11, 2011
____________________
Belarus Rouble Plunges in Setback for Lukashenko
The Belarussian rouble BYR= lost more than a third of its value against the dollar on Wednesday after the central bank introduced a free floating exchange rate for trade between banks.
The development starkly highlighted the currency problems of the ex-Soviet republic and amounted to a setback for President Alexander Lukashenko who was due on Thursday to deliver his annual state of the nation speech.
Continue Reading >> Reuters | April 20, 2011
____________________
President Lukashenko says West trying ‘to strangle’ Belarus
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said on Thursday Western countries are preparing direct interference in his country’s affairs and are trying “to strangle the country with a slipknot.”
“First there were political threats, disavowal of [presidential] elections, [European] entry bans and economic sanctions. Then there was an instigation of turmoil on our foreign currency market and dances on the bones after the blast at the Oktyabrskaya metro station,” Lukashenko said addressing the parliament and his people.
Continue Reading >> RIA Novosti | April 21, 2011
____________________
Russia to Deliver More S-300 Air Defense Systems to Belarus
Russia will continue deliveries of S-300 air defense systems to Belarus, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said on Wednesday.
Belarus has several battalions equipped with Russian-made S-300 air defense systems on combat duty as part of the Russian-Belarusian integrated air defense network.
Continue Reading >> Democratic Belarus | April 21, 2011
____________________
Kremlin joy as Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan sign up for customs union
A post-Soviet customs bloc has received a major boost after the decision by Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan to sign up for membership.
Continue Reading >> Tribune Magazine | April 20, 2011
____________________
Putin Urges Ukraine To Join New Russian Space Center Project
Ukraine should participate in the construction of the Vostochny Space Center in Russia’s Far East, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in Kiev on Tuesday. Russia currently uses two launch sites: Baikonur in Kazakhstan, which it has leased since the end of the Soviet Union, and Plesetsk in northwest Russia.
Putin said construction work at the new space center had already started.
“You can join at the first stage,” the prime minister said at a meeting with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Yanukovych, in response, said there were good prospects for Russian-Ukrainian space cooperation.
Continue Reading >> News One | April 13, 2011
____________________
Poland-Lithuania Relationship in Downward Spiral
Relations between Poland and Lithuania deteriorated to a new low when Poland summoned its neighbor’s ambassador to express anger over what it called “the atmosphere of hostility” toward the Polish minority in Lithuania.
Continue Reading >> The Wall Street Journal | April 20, 2011
____________________
Russia-Poland rapprochement against a backdrop of contradictions
[...] However, these changes in rhetoric have not caused any change in the two states’ strategic priorities. On the eve of the NATO summit in Lisbon (19-20 November 2010) President Komorowski confirmed the inviolability of the basic principles of Polish foreign policy, namely: the perception of Russia as a potential threat; assistance in preserving U.S. military presence in Europe, and assistance in integrating former Soviet republics into “Transatlantic institutions.” During the Warsaw meeting Komorowski also added that Poland would only countenance cooperation with Russia in the broader context of relations with the EU and NATO. Besides, Warsaw did not withdraw from the plan to allow U.S. TMD systems to be based on its territory or “the promotion of democracy” in Ukraine and Belarus. Such moves prompted hesitant but harsh criticism from Russia.
Continue Reading >> RIA Novosti | April 19, 2011
____________________
Russia’s Star On Rise Again In Kyrgyzstan
Outside forces have competed for influence in Kyrgyzstan since the vacuum left by the Soviet Union’s collapse two decades ago.
Kyrgyzstan allowed the United States to use its Manas airport for supporting efforts in Afghanistan and eagerly welcomed Chinese investment. Bishkek also granted Russia use of an air base at Kant. Kyrgyz policy appeared to play one power off against another.
For a time, Russia’s power appeared to be on the wane. But the overthrow of Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiev’s regime a year ago might have paved the way for Moscow’s resurgence.
Continue Reading >> Eurasianet | April 9, 2011
____________________
Armenia Agrees Long-Term Russian Army Presence
Armenia’s parliament on Tuesday ratified a deal to allow Russian troops to remain in the country for more than 30 years, boosting Moscow’s military influence in the strategic South Caucasus region.
Continue Reading >> Hurriyet Daily News | April 12, 2011
____________________
Erdogan says Turkey will defend rights of Azerbaijan
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Wednesday Turkey had made commitments to protect rights of Armenian people, however, he added that Turkey would also defend rights of Azerbaijan.
Continue Reading >> World Bulletin | April 13, 2011
____________________
Georgia Annuls Military Transit Treaty with Russia
Georgian Parliament unanimously endorsed on April 19 government’s proposal to annul a five-year agreement with Russia setting out procedures for transit of Russian military personnel and cargo to Armenia via Georgia.
Continue Reading >> Georgian Daily | April 19, 2011
____________________
Saudi militant killed in Chechnya
Officials said the militant known as Moganned had been operating in the northern Caucasus since 1999 and was involved in many bombings.
Continue Reading >> The Taipei Times | April 24, 2011
____________________
Israel claims Russian missile hit school bus
Israel claims anti-tank missile Kornet involved in terror attack originates from Russian factory. Official: It was smuggled into Gaza with Syria, Iran’s help.
Continue Reading >> Ynetnews | April 11, 2011
____________________
Kremlin rejects FSB proposal to ban Skype, Gmail
A Kremlin official has rejected a proposal from within Russia’s main domestic security agency to ban Skype, Gmail and Hotmail as a major threat to national security.
Continue Reading >> The Associated Press | April 9, 2011
U.S. and Kyrgyzstan Sign Air Base Fuel Supply Deal, Moscow to Help Kyrgyzstan Enter Customs Union, Russia and Tajikistan Debate Sharing Military Base, Japan Eyes Uzbekistan’s Rich Natural Resources
Kyrgyzstan and the United States signed an agreement on Tuesday on jet fuel supplies to a U.S. air base in the Central Asian state, replacing previous deals with a more transparent system.
The new government in Kyrgyzstan, which also hosts a Russian air base, has tried to remove opaque supply schemes which it says favoured the clan of former President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, deposed in a popular uprising last April.
The Manas base, located at Kyrgyzstan’s main civilian airport outside the capital Bishkek, is a vital transit point for the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.
Continue Reading >> Reuters | February 8, 2011
____________________
Russia to Help Kyrgyzstan Enter Customs Union – Russia’s Customs Chief
Russia could share experience with Kyrgyzstan on entering the Customs Union, currently made up of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, Andrei Belyaninov, the head of Russia’s Customs Service said on Thursday.
In late December, Kyrgyz Prime Minister Almazbek Atambayev said the country was interested in joining the Customs Union.
[...] The creation of a common economic space stipulating the free movement of goods, assets and labor force between the countries is to become the next stage of their integration.
Continue Reading >> RIA Novosti | February 10, 2011
____________________
Russia and Tajikistan Debate Sharing Ayni Base
Russia and Tajikistan continue to negotiate over the use of the Ayni military airport near Dushanbe. And the key issue under debate now is whether the base would be a solely Russian facility, or a joint Tajikistan-Russia operation. That’s according to Tajikistan political analyst Alexander Sodiqov, writing on Jamestown’s Eurasia Daily Monitor.
Continue Reading >> EurasiaNet | February 9, 2011
____________________
Japan Eyes Uzbekistan’s Rich Natural Resources
Japan and Uzbekistan agreed Wednesday to strengthen their strategic bilateral partnership in a wide range of fields, including the development of natural resources such as uranium and rare metals.
[...] “Uzbekistan . . . is geopolitically a very important country to Japan, and at the same time it is a strategically important partner from the viewpoint of energy and resources,” Kan told Karimov at their summit.
Continue Reading >> The Japan Times | February 10, 2011
Afghan President : U.S. Seeking Permanent Military Bases, U.S. Postpones Meeting with Pakistan and Afghanistan, Threatens to Cut Aid to Pakistan, Pakistan Issues Arrest Warrant for Former President Exiled in London, U.S. National Who Trained London Suicide Bombers Released for “Exceptional Cooperation”, Former Senior Taliban Member Visits Britain for Secret Insurgency-Ending Talks
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has confirmed that the Obama Administration has been in secret talks with him to formalize a system of permanent military bases across the war torn nation, effectively pledging to keep the unpopular occupation a permanent aspect of life in Afghanistan.
Continue Reading >> Press TV | February 9, 2011
____________________
U.S. Postpones Meeting With Pakistan and Afghanistan
The United States this weekend postponed high-level talks to be held in Washington with Pakistan and Afghanistan, a sign of the displeasure with Pakistan over the arrest of an American official accused of murder.
The talks scheduled for Feb. 23 and Feb. 24, held annually to discuss the war in Afghanistan, involve foreign ministers and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
[...] The State Department did not give a precise public explanation for the postponement of the talks except to say that “in light of the political changes in Pakistan” the talks would not go ahead.
But American officials said the talks were postponed because it was unlikely they would produce anything worthwhile in the charged atmosphere between Pakistan and the United States.
Continue Reading >> The New York Times | February 13, 2011
____________________
US Threatens to Cut Aid to Pakistan
US congress members have threatened to stop aid to Pakistan unless it releases an American detained over shooting deaths of two Pakistani men.
[...] Many observers have questioned whether Davis was an ordinary diplomat.
Three members of the US House of Representatives drove home the point on a visit to Pakistan, telling Yusuf Raza Gilani, the Pakistani prime minister, that congress was working on its budget and looking for areas to cut.
Continue Reading >> Al-Jazeera | February 9, 2011
____________________
Pakistan Issues Arrest Warrant for Pervez Musharraf
A Pakistani anti-terrorism court has issued an arrest warrant for former military ruler Pervez Musharraf over the assassination of an opposition leader. [...] Mr Musharraf – who lives in self-imposed exile in London – denies the allegations. His spokesman, Fawad Chaudhry, said Mr Musharraf had no intention of returning to Pakistan for the hearing.
Continue Reading >> BBC News | February 11, 2011
____________________
Terrorist Who Trained 7/7 Bomber Released After Five Years
A terrorist who was jailed for founding a training camp where the leader of the July 7 London suicide bombers were taught to make bombs has been released from prison after serving less than five years, it was claimed.
American Mohammed Junaid Babar walked free just four and a half years into a sentence that could have lasted as long as 70, prompting claims he may have been acting as an informant.
The decision to sentence him to “time served” due to what a New York judge termed his “exceptional co-operation” dating back to before his arrest led to suggestions Babar could have been helping US authorities even while helping to train the man who led the 2005 attacks on London.
[...] According to court documents Babar was sentenced to “time served” in court on December 10, six years after being arrested.
He had spent slightly more than four years in prison and two years on bail.
Continue Reading >> The Daily Telegraph | February 14, 2011
____________________
Former Senior Taliban Member Visits Britain
A former high-ranking member of the Taliban has made the first visit to Britain by a member of the regime to take part in secret negotiations.
Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, a member of the Taliban government before September 11, visited London last week amid closely controlled security.
Zaeef, who is still said to be close to Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, attended a closed conference part funded by the Foreign Office to discuss peace proposals aimed at ending the fighting.
The Taliban leader arrived in Britain on Wednesday and stayed in a central London hotel. He was banned from speaking publicly by the terms of his visa but is thought to have held private meetings with British officials.
Britain is attempting to facilitate talks between Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, and senior members of the Taliban.
A senior Foreign Office official said last month that senior members of the Taliban have been putting out “feelers” about making peace with the Western-backed government in Kabul.
Continue Reading >> The Daily Telegraph | February 13, 2011
U.S. Wants Chain of Anti-Russian Bases in Central Asia
Russia has been warning Tajikistan that the U.S. wants to overthrow President Emomali Rakhmon for the sake of eliminating Russian influence in the country and creating “a string of anti-Russia military bases from Baghram (Afghanistan) to Manas (Kyrgyzstan).” That’s according to a U.S. State Department cable just released by WikiLeaks. It recounts a conversation with then-U.S. ambassador to Tajikistan Richard Hoagland and Tajikistan’s ambassador to Washington, Homrahon Zaripov, who was back home in Dushanbe at the time.
[...] This is, of course, before the relatively West-friendly Dmitry Medvedev came to power in Moscow and the Obama administration’s “reset” with Russia, so it’s worth wondering if this attitude still pervades. A more recent cable, from February 2010, describes deteriorating Russia-Tajikistan relations, but doesn’t much touch on Russia’s perception of what the U.S. is doing in Tajikistan.
Continue Reading >> Eurasianet | February 5, 2011
Instability in Algeria and Energy Implications For Europe
[...] Europe does not like relying on Russia for natural gas because that gas has to come through Ukrainian pipelines. Three times in the last five years, there have been major supply disruptions due to allegations that the Ukrainians were siphoning off gas. The most serious disruption came in January 2009, when 18 European countries reported major drops or complete gas cut-offs.
[...] The EU has a “four corridors” plan for its natural gas needs: it will draw from Norway, a reliable supplier; Russia, through those Ukrainian pipelines; North Africa, primarily Algeria; and Central Asia and the Middle East, through Turkey. It would be a great plan, if only it were closer to reality. The Turkish route relies on the long-planned Nabucco pipeline, which is making very slow progress towards construction. And Norway’s reserves are dwindling. Up steps Algeria in importance.
Forbes | January 30, 2011
China and America: A second Cold War?
The Obama administration is working to maintain positive US-china relations; however the nation remains a serious enemy in the minds of many American politicians.
To make matters more contentious, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced $78 billion cuts to the Pentagon budget and is currently on a trip to China. Those who see China as a greater threat argue cuts will damage America security and what is really needed are boosts in US defense spending.
Journalist Pepe Escobar from the Asia Times explained that the Pentagon, from a Chinese perspective, can easily be conceived as a threat, but not the other way around.
US forces are based in South Korea, Japan and other parts of Asia, as well as Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and the Indian Ocean. US military expansion in Asia is ongoing through regions strategically important to China.
Russia Today | January 11, 2011
Former Turkish Intelligence Chief : CIA Conducted Operations via Islamic Group in Central Asia
A memoir by a top former Turkish intelligence official claims that a worldwide moderate Islamic movement based in Pennsylvania has been providing cover for the CIA since the mid-1990s.
The memoir, roughly rendered in English as “Witness to Revolution and Near Anarchy,” by retired Turkish intelligence official Osman Nuri Gundes, says the religious-tolerance movement, led by an influential former Turkish imam by the name of Fethullah Gulen, has 600 schools and 4 million followers around the world.
In the 1990s, Gundes alleges, the movement “sheltered 130 CIA agents” at its schools in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan alone, according to a report on his memoir Wednesday by the Paris-based Intelligence Online newsletter.
The Washington Post | January 5, 2011
China Quietly Extends Footprints Into Central Asia
Murghab, Tajikistan — On the outskirts of this wind-scoured town, founded in 1893 as a Russian military post, the construction of a new customs compound heralds the return of another major power.
When it opens this year, the sprawling new lot will accommodate much larger caravans of Chinese trucks than the existing trade depot, speeding the flow of clothing, electronics and household appliances that have lately flooded Central Asia, from nomadic yurts on the Kyrgyz steppes to ancient alleyways in Samarkand and Bukhara.
“Trade is growing between China and all these countries around it,” said Tu’er Hong, whose truck was one of about 50 from China transferring goods to Tajik drivers one day recently at the current post.
While China is seizing the spotlight in East and Southeast Asia with its widening economic footprint and muscular diplomacy, it is also quietly making its presence felt on its western flank, once primarily Russia’s domain.
Chinese officials see Central Asia as a critical frontier for their nation’s energy security, trade expansion, ethnic stability and military defense. State enterprises have reached deep into the region with energy pipelines, railroads and highways, while the government has recently opened Confucius Institutes to teach Mandarin in capitals across Central Asia.
Central Asia, says Gen. Liu Yazhou of the People’s Liberation Army, is “the thickest piece of cake given to the modern Chinese by the heavens.”
The New York Times | January 2, 2011
Chinese Military Advisors in Afghanistan?
Chinese advisers are believed to be working with Afghan Taliban groups who are now in combat with NATO forces, prompting concerns that China might become the conduit for shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, improved communications and additional small arms to the fundamentalist Muslim fighters.
A British military official contends that Chinese specialists have been seen training Taliban fighters in the use of infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles. This is supported by a May 13, 2008, classified U.S. State Department document released by WikiLeaks telling U.S. officials to confront Chinese officials about missile proliferation.
Aviation Week | December 13, 2010
War for Caspian Sea inevitable?
The countries of the Caspian region are trying to find a solution to a long-standing dispute about the Caspian Sea. There is something to argue about indeed: sturgeons, crude and natural gas deposits, as well as the transportation of oil and gas. The leaders of Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan gathered in Baku (the capital of Azerbaijan) to discuss the problem in detail.
The legal status of the Caspian Sea has not been solved yet. Consequently, not all Caspian states could settle the question about sea borders. Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan seem to have agreed on the issue, but the state of affairs in the southern part of the Caspian Sea is still unstable.
Iran’s position is the main problem here. This country claims its rights for one-fifth part of the sea, which is unacceptable for all other Caspian states.
Russia Today: Caspian nations discuss sea’s legal status
Similar problems exist in the relations between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, as well as between Azerbaijan and Iran. These countries still argue about the borders of their sectors of the sea.
The Caspian dispute has triggered the militarization of the Caspian Sea. Turkmenistan’s President Gurbangully Berdymuhammedov approved the establishment of the Navy of Turkmenistan. The country only had patrol boats before, and it was obvious that Turkmenistan was too weak to compete against the navy of Azerbaijan, which has the second largest navy in the region (following Russia).
“The Caspian Sea is not just a pool, as many people call it. The sea is very rich with oil and gas reserves. A special agreement, signed by the Caspian states, divides the sea into several zones, but some members of the agreement still argue about its terms. It seems that there is no peaceful solution to the problem, so the navy will play an important role at this point. One should also take account of the destructive influence of the West, the USA, first and foremost, as they attempt to destabilize the situation in the region,” the expert said.
“Andrey Grozin, a senior expert with the Institute for CIS and Baltic States, believes that any country, including Turkmenistan, wants to defend its interests.
“The dispute between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan is one of the key ones. They fight for the right to develop three large oil fields. Azerbaijan already develops two of the three disputed fields, which Turkmenistan considers its own. Western partners hoped that it would be possible to change the situation for the better after Turkmenistan had a new leader, but the problem still remains unsolved,” the expert said.
Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan realize their importance to the West as fuel suppliers and they compete with each other. Turkmenistan understands that Nabucco will not happen without Turkmen gas. The resources of Azerbaijan play an important role in the work of the trans-Caspian gas pipeline. Azerbaijan is much more important when it comes to the transit of Central Asian gas to Europe.
It is an open secret that neither Iran nor Russia were considered as partners for Nabucco project. As for Russia, Nabucco was designed to eliminate Russia’s influence in the transportation of natural gas to Europe.
Sergey Balmasov
Pravda | November 19, 2010
Northern route eases supplies to US forces in Afghanistan
The United States has established several new transit corridors to deliver non-lethal goods to its forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan had previously been the main transit point for all types of supplies, but the increasingly fragile security situation along its border with Afghanistan convinced the US authorities of the need to establish alternative routes. A major component of this strategy is the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a series of rail, water and road links to deliver cargo to Afghanistan through the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. The network now handles about 30% of all ground supplies.
The NDN comprises a southern route – starting at the Georgian port of Poti, going over land to the port of Baku, Azerbaijan, then by ferry to Aqtau, Kazakhstan, and on through Uzbekistan to Afghanistan – and a more heavily used northern route, traversing Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. A spur of the northern route bypasses Uzbekistan and runs from Kazakhstan via Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, but is hampered by bad roads in Tajikistan. Moving supplies via the northern rail route costs approximately 10% of the cost of movement by air.
The US military is keen to have a diverse range of supply routes so as to avoid dependency on any particular one. For example, if it were to secure a transit agreement with Turkmenistan, the port of Turkmenbashi could be an additional destination for goods leaving Baku by ferry. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited Baku in June 2010 to strengthen ties with Azerbaijan and discussed ways to diversify routes. Washington is also exploring the idea of expanding the NDN eastwards by adding a Chinese branch, originating in China’s Pacific ports and travelling via road and rail to Afghanistan.
IISS | November 23, 2010
US to deploy tanks in southern Afghanistan
The US is to deploy heavily-armoured battle tanks to Afghanistan for the first time in the nine-year war, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said on Friday.
A total of 14 M1A1 Abrams tanks and about 115 US Marines will be sent to the volatile south of the country, where fighting against Taliban insurgents is at its fiercest.
Canadian and Danish troops have used tanks in southern Afghanistan in recent years.
No timeframe was given for the latest deployment but the use of tanks is likely to be seen as a sign of a further escalation in counter-insurgency tactics against the Taliban to end the deadly insurgency.
A senior ISAF official in Kabul told AFP by telephone that the tanks would be deployed in Helmand and Kandahar provinces and were “absolutely necessary and useful” for fighting in the hostile desert terrain.
“The capabilities the tanks provide will enable the Marines to isolate insurgent forces from key population centres and provide the ability to project power into insurgent safe havens,” he added in emailed comments.
“The superior optics, manoeuvrability and precision firepower of the M1A1 Abrams will be helpful to ISAF forces who are operating in still contested areas.”
Commanders hope the use of tanks will allow them to secure and guard key routes where militants place roadside bombs — a key guerrilla tactic — as well as prove effective against militants in “dug in” positions or in compounds.
“Tanks are capable of defeating insurgents even if they use such tactics, using precision firing to engage insurgents with little risk of civilian casualties or collateral damage,” the official added.
A US defence official told the Washington Post earlier that the development was “pretty significant” although conceded that by deploying tanks so late in the conflict could be seen as a sign of desperation.
The defence web site www.globalsecurity.org says the 1,500 horse power M1A1 weighs 63 tons, has a top speed of 42 miles (68 kilometres) per hour and does 0.6 miles to the gallon (3.8 litres per kilometre).
Its main weapon is the 120mm M256 smooth bore cannon, which can fire successfully at targets up to four kilometres away.
AFP | November 19, 2010
____________________
Tanks in a mountainous country.
US to spend 500 million dollars on embassy in Afghanistan
The United States is bolstering its presence in Afghanistan with a 500 million dollar expansion of its Kabul embassy and the construction of two consulates, it announced Wednesday.
Washington’s Kabul embassy is already its biggest in the world, with about 1,100 employees, projected to rise to 1,200 by the end of the year, officials said.
Hundreds have arrived over the course of this year as part of a “civilian surge” bringing development experts into the country to compliment the military effort already in its 10th year.
The United States and NATO have 150,000 troops in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban-led insurgency, following a military surge aimed at speeding an end to the war.
The embassy expansion contract was worth 511 million dollars and had been awarded under US law to an American company, Caddell Construction Inc., ambassador Karl Eikenberry said.
Another two contracts, worth 20 million dollars each, have been awarded for the construction of consulates in Herat, the main city in western Afghanistan, and Mazar-I-Sharif in the north, he said.
Speaking to a gathering of Afghan officials, Eikenberry said the expansion would enable the United States “to carry out its pledge to maintain into the future its very significant security, government, economic and civil society programmes”.
AFP | November 5, 2010
China Strategically Undercuts US In Middle East
The Middle East Region has always figured high in China’s Grand Strategy not only in terms of lucrative markets for China’s economy and energy security but far more importantly in geopolitical terms. Hemmed-in by the vast Pacific Ocean under United States military control and supremacy, in China’s Grand Strategy a “Look West” Strategy as opposed to the “Look East” Strategy of her peer Asian rival has received concerted strategic focus. This is the driving factor in Chinese policy formulations towards the Middle East and Central Asia.
China views the Middle East Region as a strategically lucrative region where China can exploit the disequilibrium generated by the United States strategic acts of commission and omission in the last decade or so. The Region was therefore ripe for China’s strategic undercutting of the United States.
Undoubtedly, the United States has been the predominant strategic and military power in the Middle East historically during the Cold War era and would continue to do so throughout this century notwithstanding the turbulence generated by the Middle East Region lying at the “crossroads of radicalism and technology”
China is fully aware that it cannot dislodge the United States from the Middle East even with its burgeoning military capabilities, but that does not mean that China will ease up her strategic blueprint to unsettle the United States’ regional hegemonic control of the vital energy resources critically important for China’s strategic and political rise.
China unlike East Asia, views the Middle East Region as a springboard which can facilitate China’s grasping the superpower status by an intrusive strategic and military presence facilitated by Middle East nations resentment of United States unbridled control of the Region. China perceives that Arab nations and others in the Middle East look upon a ‘rising China’ as a strategic insurance against United States as a countervailing Power, or failing that as an important ‘political leverage’ that can be used by them to withstand United States pressures.
This predominant feeling is best captured by the observations of a noted Egyptian analyst who states that: “The Arab World is still weeping for the golden dawn of the Cold War”. Contemporarily, it seems that this Region is expecting that China would provide an opposing pole against the United States in the Middle East and that the Middle East is ripe for a United States-China Cold War.
In the coming years in the global power games, one can expect China to increase her footholds and her strategic footprints in the Middle East Region far more expansively to strategically undercut United States strategic control of the Middle East Region. It needs to be emphasized that China has carved out a sizeable line-up of major powers in her favor by use of her ‘soft power’ and supplies of missiles arsenals to countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran and others.
Lately China introduced a new element of use of ‘hard power’ ( symbolic demonstration) by drawing in Turkey into joint air force exercises conducted in Turkish air- space with these Chinese Air Force fighter planes refueling stop-overs at Pakistani and Iranian air-bases.
This Paper intends to examine the following related issues to China’s strategic undercutting of the United States in the Middle East:
China’s Upsurge in Forging a Substantial Strategic Presence in the Middle East: China’s Strategic Ambitions and the Geopolitical Facilitators
Pakistan as a Force-Multiplier in China’s Growing Enlargement of Strategic Presence in the Gulf Region of the Middle East: Perspectives
China: Will it Strategically and Militarily Confront the United States in the Event of a Middle East Showdown?
United States Options in the Middle East
China’s Upsurge in Forging a Substantial Strategic Presence in the Middle East: China’s Strategic Ambitions and the Geopolitical Facilitators
China’s upsurge in forging a substantial strategic presence in the Middle East is a follow-up of the gains it has made in incrementally expanding its strategic presence over the last 20-25 years. China’s pattern established so far has focused on weaning away strong US-allies in the Region like Saudi Arabia and reinforcing the military capabilities of nations and entities opposed to the United States like Iran, Libya, the Lebanon armed militias and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The sinister overtones of China establishing its strategic footprints in the Middle East were manifested in China supplying long range ballistic missile ( IRBMs ) directly and by proxy through North Korea to Saudi Arabia and Iran and giving access to nuclear weapons technology of Chinese-origin through Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran.
Interwoven into these strategic moves by China has been a wide array of economic and trade linkages which China has crafted over the years which strengthen the political and economic dependency of Middle East nations on China.
The deductions that need to be recorded from the above pattern are as follows;
China’s IRBMs supplies, access to Chinese-origin nuclear weapons technology. and sizeable supplies of conventional weapons supplies to a highly volatile region like the Middle East indicate that China is not a responsible stakeholder in Middle East security and stability. The Middle East is a strategic pawn of China in its global tussle with the United States.
The charge against China gets further aggravated that China had no compunction in arming known regional military rivals like Saudi Arabia and Iran and thereby further aggravating regional flashpoints and tensions.
China had no compunction in strong military linkages with Israel which was hated in the Middle East by both Arab and non-Arab Muslim states.
China’s current upsurge in forging a substantial presence in the Middle East Region needs to be understood in the context of China’s strategic ambitions which are:
Constrained in East Asia by United States supremacy, China perceives that despite United States hegemonic (Chinese perceptions) hold in the Middle East, the Middle East offers China prospects of establishing a substantial strategic presence in the Region.
China’s strategic ambitions to emerge as a global superpower can be facilitated by the Middle East nations as the Middle East today looms large as the centre of strategic gravity in the global strategic calculus.
China perceives that as opposed to Russia with limited economic resources, China is better placed to emerge as the alternative power in the United States and fill the strategic vacuum that may ensue if it exits Afghanistan. With a cascading deleterious effect on the Gulf Region
China’s strategic calculations would conclude that in terms of China’s power projection for a greater global role the Middle East Region provides a fertile springboard for the same.
The geopolitical factors facilitating China’s strategic upsurge in the Middle East can be attributed to the following:
The Middle East nations are strategically inclined to welcome a Chinese strategic embrace impelled by the desire to find in China a countervailing power to the United States.
The Middle East nations feel that even if China cannot provide countervailing power against the United States directly, China can still provide strong leverages to Middle East nations to withstand United States pressures on conflictual issues
Geopolitically China and the Middle East have convergent perspectives that United States global power and sustainability is on the wane after the events in Afghanistan and that opens avenues for both of them to move closer.
China today stands backed strongly by three Muslim nations in this part of the world namely Saudi Arabia. Iran and Pakistan, two of whom are located on either side of the Gulf and the third Pakistan, on the Eastern flank of the strategic Straits of Hormuz All three can be said to be instrumental in paving the way for China’s greater strategic foothold in the Middle East..
Pakistan as a Force Multiplier in China’s Growing Enlargement of Strategic Presence in the Gulf Region of the Middle East: Perspectives
Pakistan’s insidious role in furthering China’s strategic presence in the Gulf Region more specifically has been little noticed or commented upon by the global community. Pakistan has been a strategic ally and a loyal foot-soldier of furthering China’s strategic designs in Greater South West Asia which includes the Gulf Region.
One can list four strategic entanglements of Pakistan with China which greatly facilitate China’s designs to strategically undercut the United States in the Middle East. These are:
Gwadar Naval Base access to China for naval presence in the Indian Ocean, North Arabian Sea and The Gulf.
The Karakoram Corridor being provided to China by Pakistan integrating the existing Karakoram Highway linking Pakistan and China with planned road links and railway lines linking China with Gwadar
Pakistan aiming for restoration of a Pak-friendly and China-friendly Taliban regime in Afghanistan so that the vulnerabilities of the above two to US military actions is liquidated.
Pakistan has a Chinese-origin nuclear weapons technology and thereby generating grave risks for United States overall security.
The significant point to note is that Pakistan is providing land-access and air-access to China to touch base in the Middle East and Gwadar in Pakistan is a strategic-enabler for a Chinese naval presence in the Gulf Region. It is also significant that even Iran unlike Pakistan has yet to provide use of its naval bases to China.
All of the above would emerge as force-multipliers for China, courtesy the Pakistan Army, to strategically undercut the United States embedment in the Gulf and the Middle East.
China: Will it Strategically Confront the United States in the Event of a Middle East Military Showdown?
Noted American strategic analysts have rightly opined that China’s strategy against the United States in the Middle East would revolve around the principles of “neither peace nor war” and further that “China will avoid both partnership and direct confrontation with the United States”.
Taking off from the above summations, one can safely assert that in the churning dynamics of the Middle East, China would ever be alert to ambush and undercut the United States strategically in this vital region, crucial for United States strategic interests.
The foremost recent example of this is China’s strategic cozying-up to Turkey at a moment when Turkey stands disillusioned with the West and the United States. Take the case of the Iranian nuclear program which is a bugbear to the United States where Russia has veered around to side with the United States but China is holding out in favor of Iran .
The Middle East in the coming years is likely to witness an intensified “Cold War” by China to strategically undercut the United States in the Middle East. China is cashing in on the Middle East nations led by Saudi Arabia loosening their linkages with the United States.
Finally, one would like to assert that even in the event of any remote eventuality of a showdown; China would be reluctant to enter into any military conflict with the United States over the Middle East.
Contrarily, China would not hesitate to enter into an armed conflict with the United States over any US military intervention in Pakistan. Without Pakistan as a loyal foot-soldier of China’s Grand Strategy in the Middle East and the Islamic World, the entire Chinese blueprint for undercutting the United States in the Middle East would unravel and China gets reduced to strategic confinement in East Asia.
United States Options in the Middle East
In brief outline, United States must attempt to incorporate the following major ingredients in its Middle East policy formulations to checkmate China’s strategic designs:
Israel should not be pressurized to forego its vital national security interests impacting on its survival in the cause of a Greater Middle East Peace. Peace in the Middle East is not possible until leading Arab countries recognize Israel as a sovereign State within its present boundaries.
Turkey must be wooed and won over again by the West and the United States from its present strategy more prompted by its disillusionment with European opposition to its membership of the European Union. Turkey is the natural regional power of the Middle East and the United States should attempt to give allowances for its yearnings.
Iran was once a staunch ally of the United States. Attempts should be made to win it over once again despite any Saudi Arabian pressures on the United States to the contrary.
Russia needs to be co-opted by the United States into a workable partnership for strategic management of the Middle East.
Pakistan which is not only a regional spoiler state in South Asia has now emerged as “The Chinese Pitch-Fork” to assist China’s undercutting the United States strategically in this region. The United States urgently needs to “reset” its policy buttons on Pakistan..
The United States at no cost should strategically exit from Afghanistan. An effective and strong United States embedment in Afghanistan would foil and pre-empt China’s strategy to undercut United States strategically in the Middle East.
Finally, its is my feeling that the United States out of deference to Pakistan Army’s sensitivities has in the past decade or so ,in a very subtle manner motivated India to “Look East”. The time has now come for the United States to encourage India to “Look West’ towards a greater role in the Middle East.
China’s ‘soft power’ strategy in the Middle East can be matched more effectively by India’s matching ‘soft power’ approaches in the Middle East. India has a longer historical, economic and cultural links with the Middle East than China. Ironically, India gave China an access to the Middle East at the Bandung Non-Aligned Nati- heartedness.
Concluding Observations
In China’s Grand Strategy to grab superpower status, the Middle East Region figures as the “master-key” where China could reasonably expect to displace the United States predominance as compared to East Asia..
China so far has relied on making strategic headway in the Middle East by an imaginative use of ‘soft power’ and by cashing –in on grudges of Middle East nations towards the United States However, what is now unfolding in China’s strategy to undercut the United States in the Middle East strategically, is a muted use of ‘hard power’ ingredients too.
The United States would be well advised to divert its focus from a Middle East Peace Settlement to that of exploring urgently policy options that would enable the United States to pre-empt China from strategically under-cutting the United States in the Middle East.
The United States needs to recognize that a Middle East Peace Settlement is not on the horizon as the Middle East nations perceive the United States as a waning power in the face of China’s rising power. The United States need s to reset this misperception right.
The United States ‘master-key’ to foil China’s strategic undercutting of the United States in the Middle East lies in a sustained and effective political and military embedment in Afghanistan.
Suman Sharma is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group
Eurasia Review | October 27, 2010
France, Kazakhstan sign deals worth two billion euros
Kazakhstan’s government signed some 2 billion euros (USD2.8 billion) worth of deals with French industrial groups on Wednesday as part of the central Asian country’s drive to modernise and attract foreign investment, AFP reported. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev announced the deals, including contracts with EADS, Alstom, and Areva, after a working lunch at the Elysee presidential palace. Among the 18 deals announced was a contract with aerospace group EADS for 45 EC145 helicopters, another with engineering group Alstom for 295 locomotives and one with energy firm Areva to build a nuclear materials assembly plant in Kazakhstan.
Alstom’s deal, part of a joint venture with Russian railway equipment maker Transmashholding (TMH), is worth 800 million euros, said the head of Alstom Transport, Phillippe Mellier.
Focus Information | October 27, 2010
____________________
Kazakhstan agreed in 2009 to allow military hardware for French forces fighting in Afghanistan to pass through its territory.
The Importance of Turkmenistan
Analyst Eugene Chausovsky looks at the geopolitics behind Turkmenistan’s importance to players beyond its Central Asian neighbors.
Stratfor | October 21, 2010
China Driving India, Russia Together
At the end of the Cold War, India had a choice either to remain isolated and strengthen the nonalignment movement or join hands with the United States to ultimately balance the growing influence of China. India opted for the latter in light of its own geopolitics.
As part of its strategy to keep South Asia clear of Chinese interference and extend its own influence into the greater part of the Asia-Pacific region, India began courting allies in Southeast Asia with a “Look East” policy. Now, if India has to be reckoned as a great power, it needs to look westward. It needs to spread its influence into Central Asia.
If that’s to happen, India has to find a stable and reliable partner to the north. Russia, an old friend of India’s from the days of the Cold War, will welcome India’s presence in Central Asia to counter China’s ambitions in the region. India’s booming economy moreover can act as a major attraction to Russian industry. Defense contracts serve India’s ambition to continue and improve relations with the Russian Bear.
For quite some time, India and Russia have been moving in that direction. For instance, the two powers have been conducting annual discussions on defense cooperation. This year’s talks centered on Russia’s fifth generation fighter aircraft, a deal worth some $25 billion, and the leasing of the Akula submarine. India plans to get 250 of the fighter jets for its air force while the nuclear submarine will be leased by the Indian Navy for ten years to train personnel before the INS Arihant, the first submarine developed and built in India, joins the fleet. India and Russia have already had developed the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile together.
There has been something of a seesaw in the relation recently, at least when it comes to the procurement of arms with India actively turning to Uncle Sam for weapons. India’s defense spending is set to mount considerably over the next twenty to twenty-five years as the Indian military is modernizing its systems. New Delhi expects to spend nearly $120 billion over a period of five years starting in 2012. This represents a golden opportunity for Russia’s weakened economy to recover.
India would curse itself for allowing a golden opportunity to be missed. China has previously taken advantage of Russian experience and expertise when it recruited former Soviet defense specialist after the Wall came down. India has to make up for this Chinese advantage and speed up the process of cooperating with the Russians.
There are also important geostrategic reasons for improving relations with Russia from the Indian perspective. With the United States preparing to pull out of Afghanistan, there is already talk in Moscow of expanding Russia’s role in Afghanistan. It’s likely that India will also get on board. India and Iran used to be the main supporters of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance against the largely Sunni and Pashtun Taliban before the American led coalition toppled the regime in 2001.
Russia, which last year allowed the US to ship weapons across its territory to Afghanistan, has been wary of the Taliban insurgency destabilizing Central Asian republics and spilling over into its Caucasus region. At the same time, Russia doesn’t believe in the doctrine of former foreign minister Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov anymore who once championed the forging of a strategic partnership among Beijing, Moscow and New Delhi to counter Washington’s presence in Eurasia. Instead, Moscow and Delhi are more likely to team up with the Americans to try to counter the extension of the Chinese sphere of interest.
It is against this background that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is expected visit New Delhi in December for the annual India-Russia summit. Russia shares India’s concern over China’s rise. The last thing it wants is to have a Chinese hegemony spread around the Caucasus and Central Asia once American troops are out. Medvedev’s visit to New Delhi will be preceded by President Barack Obama’s own trip to India in November and there is no prize for guessing that there could be a revision of Primakov’s doctrine aimed at Beijing.
In conclusion, the wheel has come full circle from the time when India in its infancy as a nation newly independent after 1947 used to court the Soviet Union by following a socialist economy with national planning very much in line with the Stalinist model to Russia courting India for economic purposes today and in order to regain international influence and prestige.
Balaji Chandramoha is a member of the Institute of Defense and Strategic Analysis in New Delhi, India, a correspondent of World News Forecast and Editor Asia with World Security Network. For the Atlantic Sentinel he covers South Asia and related greater power politics.
Atlantic Sentinel | October 12, 2010
Changing face of Russo-Pakistan ties
If Afghanistan will get Russian help, why would it want aid from India which would now have to face a Moscow-Kabul-Islamabad entente? But will a Russian-Pakistan relationship help in resolving Indo-Pakistan conflict? With Russia present once again in Afghanistan in a big way, would Pakistan be able to treat Afghanistan as a place to fall-back in case of a conflict with India?
IS Russia slowly but noticeably turning away from India for a more profitable relationship with Pakistan, unbelievable as it may seem? Is India’s tilt towards the United States slowly pushing Moscow to improve its relations with our immediate and hostile western neighbour, at our cost? For over half a century, during the Cold War and after, the Soviet Union and later Russia has stood by India, but now, it seems, the situation is perceptibly changing. It has now been brought to the notice of Indians by a remarkable expose in The Hindu (September 9) by a Russian correspondent, Vladimir Radyuhin which must wake up India from its political slumber.
The story is that early in August, this year, President Medvedev of Russia hosted a quadripartite summit, by inviting leaders of Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan to a Black Sea resort Sochi, for high-level discussions. Pakistan was represented by Asaf Ali Zardari. And what is the significance of this meeting? One, Moscow has decisively moved to de-hyphenate its relations with Delhi and Islamabad. Two, it has shown that Russo-Pak relations have been promoted to the highest-presidential-level. And three, that Moscow has overcome its former reluctance to develop full-fledged relations with Islamabad. These are ominous developments. Delhi remains stunned.
As Radyuhin remarks: “Little wonder then, that even after three weeks after the Summit, there has been no reaction from New Delhi”. What has made Moscow do a turn-around in its relations with Pakistan? Radyuhin himself provides the answer. It is, he says, the realisation that seeing Islamabad as part of the region’s problems does not help to advance the Russian goal of playing a bigger role in the region”. Moscow’s current belief is that “Pakistan must be part of the solution”. Pakistan has so far had two powerful friends: the United States and China.
In order to fight India, from the beginning, Islamabad agreed to be the running dog of American imperialism. That paid Pakistan handsomely, in terms of money and material. It went overboard to obey Washington’s dictat and has now realised that this has only landed it in the soup.
The United States is now the most hated country in Pakistan and Zardari has to find a way out. For a long time, to balance US interests, Islamabad courted China, which willingly gave its support because it had its own ulterior motives. In the first place, it wanted to encircle India and cultivating Pakistan was a sound decision from Beijing’s point of view. Secondly, it wanted direct access to the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf and a friendly and purchaseable government in Islamabad was to China’s advantage. China has helped build Gwadar port in Baluchistan and can, in no time, send its forces from Zinjiang in Central Asia to Gwadar in 48 hours.
Now Moscow has woken up. In olden times Britain had tried to keep Russia away from the Indian Ocean-and succeeded. Now Britain is no longer in the picture. The United States by its unscrupulous high-handedness has not only humiliated Pakistan but has made it a victim of the very forces US helped raise for throwing Soviet forces out of Afghanistan -the jihadis. For Pakistan, closer cooperation with Russia would be more paying then continued subservience to Washington-and forget the painful past.
To gain Pakistan’s goodwill Russia has promised to aid in two major projects: One project-CASA (Central Asia South Asia) 1000, involves the export of electricity from power-rich Kyrgyzstan to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The other is a motorable road and a railway from Tajikistan to Pakistani across the Wakhan border in extreme northeast Afghanistan, thereby giving Pakistan direct access to the markets of Central Asia and Russia, while Tajikistan-and Russia-will get access to Pakistani ports, a dream long entertained by Russia.
It is suggested that China, too, will stand to gain, as the road is likely to be linked with the Karakorum Highway, connecting Pakistan with China’s Xinjinag region. That should slowly make US help irrelevant to Pakistan. What is significant is that Russia may go still further and become a donor of economic, social and military-political security for Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan-the ultimate irony! Understandably, Russia has a good reason to help the Islamic trio: it will clear the region of US and NATO forces. Already, it would appear that Dimitry Medvedev has renewed his country’s offer to re-build about 140 industrial and infra-structure projects in Afghanistan which the Soviet Union had originally set up during its decade-old military interception.
The deal may be worth one billion dollars, but it may help Moscow to get access to Afghanistan’s oil, gas and minerals. The investment would be eminently worthwhile. Russia’s come-back, in the circumstances, may also help persuade some two lakh Soviet-educated Afghans who had fled the Taliban to Russia, to return to their motherland.
What would this mean to India? It is too early to come to any conclusions. If Afghanistan will get Russian help, why would it want aid from India which would now have to face a Moscow-Kabul-Islamabad entente? But will a Russian -Pakistan relationship help in resolving Indo-Pakistan conflict? With Russia present once again in Afghanistan in a big way, would Pakistan be able to treat Afghanistan as a place to fall-back in case of a conflict with India? Alternately, will Russia be able to get Pakistan out of its anti-India mind-set and help set up peace at last in the Indian sub-continent? That is anybody’s guess.
Writes Radyuhin: “The Sochi Summit has dimmed India’s hope of gaining a strategic foothold in Tajikistan. India and Russia had planned to jointly use the Ayni airfield which India helped to renovate, but Indian presence there looks doubtful now, in the context of the emerging Russia-Afghanistan-Tajikistan axis. India will of course, remain Russia’s close friend and strategic partner but it will have to learn to live with the new Russian- Pakistani bonhomie, just as Russia has taken in its stride India’s entitlement with the US”.
What seems obvious is that a whole new political equation is emerging in Central Asian sub-continental politics with consequences yet to be clear. With Pakistan likely to slip out of US control, Washington may wish to be courting India. Delhi would be wise to keep its distance from the US. Russia would still be its best bet, as it has been all these years. We don’t need to be America’s cat’s paw in South Asia.
Organizer | October 3, 2010
Kashmir as a Great Game Pawn?
For the past few weeks Kashmir has ascended to the circle of international politics more vigorously. It has acquired new dimensions on the eve of Obama visit to India in November. The scenario has become so assorted and complicated it has become almost impossible to sift facts from fictions. Whilst the international politics of South Asia takes its zigzag course the fact remains that the Kashmir issue has once again acquired the centre stage in the perimeters of foreign policy making of India, Pakistan, the US and China, while other interested players have followed the matters assiduously.
The news about a possible secret understanding between India and the US over Kashmir made enough rounds, which was later officially denied by the US. However, it may not be absolutely incomprehensible why the news was floated before one month of the Obama visit to India, and many analysts seem reasonable to ask whether there is any actual understanding between the two and the official denial is just to soft-pedal the understanding amidst confusion. The understanding as covered widely in media stipulated that India would involve in a kind of bargain with the US to the effect that it will expeditiously solve the Kashmir issue in return of the US support to its candidature for the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. The fact that Obama had made the pledge during presidential election to make Kashmir as a central plank in his foreign policy maneuvers, and duly remembered so by some Congress members, further added confusion and also suspicion whether the so-called understanding between the two powers were mere rumours, or despite official denials by both, have substance about it which will be known during the presidential visit.
The developments of past few weeks can be well interpreted as not disparate events but all in a single string towards internationalization of the Kashmir issue. The Republican Congressman Dan Burton exhorted Barack Obama to fulfill his pre-election pledge. He, like some other US policy makers and analysts, linked Kashmir with Afghanistan and raised the emotional pitch how ‘sons and daughters are fighting the global war on terror’ and how resolving the Kashmir issue will bring all normalcy and peace in the region. The Congressman, however, could not link how the growth of Taliban in ranks and in ferocity could increase manifold despite the NATO presence in the trouble torn Afghanistan for about a decade. Is it alleged rigidity of India on Kashmir or the factors including strategic great games, pipeline and energy politics, religious extremism and fundamentalism, that have contributed to the viciousness of Afghan politics? Further deep, Taliban was never a creation of Kashmir problem, but the reasons need to be found in the cold war politics and also the role of radical forces promoted by then US government.
The US policy makers seem to have recently developed keen interest in the Kashmir issue. Two US diplomats from the US embassy in New Delhi visited Kashmir on 3 October 2010, and met the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front Chairman, Yasin Malik. It is yet to be known the policy brief of these two diplomats to the valley and what did they discuss with separatist leaders. It appeared their visit to the valley had the tacit consent of the government of India. News reports abuzz with their interactions with the separatist leader Yasin Malik, who exhorted the US to play an active role to resolve the Kashmir issue. It needs mention that the US indeed had played an important role for about five decades over Kashmir in various forums including the United Nations, but without any substantive result. Then United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan during his visit to India in 2001 had stated that the UN has no role to play in the resolution of the Kashmir issue. The current Secretary General has taken the stand, unless requested by the both the contending parties to the conflict India and Pakistan, the UN can not play a mediatory role to resolve the issue.
The fact remains unless India and Pakistan come to a negotiating table it is almost impossible to further proceed on Kashmir resolution process. Both the nations have core differences over many issues, important among them is the issue of terrorism. International powers acknowledge how the radical organizations playing havoc in India have their bases in Pakistan. Besides, India and Pakistan have huge psychological gap in understanding and appreciating each other position. But, it will be absolute naïve to pressurize these two neighbouring countries and nudge them towards solution of the issue. India’s prime minister who often talks about going ‘extra mile’ in relations with Pakistan appears to have stuck to the same position despite opposition from other parties and also occasional rebuff from his own party members. It is true that after the Mumbai attack the relations have suffered a huge set back. But it is also equally true, unless both the countries shed the differences; it will be very difficult to find a solution to Kashmir issue. Pakistan foreign minister’s exhortation at the United Nations that the issue must be internationalized, has been strongly opposed by the Indian policy makers, and in view of this contradiction of positions, it is impossible for the US to bring both the adversaries to negotiating table. Perhaps Obama could visualize this complexity of the matter, and hence, after his elections, he appointed amidst much speculation a special envoy, not for Kashmir, but for the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. But interest of international powers in Kashmir has certainly increased especially following the recent popular protests in the Kashmir valley. There are multiple calculations behind the Kashmir maneuvers. Kashmir borders India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and Central Asia, and hence, its strategic depth is undoubtedly immense. It is difficult at present to say whether the present developments in and about Kashmir portray a bleak or peaceful future for the region, or it is a mere great game gambit to cool off the Afghan situation, the forthcoming Obama visit to India will make some of the dust clear from the complex maze of Kashmir.
Strategic Culture Foundation | October 6, 2010
India’s Iran calculus
Is India an adversary or ally of the West in opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions? As one of the countries that has consistently voted against Iran at the IAEA–yet has been loathe to abandon business with the country–India has been viewed with both confusion and consternation in the West. Recent commentary in the international media suggests that India is reluctantly adhering to the sanctions regime against Iran because it needs the attention of the West to fulfill its major power ambitions, and that given a chance, India would trade with Iran without hesitation in a bid to protect its energy interests and to get its support on Afghanistan. These statements are often used synonymously with India’s engagement with other pariah states like Myanmar and Sudan. But such commentary oversimplifies India’s Iran policy, which cannot be defined in the binary “Are you with us or against us?” terms that have characterized debates on Iran in the West.
Traditional relations?
India sees Iran as being part of its “proximate neighborhood”. When talking about Iran, Indian diplomats often talk about “traditional relations” — though this is a confusing notion given that the two countries haven’t had much agreement in recent history: the Shah’s pro-West orientation during the Cold War was anathema to India’s non-aligned views on foreign policy; whereas after the Islamic revolution, Iran’s votes on the Kashmir issue at the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) were often cited as a stumbling block for closer engagement.
In certain ways, the notion of ‘traditional relations’ between the two countries is apparent. India has the second largest Shia population in the world after Iran and some Indian Shias have familial relations with Iran (and unlike in places including Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Pakistan, where Iran has played patron to Shia revivalist and militant movements, it has refrained from such meddling in India). Although numerically small compared to India’s population, Indian Shias are an important political constituency; they are highly diverse and pluralistic, have played an active part in Indian political life, and almost all of the leading national political parties have Shia Muslim leaders in their ranks (the Vice President of India, Dr. Hamid Ansari, is himself a Shia who has also served as an ambassador to Iran). Not surprisingly, a few weeks ago, Indian Shias took out a protest march in Delhi against the sanctions on Iran.
Still, such non-official amity has its limitations–which are often overlooked.
Take the example of mutual security interests related to Afghanistan. Pakistan’s recent decision to keep Indian goods out of the ambit of its transit and trade agreement with Afghanistan is likely to strengthen India’s resolve on access via Iran (demonstrated in the Chabahar port being built by India in Iran to increase its export market in Central Asia). Both countries realize that resisting a feared Taliban takeover may not succeed unilaterally. However, while India and Iran share the concern about what they see as the West’s readiness to accommodate Pakistani suzerainty on Afghan affairs, they vehemently disagree on the issue of NATO presence in the region. Hence, any real convergence of interests on Afghanistan is unlikely to happen until a NATO withdrawal starts in earnest.
Nor are energy interests exactly the glue binding India and Iran that they are often suspected to be. While India does get 16 percent of its oil supply from Iran, nearly 45 percent of India’s oil imports come from Gulf states including Saudi Arabia. These numbers indicate that oil imports themselves are not the compelling reason for India to break ranks with Gulf states in doing business with Iran. As for exploration, India has two major proposed projects in Iran — a $5.5 billion offshore block discovered by Indian oil companies and a $10 billion agreement to develop parts of the South Pars gas field in Iran. However, Indian companies have not yet sunk in enough money in either project to be affected by the sanctions. And Iran is certainly the center of several ambitious pipelines (such as the SAGE pipeline) and transport corridors that could link India to Central Asia. However, most of these projects are still on the drawing board. India dropped its part in the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline after pricing negotiations fell through and increased focus on its supplies from Qatar. In other words, India’s opposition to US Congress sanctions on Iran is not about lost investment.
Opposing a nuclear-armed Iran
On the issue that seems to most worry Western and especially U.S. commentators–Iran’s nuclear program–India shares the belief that this would prove destabilizing for the Middle East. But it does so from a slightly different perspective–it does not see Iran’s nuclear intentions as a response to its rivalry with Israel (as often believed in the West), but as a product of Arab-Iran, and especially Sunni-Shia, rivalry. As India’s veteran strategic expert, K. Subrahmanyam recently wrote: “The Iranian nuclear ambitions are likely to be more to counter a two-front encirclement of Shias by Sunni Pakistan and Sunni Saudi Arabia”. (From this perspective, India’s approach towards a diplomatic solution is likely to be geared toward Saudi-Iranian reconciliation more than anything else.)
Given these rationales, India has attempted to avert the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran in its own way. The Riyadh declaration signed in January 2010 during the Indian Prime Minister Singh’s visit to Saudi Arabia asked Iran to “remove regional and international doubts about its nuclear weapons programme.” In fact, India has even endorsed the Arab call for a nuclear-weapons free Middle East — a proposal that used to be directed at Israel but which is increasingly focused on Iran. Indeed, India’s stance of allying with Arab states, rather than Israel, in addressing Iran’s program is explained by a combination of what it sees as the need to combat jihadist terrorism (Saudi Arabia being a pivotal state in the effort), broad energy interests, and the geographical fact of 3.5 million Indian citizens that work in the region. Moreover, as leading policy analyst Sanjaya Baru noted with a nod to the Palestine issue, “There is no question that India’s strategic interests lie more with the Arab world, and certainly till Iran’s and Israel’s moderates return to power.”
Of course, India’s opposition to Iran’s nuclear program hasn’t been without attendant Iranian charges of hypocrisy, given the status accorded by the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) waiver to India, an outlier to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and India’s stance about the treaty being discriminatory. After India voted against Iran at the IAEA for the third consecutive time, the Iranians tried to draw a parallel between their nuclear program and that of India’s. Yet India rejects the comparison, seeing its own non-proliferation record as one without blemishes–an allusion to both Iran’s troubles with the IAEA and NPT, as well as the A.Q. Khan network’s role in the Iranian program.
Still, India’s opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran (and its own active civil nuclear program), notwithstanding, why does India still oppose US sanctions? This paradox is based on three contentions. One, India sees broad-based sanctions as inevitably detrimental to the population of Iran, especially since they are in addition to UN-imposed sanctions. Two, sanctions impede the ability of Indian companies doing business in other parts of the globe and thus deemed “extra-territorial” by India. Third, and most importantly, India has traditionally shown scant belief in sanctions-based diplomacy–indeed, it has rarely imposed sanctions on any country outside the UN’s aegis, with the exception of apartheid-era South Africa and Pakistan (after the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament in 2001).
The majority of Indian strategists see unilateral sanctions as a path to war. As such, India has taken a strong stance against any pre-emptive military options on Iran, seeing the repercussions of such an action to be as destabilizing as the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon–and with more immediate consequences. Indian strategists see the Strait of Hormuz as part of India’s “security parameter” and seek to secure it from both non-state actors as well inter-state conflict. The memories of 1991 Gulf war and the oil price inflation it precipitated, which pushed the then-closed Indian economy to the brink of bankruptcy, are also a factor in India’s stance. The fear of a strike was great enough for India to endorse the Brazil-Turkey-Iran deal, thereby risking political capital with the West in the process.
While India does not support the current round of sanctions against Iran, it has no sympathy for an Iranian bomb either. This complexity (rather than the ambivalence it is sometimes seen as) in India’s position on Iran’s nuclear program is a product of India’s strategic and national security calculus–and is likely to persist for some time to come.
Raja Karthikeya is a foreign policy researcher based in Washington DC.
Foreign Policy | September 24, 2010
Tajikistan and Central Asia’s Fergana Valley
Analyst Eugene Chausovsky looks at the geopolitical importance of the Fergana Valley to major powers after militant attacks in Tajikistan on Sept. 19.
Stratfor | September 20, 2010
Recent Comments