NO WINNERS YET IN UKRAINE

Cathy Young

The conflict in Ukraine took some dramatic turns this month that led many observers to conclude that the Kremlin was succeeding in its effort to keep Ukraine under Russia’s thumb, with the collusion of a spineless West. Actually, while Russia has wrested some concessions, the handwringing is largely unwarranted—so far. But much depends on the West’s willingness to continue applying pressure to Russia and offer meaningful aid to Ukraine. And, even in the best-case scenario, a “frozen conflict” zone in eastern Ukraine is a likely and troubling outcome.

Civilians training to fight Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine

In the final days of August, when Ukrainian forces seemed close to routing the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, their successful push against the insurgency was abruptly and brutally reversed; all available evidence indicates that, despite Moscow’s implausible denials, the counter-offensive was led by invading Russian troops. With Ukrainian fighters demoralized and reeling from their sudden losses, President Petro Poroshenko agreed to ceasefire talks. On September 5, representatives of Ukraine, Russia, and the self-proclaimed “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk signed an agreement that suspended Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation” and at least temporarily left pro-Russian separatists in control of parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. 

Then, on September 12, came the news that key parts of Ukraine’s about-to-be-ratified comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union would not take effect until the start of 2016, in consideration of Russia’s economic interests. This is, of course, the same agreement that former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych backed out of in late 2013 because of Kremlin pressure and bribery—a move that sparked the “Euromaidan” protests and sealed his political fate. Does the delay mean that Vladimir Putin has won and the revolution has lost?

Some believe so. A Time column by the magazine’s Moscow correspondent, Simon Shuster, was titled “How Putin Got His Way In Ukraine.” Shuster—whose Time cover story in late July portrayed Putin as having a near-supernatural ability to win and grow more formidable with each crisis—argues that the compromise made in Brussels gives the Russian strongman exactly what he wanted in the first place: a say over Ukraine’s relationship with Europe. This theme is echoed by European commentators such as Deutsche Welle’s Bernd Johann, who wrote, “The EU has bowed to pressure from Moscow. Ukraine can evidently become European only with the consent of Russia.”

Many Ukrainians share these concerns; deputy foreign minister Danylo Lubkivsky resigned in protest against the trade deal postponement, saying it sent “the wrong signal” both to the Russian aggressor and the citizens of Ukraine. The symbolism was reinforced when Ukraine’s parliament, the Rada, approved the agreement with the EU on the same day that it passed the law on the “special order of self-government” in the rebel-held parts of eastern Ukraine.

In a blog post on the Ukrainska Pravda website, Poroshenko adviser Yuri Lutsenko urged his compatriots to “stop the cries of ‘all is lost.’ ” Lutsenko pointed out that the law applies only to parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, and only for a three-year period—a far cry from Putin’s expansionist intent—and argued that the truce would give Ukraine a chance to recover from hostilities and shore up its military.

To some extent, this is spin control. But some independent Russian commentators critical of the Kremlin also believe Ukraine is gaining, not losing, from the Minsk agreement, whose terms are largely identical to the ones Poroshenko offered, and the rebels rejected, in June. Historian Mark Solonin argued on his blog that the deal spells the end of Putin’s quest to reclaim Novorossiya (“New Russia,” the czarist-era name for territories in eastern and southern Ukraine that many Russian nationalists regard as Russia’s own). The insurgents are required to disarm, disband, and allow local elections with proper monitoring—presumably by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which organized the negotiations. It seems unlikely they will comply; but, while the survival of the illegal Donetsk/Luhansk enclave certainly poses problems for Ukraine, these problems are by no means fatal.

While Ukraine was at a clear military disadvantage when it accepted the agreement, one should not overrate the strength of Russia’s position. A surprise attack to shore up the insurgency is one thing; a full-scale, long-term military operation that entails huge expenditures, extensive casualties, and de facto world pariah status is very different. The Kremlin’s propaganda machine has been frighteningly effective so far, and Putin’s approval ratings still hover around 85 percent. But it is far from certain that a population grown accustomed to stability and even relative affluence will remain docile in the face of an economic downturn and a steady stream of dead and wounded young men returning home. Surveys by the Levada Center, Russia’s most respected polling agency, show support for sending Russian troops into Ukraine dropped from 74 percent in March to just 41 percent in August.

From this perspective, the mass incursion of Russian troops into eastern Ukraine in late August looks less like a prelude to conquest than a face-saving stopgap measure to prevent Ukrainian troops from crushing the insurgency, retaking rebel-controlled territory, and dealing Russia and its proxies a humiliating defeat. Extending the insurgency’s lease on life allowed Putin to force Ukraine into negotiations in which Russia would ostensibly get to play peace broker.

The delay in the full implementation of the Ukraine-EU agreement might also be something of a face-saver for Russia. In many ways, argues pro-Maidan Ukrainian journalist Sergii Gorbachov, it also helps Ukraine. Postponing tariff-free imports from Western Europe (which Putin has claimed would flood Russian markets with cheap goods) and adoption of EU regulatory standards will give Ukraine breathing room to phase in economic reforms; meanwhile, the EU already allows tariff-free import of Ukrainian goods. The compromise also temporarily protects trade with Russia, the sudden loss of which would be a serious blow to Ukraine’s already ailing economy.

The delay will not affect Ukraine’s political integration into Europe, with a view—reiterated by Poroshenko on his visit to North America—to eventual EU membership. Thwarting that alliance, not stopping cheap imports, was Putin’s real goal when he strong-armed Yanukovych into rejecting the EU deal last year and agreeing to join Russia’s alternative “Eurasian Customs Union” with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. The compromise on the trade agreement does not even come close to fulfilling those ambitions—just as the separatist enclave in eastern Ukraine, shrunken to about half the size it was in June, hardly fulfills  his ambitions for Novorossiya.

That doesn’t mean Ukraine, or the West, has won. There is little doubt that Putin will do further mischief, whether by trying to undermine Ukraine’s EU trade agreement or by trying to destabilize Ukraine through his proxies in Donetsk. The West must not let up on sanctions—which, contrary to pessimistic predictions, are starting to have some real bite—and must make it clear that there is a steep price to pay for continued Russian intervention, including covert intervention, in Ukraine. The OSCE must do what it can to monitor the situation in rebel-held areas. Ukraine must be given vitally needed aid, including defensive weapons.

As we enter a new Cold War, we should not underestimate Vladimir Putin. But it would also be wise not to overestimate him.

AL QAEDA IN INDIA

Saneya Arif

 

 

Ayman al-Zawahiri leader of the al Qaeda (AQ) has recently announced his intention to “raise the flag of jihad” in the Indian sub- continent. Will Zawahiri succeed in establishing AQ roots in India? 

 

Muslims constitute around 13 percent of India's population and do not appear sympathetic towards the AQ's ideology. Despite waving of black flags of the Islamic State (IS) in certain parts and the presence of few Indian youths in the conflict theatres of Syria and Iraq, the possibility of AQ gaining a foothold in India and turning into an organisation of redemption for Muslims is remote. 

 

Following four reasons substantiate the assertion. 

 

Faith in democracy and secularism 

Firstly, the Indian Muslims have faith in notions of democracy and secularism. Even while their social mobility has been slow and has remained a cause for concern, they do see a sign of hope for socio- economic parity with the majority. Muslim personal law is seen by them as a recognition of and respect for their distinct identity and religious freedom. 

 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pledge to treat all Indians as equals regardless of religion can also be an additional source of optimism if followed by positive actions. Thus, the use of religion-inspired violence and destruction in the name of liberation of Muslims is unacceptable to them. Statements renouncing Zawahiri's statement by several leading Muslim organisations is a pointer towards that direction.

 

The most powerful statement came from the Darul Uloom Deoband which categorically asserted, "Indian Muslims would never be convinced by un-Islamic and false arguments of the Al Qaeda."  

 

Lack of Violent Societal Cleavages 

Secondly, Al Qaeda in South Asia has benefited from the existing societal cleavages, especially in the Af-Pak region. Further, it has used the existing jihadi and sectarian groups to ferment trouble. As much as it has assisted and been a magnet for groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and activities of anti-Shia groups like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) has further helped it spread the Shia versus Sunni vitriol in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As a result, besides the foreign fighters of the AQ in the Af-Pak region, local Afghans as well as Pakistanis have joined the group. 

 

In India, it is highly unlikely that any such vehicle for hire would be available for Zawahiri who is attempting to revolutionise the minds of the Sunni Muslims in India. Both the Indian Mujahideen (IM) and its predecessor, the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) who could possibly have played a second fiddle to AQ, are in their weakest points. Arrests of a number of IM leaders and cadres have pushed these organisations to the brink of collapse. 

 

Unlikely Mass Movement favouring the AQ

Thirdly, in the absence of a vehicle for hire, AQ's objective to find a foothold in India would require developing operational capacities among the Indian Muslims youth. Despite few recent cases of radicalisation among the Muslim youth, the possibility of a engineering a movement favouring the AQ is unlikely. The Indian political and social systems have multiple checks and balances mechanisms in place to prevent any such eventuality. 

 

Moderate Nature of Islam in India

Fourthly, the moderate nature of Islam in India act as the most crucial shield against radicalization which could be exploited by the AQ. Islam in India has a long history, led by the Sufis who integrated the multiple communities of India sharing common cultural practices. Unlike other countries, Sufism has remained an integral part of the Indian cultural tradition. Amity exists among India's Shias and the Sunnis, in spite of a division along ideological lines. 

 

Cultural ethos can effectively hedge against an extremist rampage is clear from the experience of India's neighbour, Bangladesh. Once touted as the next Afghanistan, Bangladesh has remained free of AQ's influence. India's ability to weather the challenges is equally robust. In India, the official approach of involving the ulemas in framing a counter-narrative to AQ's appeal has immensely helped in maintaining a divide between Islam in India and its radical stream. 

 

However, be prepared to prevent the unforeseen 

Even with this positive outlook, there is a need for caution, as even handful of cases of radicalisation, if not a fully networked AQ base, could pose significant threats to India. To prevent such a scenario, certain precautionary measures should be taken. Muslims in India do have grievances of marginalisation, state-discrimination, and sense of alienation, which may get exploited. Concerns like these needs to be tackled through affirmative actions. Experts believe that reinforcing multiculturalism is the need of the hour.

 

Bringing communities together will serve as the best way to prevent radicalisation of youths. Inclusive and affirmative programmes must be undertaken so that India can never become a playground for the AQ and its violent agenda. For this, the government, NGOs, and religious organizations have to work together.

THE NAXAL IDEOLOGY AND VIOLENCE

Bibhu Prasad Routray

 

 

How does one analyse the killings of 6105 civilians and security forces in incidents related to left-wing extremism between 2005 and 2013? 

Given that the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), since its formation in 2004, has been responsible for majority of these killings, conventional analyses have mostly focused on big and small incidents that produced these victims. While such methods are useful in terms of attempting to grasp the growing or declining capacity of the outfit, it is also useful to analyse the unceasing violence as upshot of an ideology that has for decades underlined the necessity to shed the enemy's blood to bring about a change in social and political order. 

Three leaders – Charu Mazumdar, Kanu Sanyal and Kondapalli Seetharamaiah – dominate the discourse on Naxalism, which began in the 1960s. Mazumdar, in his ‘Eight Documents’ in 1965, exhorted the workers of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) to take up armed struggle against the state. He underlined that action and not politics was the need of the hour. Such calls resulted in a number of incidents in which the CPI-M workers started seizing arms and acquiring land forcibly on behalf of the peasants from the big landholders in Darjeeling. These incidents went on to provide the spark for the 1967 peasant uprising. 

Following the formation of the All India Coordination Committee of Revolutionaries (AICCR), that emerged out of the CPI-M in November 1967 and was renamed as All India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCCR) in May 1968, Mazumdar further reiterated his idea of khatam or annihilation of class enemies. Although incidents of individual assassinations influenced by khatam resulted in repressive state action targeting the naxalite cadres, the Communist Party of India-Marxist-Leninist (CPI-ML), which was formed in 1969 breaking away from the CPI-Marxist, continued professing violence as the key tool of revolution.

While Mazumdar's preference for using violence to overthrow existing social order and seizing state power remained the CPI-ML's mode of operation till 1972, a counter ideology with a stress on agrarian consolidation preceding an armed struggle was reiterated by Kanu Sanyal following Mazumdar's death. Sanyal was not against the idea of an armed struggle per se. However, he opposed Mazumdar's advocacy of targeted assassination. 

In the subsequent years, the CPI-ML split into several factions. Although Sanyal himself headed a faction, he gradually grew redundant to the extreme left movement and committed suicide in 2010. Towards the last years of his life, Sanyal maintained that the CPI-Maoist's reliance on excessive violence does not conform to original revolutionary objectives of the Naxalite movement. On more than one occasion, Sanyal denounced the “wanton killing of innocent villagers”. In a 2009 interview, Sanyal accused the CPI-Maoist of exploiting the situation in West Bengal's Lalgarh "by using the Adivasis as stooges to carry forward their agenda of individual terrorism."

In Andhra Pradesh, since the 'Spring Thunder' of Srikakulam in 1970, Kondapalli Seetharamaiah, was responsible for the growth of the Naxalite movement under the aegis of the CPI-ML. After leading a faction of the CPI-ML and forming the People's War Group (PWG) in 1980 Seetharamaiah oversaw a regime of intense violence, thus, earning the outfit the description of "the deadliest of all Naxal groups". Even after the expulsion of Seetharamaiah in 1991, the PWG and its factions remained the source of extreme violence targeting politicians and security forces in the state. 

Kanu Sanyal's reluctant support for armed violence was, thus, somewhat an aberration. Playing down the importance of mindless bloodshed remained a peripheral of the Naxalite movement. Each transformation of the movement thereafter in terms of splits, mergers, and formation of new identities escalated the ingrained proclivity to use violence as an instrument of expansion and influence. The CPI-Maoist represented a natural progression of this trend. And as the fatalities data reveal, each passing year, since its 2004 formation through a merger of the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) and the PWG, it became more and more reliant on violence, rationalising the strategy as a defensive mechanism essential to its existence.  

In 2009 Koteshwar Rao alias Kishenji, who led the outfit in West Bengal termed the violence as a "struggle for independence". Ganapathy, the CPI-Maoist general secretary, reiterated in his February 2010 interview that the violence is only a "war of self-defence" or a "counter-violence" in response to a "brutal military campaign unleashed by the state". Maoist Spokesperson Azad, who was later killed in controversial circumstances, rejected the appeal for abjuring violence by then Home Minister P Chidambaram in April 2010 indicating that such a move would allow the "lawless" security forces "continue their rampage". Azad also maintained that while the outfit generally avoids attacking the non-combatants, "the intelligence officials and police informers who cause immense damage to the movement" can not be spared. 

Thus understood, few conclusions can be drawn, in contrast to beliefs that a peaceful resolution of the conflict could be possible. Its current frailty notwithstanding, regaining capacities to maximise violence would be a priority for the CPI-Maoist. It will continue to reject other methods of social and political change and maintain an unwavering faith in the utility of violence. Even while realising that a total victory vis-a-vis the state is unattainable, the outfit would remain an agent of extreme violence in its own spheres of influence.  

OBAMA'S NEW ISIS STRATEGY: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA

PR Chari

 

 

In his widely anticipated 15th anniversary address on the  9/11 attacks, President Obama has clarified his  objectives in the Middle East: “We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, [the Islamic State] through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.” 

 

Its contours are taking shape, but the new strategy would involve airstrikes against militants and training the moderate opposition fighters in Syria. The US will wage war against the Islamic extremists and the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Wary of domestic opposition to getting mired in another overseas conflict after Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama emphasized that he would seek Congressional approval and international support from America’s Middle East and NATO allies. 

 

Could American air power and the ground forces of its partners destroy the Islamic State? There is enough realism around to appreciate that al Qaeda, ISIS and similar extremist organizations propagate beguiling ideals of equality, freedom, religious purity and so on to confront the Western alliance, headed by the United States. It is difficult to defeat an ideal, but its baneful effects can certainly be contained. This understanding, is currently informing Obama’s rejuvenated counter-insurgency strategy premised on assured domestic support and the cooperation of allies, but restricting military action to airstrikes and leaving ground action to allies.  

 

Only a modest augmentation of US troops in Iraq is envisaged, raising their total number to around 1500 for performing advisory functions by manning tactical operations centers, protecting American personnel and helping local security forces. An important, though unstated, component of this revised strategy is human intelligence to pinpoint the location of individual militant leaders for elimination by air and ground action. Jordan is critical here.

 

The new Obama strategy envisages training the Free Syrian Army. Saudi Arabia has apparently agreed to provide facilities in its territory for their training and turning them turned around to combat the Islamic extremists and the Assad regime. The dangers of this radical policy are two-fold. First, the US and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, would be getting embroiled in an enlarging Shia- Sunni sectarian conflict, with the lines of division getting increasingly blurred. Thus Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States are becoming uneasy partners to confront the ISIS and al Qaeda. But, Iran, alongside remnants of the Iraqi and Assad regime still feel obligated to support Hamas against Israel. How Obama’s revised Middle East strategy will sidestep these land mines of Middle East politics remains to be seen.

 

So, what do these developments signify for India? 

 

First, Obama’s 9/11 strategy is designed to ensure the continued American presence in the Middle East; its vestigial continuance would, hopefully, protect US national interests. It can similarly be adduced that the US will not leave Afghanistan altogether after 2014, but elements will remain in Bagram and other secure bases to enable air- and drone-strikes against identified militant forces. Air-strikes do not win wars, but they can seriously degrade the morale of rebel forces and weaken them by decapitating their leadership. It would be in India’s interests to support the US presence in Afghanistan, especially with the al Qaeda threatening to turn its attention against India. A dialogue with the US to firm up greater cooperation in this regard is called for. 

 

Second, it has been wryly observed that one assured supply source for ready weapons in ISIS’s brutal efforts to overrun Iraq and Syria is the US taxpayer. Significant numbers of semi-automatic rifles have been captured by ISIS from military stockpiles in Iraq and Syria, apart from heavier weapons like anti-tank HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and shoulder-fired anti-tank rockets that can destroy armored vehicles. Much the same situation might arise in Afghanistan after the departure of US and ISAF forces. According to reports significant numbers of vehicles, small arms and ammunition will be left behind as they are prohibitively costly to ship back to the United States. Much of this materiel might find its way into India via terrorist groups operating in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, but with interests in Kashmir. How this menace should be thwarted requires urgent consultations with the United States.

 

Third, the growth of sectarianism in the Middle East crisis should concern India. Extremists in the Middle East have targeted Christians and other ethnic minorities, but also rival schisms within Islam.  The Shia-Sunni divide has become corrosive, which is also excoriating South Asia, especially Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also India. This rapid growth in sectarianism has to be guarded against, especially with the coming into power in New Delhi of a political party with militant Hindu roots. Concerns here are not ill-founded.

 

Obama’s newly minted Middle East policy will therefore have  much wider repercussions, including the US pivot towards Asia that concerns India; further developments here will require India’s vigilant attention.

PAKISTAN AND THE COUP

 D Suba Chandran

 

 

Almost after a month of intense politicking in Islamabad and the multiple calls to Azadi and Inquilab with few thousand men and women, why have Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri failed to achieve their primary objectives? And why did the Khakis back off?

It appears very clear, that there is no revolution impending in the immediate or distant future in the political landscape of Pakistan. Nor is Nawaz Sharif is likely to resign, based on whatever has happened so far. It would be a different story that Sharif may be forced to resign at a future date for a different reason; but certainly, he is not resigning and yielding to the “Container” democrats and revolutionaries.

First and foremost, the primary objectives of Tahirul Qadri and Imran Khan failed under its own weight. Have they been pitched for something that is within the realms of possibility, they would have achieved their objectives, or at least a reached compromise closer to their position. Tahirul Qadri promised a revolution and Imran Khan asked for Nawaz Sharif’s resignation. 

Second reason for their failure has been their ability to engage their own party members and keep the protest movement coherent. Neither Qadri nor Imran Khan could galvanize their protests and sit-ins into a larger national movement. The numbers are sufficient enough to create disruption, but not large enough to usher into a revolution.

Worse, as it happened to the PTI, there have been internal dissensions within the party in terms of what needs to be achieved. Javed Hashmi episode clearly highlights that not everyone within his party agreed with Imran Khan. He has taken few decisions, contrary to what has been advised by his own party seniors. 

The Establishment did not move in. According to some, including Najam Sethi, a section within the military including senior serving officials conspired to over throw Nawaz Sharif using Imran Khan. However, the military high command did not agree to such a strategy engaging an open support to the revolutionaries against Nawaz Sharif. It is so obvious from the fact that the protesters were raising slogans in favour of the military when they were thrown out the building they had occupied earlier – Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri were waiting for the final decision by the “third” umpire. 

Perhaps, the military used Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri to achieve what they wanted. They used the crisis to ensure that the political leadership approaches them in the first place to arbiter, and later draw redlines in terms of what the Parliament could undertake and what should be left to the domain of the Khakhis. Once they got embedded into the political and foreign policy decision making, the military is not too keen in overtly overthrowing Nawaz Sharif.

Lack of popular support to the protestors and their backers in the Esrtbalishment could be another reason. Projecting a rare stand of unity, political parties (except the PTI) sided with the government. The PPP, MQM, ANP, JUI and JI did come together and realised that it is not in their interest to weaken the Parliament or supporting movement leading to a coup. None of the political parties are willing to face another elections in the near future, are be willing to accept Imran Khan as their next Prime Minister. With less that 40 seats at the National Assembly, the PTI simply does not have the numbers to make any real difference to the composition of Parliament. 

Fifth, there was fatigue, especially in the media and amongst the people. While a Jalsa may keep the attention of people for a short period, people did not have the patience to see such a tamasha being carried out on a daily basis.  There was so much buzz in the media in the initial days;  later it became a drag. Worse, the rains and floods have diverted the attention of people. 

Finally, there has been no international support forthcoming to Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri. The biggest blow came, when Pakistan’s all weather friend, decided to have a different look at the situation. China cancelled the visit of its President XI Jinping to Pakistan. Neither the US nor EU have been sympathetic to the cause of the revolutionaries. Perhaps, the military also took the cue.

Does the above mean, Sharif’s position is strengthened today? Hardly. In fact, his position is weaker than it was in July this year. He should be well aware he has got another lease and can continue in the Parliament. Only he would know what he has promised the military to ensure that the latter does not intervene. The biggest question that he should ask himself is – how did the situation come to this level in August 2014, just one year after that mammoth electoral victory in May 2013?

The earlier Sharif find answers to those factors that have caused the turnaround in the last fifteen months, the better for democracy in Pakistan. Should he pursue a vendetta politics and ensure Musharraf gets a stronger sentence? Should he engage in crony politics and ensure that the institutions are not strengthened? Should he follow a populist course and not engage in providing better governance? 

Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri may be the problems. But the solutions are with Nawaz Sharif.

ISI, INDIA AND SRI LANKA

 N Manoharan

 

 

The recent arrest of Sri Lankan national Arun Selvarajan in Chennai by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for spying on behalf of Pakistan’s ISI is concerning. He is the third Sri Lankan arrested for spying in the past over one year. Earlier, two Sri Lankan Muslims (Mohammed Sakir Hussain and Suleman Hussain) and an Indian (Thameen Ansari) were apprehended on similar charges. The arrestees confessed that their handlers were agents posted at Pakistani High Commission based in Colombo. Previously, it was Amir Zubair Siddiqui, who was posted as visa counsellor, and later it was Haji alias Siraj Ali.

 

Sri Lanka and the ISI

Sri Lanka may not be conniving with Pakistan against India, but is being used as a base by the ISI. Sri Lanka never allowed its territory for any anti-India activities and the ISI operations may be happening without Colombo’s knowledge. 

 

Why Sri Lanka has been chosen as a base by the ISI? Why are the Sri Lankans citizens involved? What is the purpose behind the Colombo module? What is the state of counter-intelligence capability of India? 

 

The ISI has been operating from some of the neighbouring countries of India like Nepal, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Myanmar and even Maldives. The southern front of India remained unpenetrated for quite some time. Sri Lanka could be the best base to do that for two specific reasons: 

• Given the proximity and similarity of language and appearance, Sri Lankan Tamils and Sri Lankan Muslims, who also speak Tamil, would not find it difficult to reach Tamil Nadu and mix-up with the local population. Presence of large number of Sri Lankan refugees is yet another facilitating aspect. 

 

• Pakistan’s activities in Sri Lanka have not been seen with suspicion by the security establishment of the island state. Sri Lanka-Pakistan relations have been good without any irritants. Sri Lanka is ever grateful to Pakistan for all the military support during the Eelam War. In addition, when Sri Lanka was hauled by the international community for human rights excesses during that War, Islamabad rendered unstinted diplomatic support.

 

ISI and the Involvement of Sri Lankan Citizens

There are various reasons for the involvement of Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims in the spy ring. The primary motivation is financial. Unemployed youth are easy targets. There is a theory that argues that part of the reason for the involvement of Sri Lankan Muslims in ISI’s spy network is their increasing radicalisation. But, the theory may explain if they are involved in spying western targets based in India, but not acting against Indian targets.

 

Pakistan obviously has denied the existence of an ISI base in Sri Lanka targeted against India as “speculative” and “malicious media campaign”. The denial is not surprising. Pakistani ISI has been assiduously pursuing the objective of establishing espionage networks for collection of India’s defence related information with reference to deployment/movement of armed forces, information relating to vital installations including sensitive information pertaining to the latest knowhow with reference to technological advancement etc. For this purpose, it has been able to organise resident agents and even allure the lower staff in sensitive organizations for collection and communication of sensitive information. When there is a roadblock there, it has moved on to tap ethnic similarities in the neighbourhood.

 

Sri Lanka as a base: What is ISI’s Endgame?

What is concerning is the security dimension of the espionage. There are two aspects to spying. One is to just gather information about the enemy for the purpose of having information advantage. The second aspect is to collect information with the aim to inflict damage. Reconnaissance of Kalapakkam nuclear plant site, NSG Hub in Chennai, Coast Guard installations on the eastern coast, Officers’ Training Academy (OTA) in Chennai, Nagapattinam Port, the Madras Regimental Centre in Wellington, harbours in Chennai and Ennore, DGP office and the High Court complex in Chennai and Vizag and Kochi ports have been carried out. Places like the Sulur Air Base, the Naval detachment in Karaikal, naval installations located in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands were on the pipeline. But, by then the spies have been arrested. Going by the confessions of the arrestees, information gathering was meant for planning a terror attack. The first ever terror attack in Chennai in May this year is not unconnected to the larger ISI plot.

 

Meeting the Challenge: What is required?

Whoever has been arrested is only a tip of the iceberg. It is important to find out how many more spies are on the prowl. This requires a thorough review and revamping of counter-intelligence capabilities of India. Counter-intelligence continues to be a weak spot in the Indian intelligence infrastructure. It is important to develop a totally different set of intelligence capabilities to cater to rapidly changing threat environment. This needs to be done at several levels—from training modules to doctrines to equipment to motivation. Intelligence at the state level requires modernisation. Human intelligence (HUMINT) requires more attention than just technical intelligence (TECHINT). Not the least, the intelligence flow has to be both ways: from the Centre to States and vice versa.

JAPAN, INDIA AND THE US AND THE CIVIL NUCLEAR COOPERATION

Vivek Mishra

 

 

While Modi’s visit to Japan in early September yielded dividends in other sectors, it failed to accomplish on the nuclear deal between the two countries. Reactions (or the lack of them) from Washington DC are important and warrant analysis, as India’s civilian nuclear cooperation with the US is stuck, primarily due to the Liability Bill issue. 

 

Much depends how the US perceives and reacts to the India-Japan nuclear deal, for two reasons; Japan is one of the most important post-War allies of the US and secondly, Japan and the US are share a common ground to cooperate with India through a civil nuclear deal.

 

US: Role Versus Reaction

The role of the US has been critical in influencing the India-Japan nuclear deal. Two developments in particular, the IAEA approval and the NSG waiver, were vital in effecting a change of heart in the global strategic community towards India’s inclusion and acceptance as a nuclear responsible state. This change included Japan.

 

The reaction of the US, on the other hand, towards the failure of the India-Japan nuclear deal has been akin to one of a mute spectator and probably, deliberately so. The US, on expected lines, has kept restraint in showing its reactions over a nuclear deal in which Japan is involved, given the unfortunate nuclear history between the two countries. Such a measured response from the US is, probably, to find a balance between its desire to make India a more nuclear-responsible state, and the benefits that are likely to accrue to the US in the eventuality of an India-Japan nuclear deal. 

 

The US itself has a significant nuclear cooperation with Japan primarily comprising research in fast reactor technology, fuel cycle technology, advanced computer simulation and modelling, small and medium reactors, safeguards and physical protection; and nuclear waste management. A common nuclear cooperation with India of both Japan and the US could result in a nuclear ‘Coalition of the Willing.’ A history of trilateral talks between India, Japan and the US since 2011, adds to this expectation. In cooperating with Japan and the US, India will stand to gain on a multilateral nuclear cooperation forum. In Japan, India also sees a potential supplier of reactors. Furthermore, interlinked economic stakes of the US and Japanese companies in nuclear cooperation makes it worth for India to bring the negotiations in this regard to a conclusive halt with Japan at the soonest. The US therefore, is expected to clandestinely influence the civil nuclear deal between India and Japan without showing either too much curiosity or disinterest, as there are many convergences between Japan and the US on their civ-nuke cooperation with India.

 

Behind the curtain cooperation?

There is a possibility that the US and Japan could be working behind the curtain to get India to the nuclear negotiating table, which it has thus far eschewed. The US understands that India’s deal with Japan could be a noose that it can tighten anytime, particularly at a nascent stage when it is still being negotiated. Blocking India’s civil nuclear deal with Japan is certainly not in the interest of the US, but delaying it might well prove useful. A prolonged delay in the deal could see an energy-deficit and frustrated India, with two of its civil-nuclear cooperation efforts in limbo, willing to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. Evidence towards this lies in the September 17 announcement by Nisha Biswal that, “There is a very strong desire by this new government, and a very strong desire by the US, to work through those tough issues and to be able to make progress.” 

 

The fact that the new government in India has shown a “strong desire” to work through “tough issues” related to the civ-nuke cooperation just after the failure to reach an agreement on the issue with Japan shows India’s diminishing patience with its unsuccessful civil-nuclear forays. An agreement with the US vis-à-vis the nuclear deal, which appears to be on the cards during Modi’s US visit, might well be the gateway to a similar deal with Japan.

 

The recent failure to finalise the deal with Japan is unlikely to cast its shadow on the much ballyhooed visit of Narendra Modi to the US. However, the civil nuclear cooperation between India and the US is expected to be a dominating issue. 

PAKISTAN'S TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Varun Sahni

 

 

Hatf IX (Nasr) is a Pakistani ballistic missile which can deliver a sub-kiloton nuclear warhead over a range of 60 km, or 37.3 miles. It is supposed to have entered service in 2013 and is believed to be fully integrated into Pakistan’s C3I (command, control, communications and intelligence). Its purported role is as a low-yield battlefield deterrent against mechanised columns. Should India – and the world – take Nasr seriously? 

 

The development and deployment of Nasr by Pakistan was inevitable and  the impact of this tactical nuclear weapon (tac nuke) on the emerging India-Pakistan deterrence relationship is inherently destabilising.

 

Defining Tactical Nuclear Weapons: The Pakistani Context

There are four different yardsticks by which tac nukes could be defined and classified. The first is the range of the missile: it must be short range, that is less than 80-100 km. The second is yield of warhead, conventionally benchmarked at less than 5 kilotons (kT) with reference to a 1994 US Congressional definition prohibiting R&D in US nuclear weapons laboratories below this yield. The third is function – Pakistan would use its tactical nuclear weapons in an anti-armour role; bunker busting is the primary role envisaged by US proponents of research into low yield nuclear weapons. The fourth yardstick is impact, which in the case of tac nukes is limited to the immediate battlefield, or in other words, the sub-theatre.

 

Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Problem than a Solution?

Why are tac nukes usually seen as a problem rather than as a solution? In the first place, they lower the nuclear threshold by blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear war. Secondly, tac nukes accentuate the ‘always-never dilemma’ inherent in all nuclear weapons: they must always work when you want them to, yet never be used when you do not want them to be used. The possibility of unauthorised or accidental use increases significantly with tac nukes: unlike ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), whose commanders have delegative control, in the case of tac nukes delegative control may go down to subaltern/NCO levels under battlefield conditions. Thirdly, battlefield deployment of tac nukes, especially in situations of rapid armour movement, creates an enormous pressure to ‘use them or lose them’. Finally, there is a much greater possibility for tac nukes to fall into ‘wrong hands’ due to theft, pilferage or sabotage.

 

Given these problems, all of them well known for decades, why has Pakistan gone down the tac nuke route? In order to understand why, it is important to underline that Pakistan has, from even before South Asia’s overt nuclearisation, signalled a nuclear doctrine of not only first use but also early use. This doctrine has created problems for Pakistan, whose nuclear planners have had to grapple with the issue of nuclear thresholds, that is the point beyond which Pakistan would have no option but to use its nuclear weapons. As far back as 2002, the Landau Network–Centro Volta team (Cotta-Ramusino and Martellini) had identified four Pakistani thresholds: geographic (space threshold), military, political (domestic destabilisation) and even economic. Tac nukes are Pakistan’s solution to the military threshold.

 

Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Here to Stay

There are three essential features of Pakistan that suggest that its tac nukes are here to stay. Firstly, as the weaker power in the India-Pakistan dyad, Pakistan faces significant conventional asymmetries. Only nuclear weapons provide Pakistan with a sense of strategic parity with India. Faced with the possibility of an Indian armoured thrust in the plains or desert sectors, Pakistan is signalling that it will use its tactical nuclear weapons despite their escalatory potential. 

 

Secondly, Pakistan is a quintessential ‘homeland state’ with deep existential anxieties. Its entire national identity has been constructed as a homeland for an endangered people facing a historically implacable foe. No matter how many internal security challenges it faces, Pakistan will not drop its guard vis-à-vis India and will always give the external threat primacy. In such an identity construction, nuclear weapons give Pakistan and its people the assurance of national survival and civilizational certitude that they are second to none. Furthermore, they encapsulate the sense of ‘we will all go together when we go’ – akin to the Samson Option of that other nuclearised homeland state, Israel.

 

Finally, Pakistan is a revisionist power that has systematically pursued asymmetric strategies to overturn the territorial status quo. In this context, the nature of the ‘Kashmir issue’ comes into sharp focus. As a wise person once said of the Kashmir issue, ‘Kashmir is with India, the issue is with Pakistan.’ While admittedly a neat play on words, this observation identifies two core elements in the ‘shadow of the future’: (1) The Kashmir issue will be resolved only when Pakistan considers it resolved; (2) any change in the territorial status quo would be inimical to India. Pakistan’s dilemma is the nuclear weapons give it strategic parity but also buttress the territorial status quo. This explains why Pakistan has no compunction in deliberately shortening its nuclear fuse vis-à-vis India by deploying tac nukes.

 

An arms control agreement between India and Pakistan over tac nukes is unlikely: there is no incentive for Pakistan to remove a redline that begins at the international border (IB) itself. The strategic challenges that Pakistan’s tac nukes pose for India will be explored in a future column.

ANTI ROHINGYA ANTI MUSLIM SENTIMENTS IN MYANMAR

 Aparupa Bhattacherjee

 

 

Is there a cause and effect between the anti-Muslim sentiments and anti-Rohingya violence in Myanmar? Is the latter an expression of the former?

The violence against the Rohingyas appears to be a part of larger Islamophobia within Myanmar. The religious identity of the Rohingyas seems to play a larger role than their ethnic background, triggering violence from a section within Myanmar.

Islamophobia and Anti-Rohingya Riots: Five Causes

The strife between the Rohingya’s and the Rakhines is embedded in Myanmar’s history. The communal riots in the 1990s and later in 2001 and 2003 are the fallouts of this divide, though the June 2012 riot between the two communities attracted international attention. Until then, the existing religious tension was restricted only to some parts of the Rakhine state. Since 2012, there has been a rapid spread of the anti-Muslim sentiments to the rest of Myanmar which has also further escalated the existing tension between the Rakhines and the Rohingyas.  

Several reasons triggered the scepticism against the Muslims since 2012. First, the release of the radical Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu and formation of the 969 movement under him provided an organised platform for promoting Islamophobia. Launched in 2012, the movement propagates that the Muslims (who are recorded to be four percent of the total population according to the 1983 census in Myanmar) eventually would become the majority and the largest group within Myanmar.  The members of 969 movement act as prime instigators of the anti-Muslim movement in all over Myanmar. 

Second, the withdrawal of the media censorship in 2011 by the newly formed quasi-civilian government has helped in disseminating hatred.  Uncensored media has opened the avenues of use and abuse of the social media, propagating anti Rohingya, anti Muslim speeches and messages.  The recent riot in July 2014 in Mandalay highlights the misuse of the media. A fabricated story in social media of molestation of a Buddhist girl by her Muslim employer triggered the whole violence. 

Third, the 9/11 attack in the US, had alarmed a section within Myanmar which fear being targeted by the Islamic terrorists. The Rohingya Patriotic Front (a militant group, renamed as the Rohingya Solidarity Organisation (RSO) in the 1990s) and its union with Arakan Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO) to evolve as the Arakan Rohingya Union (ARU) further exacerbated this fear.  The secessionist demands by these militant groups have only strengthened the fear and distrust among a section of Buddhist Myanmarese against the Muslims which was flared by the radical groups such as 969 movement. 

Fourth, the vulnerability of the Rohingya’s made them an easy target. The Rohingyas were stripped of their citizenship rights by the 1982 Constitution, and thus perceived as an outsider in the country. They are referred as ‘Bengalis’ from Bangladesh, and the growth of the militants amongst them, have created an image of the whole community as a bunch of reprobate. Although the Rohingyas are a minority in the Rakhine state but their population is substantial in number (one billion approximately out of the total three billion); this has supported the notion of Muslim takeover. Additionally certain villages were recognised as the Rohingya ghettos, made them easily accessible for the perpetrators. This could be substantiated by the fact that the Rohingyas living in other district in a more mixed community setup were never attacked. 

Fifth, the spread of violence to other states also indicates the anti-Rohingya hostilities are effect of the cause of Islamophobia in Myanmar. Although the June and October 2012 riots were restricted in the Rakhine state, several riots also took place across Myanmar, including the two big cities of Yangon and Mandalay. The February 2013 riot in Yangon, took place in Thaketa township comprising Muslims population of mix ethnic groups and insignificant number of Rohingyas.  According to the record, the number of people murdered, raped and displaced in both the June and October 2012 riots apart from the Rohingyas also includes other Muslims such as Kaman and Barmar Muslims too. Thus elaborating attacks in most of these riots lead by the group of Buddhists radicals were inflicted upon the Muslims irrespective of their ethnicity.  

The anti- Rohingya violence should not be treated separate from the problem of the rapid growth of anti-Muslim sentiments in Myanmar. Although the Rohingyas have faced the brunt of the growth of the anti-Muslim violence, the repercussion of the growth has impacted all Muslims in Myanmar irrespective of their ethnicity.  This implies that the solution to both the cause and its effect have to be addressed together, as one may again lead to other.  

AFGHANISTAN: THE NEW PRESIDENT AND A JOINT VENTURE GOVERNMENT

 Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy

 

 

On 21 September 2014, the Independent Election Commission (IEC) of Afghanistan declared Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai as the winner of the country’s presidential election that took place earlier this year, after a lengthy deal-making process with the other leading contender, Abdullah Abdullah.

What does the creation of ‘Chief Executive Officer’ (CEO) mean for Afghanistan? Does the end of the political deadlock automatically spell good times for the country? 

Deal-making and the Emergence of the Unity Government

The 2014 Afghan presidential election – the first transfer of power to a whole new leadership – was precariously prolonged and fraught with several strong opposing stances and allegations. After the tense flux and indecision that followed the elections, which led to an UN-overlooked and US-funded audit of the ballots, the results were finally declared three months after the run-off concluded. The IEC declared Ashraf Ghani as the president-elect, and runner-up Abdullah Abdullah as the CEO – a post that was created to facilitate power-sharing and to end the electoral deadlock.

 

The IEC and the candidates simply announced the results without declaring the vote statistics. In fact, the deal-making between Abdullah and Ghani that took months to finalise, ended on the condition that the vote statistics won’t be made public.

This does not bode well for a country that is on its path towards democracy after years of civil war and strife. A decision on the leadership was extremely pressing and the Sunday announcement comes as a relief for the political stability of the country at the moment. However, the means to reach that end was not ideal, and has potential to lead to problems in the future. The decision for deal-making was agreed upon and took place between the parties and the declaration of results were stalled and delayed due to intransigence on the part of the contenders, thereby making the candidates and not the IEC the real decision-makers. The deal-making between the candidates undermines the credibility and significance of the IEC – which emerged as a toothless tiger. It indicates the lack of authority on the IEC’s part to ensure the writ of the state – in terms of election processes as mandated by the constitution of Afghan state – as it is supposed to do. This points towards the urgent need for reforms in the IEC and other state institutions – especially given how the 2015 parliamentary election is fast approaching.

 

An Assessment of the Election Process

An interesting trend that emerged over the course of the electoral process was the blending of Afghan cultural characteristics with the concept of democracy.  Negotiations – an extremely prominent aspect of the Afghan culture – continually took place between various players during various stages of the polls. This demonstrates to an extent the adaptation of the concept of democracy into the pre-existing Afghan system.

 

At present, the president is the head of the government, and the constitution does not include space for a prime ministerial post.  According to the National Unity Government Agreement, until such time as the post of a prime minister will be created, the post of a CEO (a role with the essence of an executive prime minister’s post) will be created to accommodate Abdullah Abdullah or his nominee in the government. 

 

However, the Agreement, states that “On the basis of Article 2 of the Joint Statement of 17 Asad 1393 (August 8, 2014) and its attachment (“…convening of a Loya Jirga in two years to consider the post of an executive prime minister”), the President is committed to convoking a Loya Jirga for the purpose of debate on amending the Constitution and creating a post of executive prime minister.” The text of the Agreement makes no explicit commitment towards the creation of a prime minister’s post and/or a deadline to carry the said task out.  The text only speaks of the president’s commitment towards calling for a Loya Jirga meeting on amending the constitution, without specific mention of commitment towards the creation of the post itself. It is important to note that nomenclature isn’t the focus of the debate. The skepticism stems from the fact the post of the CEO will be created by a presidential decree – that isn’t difficult to revoke.

Furthermore, the IEC’s decision to withhold voting statistics did not go well with the Afghans – who had defied terrorist threats and turned up in large numbers to cast their ballots. This is not unfounded, for they now feel that their votes were of no consequence given how decisions on leadership were taken by two opposing candidates who co-opted each other and eliminated the purpose of votes altogether.  As one Afghan police officer was quoted saying, the newly-formed government is a “Joint Venture” between two politicians. 

Looking Ahead

In essence, this is essentially a hastily cobbled government whose creation was extremely important for the moment, but one that brings baggage of potential instability for the immediate years. Decision-making – especially on issues of security and foreign policy – will become a complicated process given the likelihood of divergent interests and objectives of the two leaders. Furthermore, given the limited maneuvering space both leaders will enjoy, the likelihood of large-scale changes seems bleak at the moment. If this trajectory continues, the cracks may lead to instability, inactions and/or delays in several matters, providing fertile ground for non-state actors to make inroads.

SOUTHEAST ASIA: ANSWERING THE CALL FOR JIHAD

 Aparupa Bhattacherjee


On 23 July 2014, a video was posted on YouTube showed Isnilon Hapilon, a senior member of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), and other members, pledging their support to the Islamic State (IS) through both financial and manpower support. Similarly, Mochammad Achwan, the chairman of Jemmah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT) has delivered the message of their founder Abu Bakar Ba’asyir’s support for IS and its self-proclaimed Caliphate of the State of Islam. There are already records of huge numbers of Southeast Asians - approximately like 12,000 - travelling to Iraq and Syria to fight for the IS.

Why are the numbers of Southeast Asians trying to join the IS growing? Why are the Southeast Asian terrorist organisations supporting IS?

Motives
The terrorist organisations have claimed that the reason for their support is that the war is being led by their Muslim “brothers” in Iraq and Syria. Another reason as claimed by these groups is the fact that the establishment of a Caliphate of the Islamic Kingdom is more or less a common goal. However the real motive for the support to the IS could also be the resurrection of their credibility and hold in Southeast Asia. ASG in was formed as a splinter group from the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) is based in Philippines. Their collaboration with Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and al Qaeda led to the establishment of this group as one of the most violent separatist groups in that region. Heavy crackdowns through the joint efforts of Singaporean, Malaysian and Indonesian anti-terrorist squads have led to the disintegration of the JI into numerous smaller and less powerful splinter groups and weakened the ASG whose terror attacks since 2005 have been limited to extortion and looting of local foreign tourists. Thus supporting the IS could be perceived the ASG an opportunity for them to revives their claim to fame.

The video that was posted on YouTube began with still photos of Isnilon Hapilon on US’ ‘most wanted’ posters in addition to the symbolic black flag. This suggests that Hapilon was trying to establish their notoriety. They have already kidnapped two German tourists and demanded that the German government not support the US in their war against the IS. JAT, founded by one of the initial founders of the JI, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, is one of the most powerful splinter group of JI in comparison to other groups such as Hisbah, Tawid Wal Jihad and the Negara Islam Indonesia (NII). JAT is considered a jacket for JI and for some as a re-emergence of JI.  However, JAT did not gain the stature of JI had attained till 2005. Support for the IS could thus be visualised by Ba’asyir to attain that stature. 

Employment Opportunities
Both unemployment and poverty are factors for the growing number of Southeast Asian youth who are joining the IS. Muslim youth in rural Malaysia, Indonesia, southern Thailand and Philippines are mostly educated in the pasentrens or madrassas (Islamic schools), and many of them are unable to get mainstream jobs due to the poor standards of education. Fighting for the IS is therefore a job opportunity as they are provided with both salaries and food.  Further, many of the pasentrens in Indonesia are generally schools run by the former JI and members of other terrorist organisations preaching war strategies in the name of Islam.

Ideological Impact
Not all Southeast Asians joining the IS are doing so for money - for example, there are reports of a Malaysian navy officer travelling to Iraq to join the IS. Many Southeast Asians are spurred by the idea of fighting a war for the self-proclaimed Caliph and also to fight against the Shia majority (Shias are a minority in all the Southeast Asian countries). Recurring recruitment videos on YouTube also has an ideological impact on some Southeast Asian Muslims. In fact use of social media for recruitment is one of the biggest factors for the large numbers of Muslims from all over the world joining the IS.

Whatever may be the reasons, the fallout could be alarming. Both JI and ASG were organised by the Southeast Asian veterans of the Afghanistan war who had received training at al Qaeda camps. These organisations had not only developed these terror networks but had also contributed to the spread of a radical form of Islam - then a new phenomenon in Southeast Asia. History might repeat itself, and the return of the soldiers from Iraq and Syria might again lead to a development of the same pattern.

ISLAMIC STATE: STRAINING THE US DEFENCE BUDGET

Vivek Mishra

 

 

The most recent estimation vis-à-vis the US’ military campaign against the Islamic State (IS) has it that the cost of Washington’s war against the IS has surpassed $780 million. This comes at a time when the Pentagon has hinted at request for more support. Essentially, the US military is spending up to $10 million a day. While air strikes might seem to be a safe option, the costs incurred are heavy. Besides, there is increasing chorus for involvement of ground troops, as isolated air strikes are not believed to be adequate. Amidst this seemingly intractable involvement of the US in Iraq and Syria, will the US will be able to sustain budgetary allowances for its campaign, against the IS in particular and its other foreign military presence in general?

Engaging the Islamic State: A Folly?

With its newly announced campaign against the IS, the US again stands at crossroads, divided between three strenuous military commitments – Asia-pacific, Ukraine and West Asia – and a reduction in budgets back home. Although the extent of the US military involvement differs in each case, the cumulative budgetary toll on the country’s defence budget has necessitated a rethink.

The pressure on Washington was evident when US President Barack Obama announced an open-ended “broad coalition” to fight the IS, instead of taking it forward unilaterally. The US restricted itself from committing fully to the anticipated long-drawn war against the IS through a combination of “no boots on ground” and “light military footprint.” However, both these strategies will depend on how cooperative other allies and friends of the US, particularly those in the region, are. So far, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain, and Qatar have pledged support to the US against the IS. Whether the campaign against the IS remains to be not “America’s war alone” will be contingent on the nature of support the US gets from these countries.

At least two suggestions imply that the US could get further embroiled in its fight against the IS; Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested that more US ground forces could be needed in its fight against the IS and the further expansion of airstrikes by the US inside Iraq. The US wanted to disentangle from wars in West Asia but ended up redeploying troops to Iraq and expanding air operations in Syria. The nature of the threat emerging from the IS has required the US to enter deeper in the region than initially anticipated. Apart from these, the Pentagon-White House rift, on whether the US campaign against the IS will succeed, adds to its bane.

Impact on Defense Budget

These military commitments have taken a huge toll on the US defence budget. The first five weeks of US airstrikes in northern Iraq has cost $262.5 million. The military offensive planned against the IS is likely to bite off a massive $500 billion into Pentagon’s spending cuts planned over the next decade. Since these are mandatory cuts mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act (also called Sequestration), it would mean a resource-depleted US force over the next decade.

This is anticipated in a Department of Defence (DoD) paper released in April 2013, titled ‘Defense Budget Priorities and Choice-Fiscal Year 2014.’ The report mentions drawdown of forces and resource depletion as two important strategies planned in the roadmap for the US military. The paper categorically mentions that the DoD estimates a 20 per cent drop in the overall defence budget from 2010 to 2017. Sequestration, if not amended through an amendment, will lead to further cuts in the defense budget ($50 billion each year, through 2021). Unfortunately, all of these coincide with the US’ foreign military engagements.

This is a massive cut the DoD is talking about and will likely have an impact on the number of troops, overseas operations, ammunitions, military intelligence and defence research, among other things. Specifically, the US will have to do a reduction of approximately 50, 000 active-duty soldiers, do away with a navy carrier and its mid-air refuel tankers KC-10s, apart from similar reductions. If the US might have to choose between strength reduction and ammunition reduction, the latter would be a harder choice. Obama, in the past, has held the relation between technology and success as directly proportional. To that extent, defence research and production are likely to continue with the current pace, or even higher. Truth, then, might be on the side of the Republican hawks when they argue that the IS has revealed the US’ incapacity to cut military spending.

The beheading of two US journalists by the IS militants has garnered the necessary domestic support to carry out military strikes against these militants, which seems to have shrouded the defence budget cut debate for now. But could this only be a temporary lull?

THE ISLAMIC STATE: NO COUNTRY FOR THE OLD WORLD ORDER

Ranjit Gupta


Following spectacular successes in routing government forces and other opponents in both Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) announced the establishment of an Islamic State (IS) on June 30, 2014 to the absolute astonishment of a stunned world. The IS controls 2/5ths of the Syrian territory and 2/5ths of Iraqi territory. It holds assets worth over $2 billion – cash taken from banks and government treasuries of the towns it has taken over in Syria and Iraq; ransom money from those kidnapped (including almost $135 million reportedly paid by European governments or companies to secure the release of their kidnapped nationals); revenues of about $2 million per day from sale of oil from the four oilfields in Syria and one in Iraq that it controls; from fees and taxes; from funding from
entities and individuals in Gulf countries, and looting from businessmen and common citizens in territories that it controls etc. It is virtually self-sufficient, economically and financially. It is very well-equipped militarily, having captured huge amounts of
sophisticated weaponry. It has about 10-12,000 fighters in Iraq, mostly Iraqi, and perhaps thrice as many in Syria, majority Syrian, with at least one-third being
foreigners, including many from Western countries. The world has not seen any terrorist entity like the IS. There is no option but to defeat the IS. Otherwise Iraq
and Syria will unravel and instability will cascade throughout West Asia with disastrous consequences for
the world at large. Positive omens are emerging in Iraq. The formation of a
national unity government is finally under way and once Sunnis start being given their rightful role, objectives publicly supported by both Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the Sunni population will almost surely reject the IS’s medieval ideology and brutal rule and defeat them as they had done earlier in 2008, in Anbar Province routing the Al
Qaeda in Iraq – the IS’s original avatar. The Baa’thist and other Saddam era army officers and personnel who had temporarily allied with the IS are beginning to leave. The IS cannot be sustained without the support of the Sunni population at large. The US air strikes enabled the Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi Special Forces, who, unprecedentedly, worked together for the first time, to recover control of the Mosul dam, and on August 31,
the town of Amerli that had fallen to IS control in June. Even the traditional enemies of the Kurdistan Regional Government's leader Masoud Barzai, the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party, pitched in to help, and escorted the Yazidis to safety. The Sadrists, who had fought
bitterly against the Americans, have publicly requested US help and cooperation but without putting their troops into Iraq.
Significantly, GCC countries that have in the past, with considerable justification, been accused of financing the spread of Islamic extremism, have finally accepted that this virus is the greatest existential danger to them. It is significant that the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, had an excellent visit to Saudi Arabia last week. Repeatedly affirmed by King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia has made it clear that the Islamic State is now its and the GCC’s preeminent enemy and defeating it is their top strategic priority. A variety of proactive measures have been initiated.
For the first time since the end of World War II, countries that have held opposing views on most regional issues in West Asia are all together, without exception, strongly opposing the IS. There are hundreds of US military advisers in Iraq and more will be deputed; US airstrikes have been increasing. Significantly, traditionally non-interventionist Germany, other EU countries, and Australia and Canada have announced weapons supply to the Kurds. Russia has provided Sukhoi fighters and a lot of other weaponry. Extensive help has been available from Iran – not merely weapons and funds but officers and small units of the Al Quds Force. Iran, for the first time, is supplying weapons to the Kurds. Iran and the US are cooperating although
there is understandable defensiveness for both sides about admitting it publicly.
Though there is a lack of clarity on how exactly the US intends to prosecute the war against the IS, on Aug 29, US Secretary of State John Kerry publicly announced
intentions of proactively leading an effort to establish a truly multinational coalition of states and entities against the IS and seeking UN Security Council endorsement.
Though the US, French and British leaders publicly maintain that they will not cooperate with the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in combating the IS, in due time, ways will be found around current anti- Assad reservations. Meanwhile the US has started reconnaissance flights over Syria. Encouragingly, supplying arms to ‘moderate’ rebels by Western and GCC countries and Turkey is under review as these arms have in the past fallen in the hands of the IS. The Assad regime has also started confronting the IS more assertively.
Having said all this, the world must brace up to the reality that far more brutality, death, destruction and violence in West Asia lies ahead than has already been
witnessed as the war against the IS truly gets under way.

THE MILITARY'S SCRIPT AND ENDGAME

Suba Chandran


Is there a coup imminent in Pakistan? Or has it already taken place behind the scenes and the military is well embedded?
Javed Hashmi, the President of the PTI who has now distanced from Imran Khan has made few important statements hinting a script authored by the Establishment on the current political crisis in Pakistan.
What is this script and what is Pakistan military’s endgame in the current crisis? Does the military want the political crisis to escalate further and finally take over, justifying the inability and incompetence of the elected leadership to provide governance, and more importantly stability?
Though the ISPR statements from the military have distanced from such an intention, there is enough to suspect that the Establishment has a script, and is
enacting a political play in carefully calibrated steps. There are three major actors in this script; Nawaz Sharif
– the Prime Minister and the leader of the PML-N;
Imran Khan – the leader of PTI; and Tahirul Qadri – the leader of PAT.
The ISPR statement dated 31 August was a crucial hinting two salient points. The release after the Corps Commanders meeting stated that “the conference
reviewed with serious concern, the existing political crisis and the violent turn it has taken, resulting in large scale injuries and loss of lives. Further use of force will only aggravate the problem. It was once again
reiterated that the situation should be resolved politically without wasting any time and without recourse to violent means.” The two parties to the crisis-government led by Sharif and the protesters led by Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri, have been following two different approaches. The government has been trying to maintain the status quo at the political level, and ensure there is no violence in the streets. The protesters, right from day one have been trying to upset the status, demanding nothing less than the resignation of an elected Prime Minister. More importantly, they were willing to use force to occupy the red zone and blast into government buildings including the office of the Prime Minister. Clearly, there is a section trying to maintain status quo
(the government in this case); and another trying to upset the equilibrium and create anarchy. By clearly telling that “the situation should be resolved politically…
without recourse to violent means” the ISPR statement has affected the position of the government and strengthened that of the protesters. If there is one party that could use force constitutionally, it is the State. And the ISPR Statement clearly equates both at the same length.
Majority in Pakistan, though are not satisfied with the performance of Sharif’s government ever since it took over, they are also highly critical of Imran Khan – Tahirul Qadri interference, which is not only
undemocratic, but also is a political blackmail. Javed Hashmi’s statements hint about a possible understanding between the Establishment and the two protesters.
Back to the original question, what is military’s script?
And what is its Endgame?
In retrospect, it appears to have started with the political trial of Musharraf. Though the military then under Gen Kayani and now under Gen Sharif did not make any overt references to the trial process, it is obvious no military could see their former COAS being dragged by the court. It also appears, again in retrospect, that Nawaz Sharif could have gone slow in
pursuing the case against Musharraf. Sharif wanted to return the favour and wanted Musharraf to go through what he underwent after the previous coup in the late 1990s. A section within Pakistan even discussed the need for reconciliation and avoiding any vendetta politics. Sharif could have avoided the trial and let Musharraf disappear into oblivion. Given the electoral
process and the performance of Musharraf’s clique in 2013 elections and the popular anger against him, he posed no threat to Sharif and his government. He
should have let Musharraf alone. And that is what the military also wanted. To be fair to Sharif, it was not only him who was
against Musharraf, but the entire judicial structure starting from the former Chief Justice – Iftikhar Chaudhry to the lawyers in district court were keen to prosecute him. In fact the lawyer movement which was
instrumental in dethroning Musharraf worked over time to ensure the trial process became intense. At the popular level, Musharraf became the scapegoat for
whatever had gone wrong during his tenure. The print, electronic and social media joined the chorus; the result was the “hang Musharraf hand” slogan became the
dominant political discourse during 2013-14.Though there was a popular sentiment against Musharraf, Sharif today is reaping the whirlwind.
Differences between Nawaz Sharif and the military have started expanding ever since. The Hamid Mir and Geo TV incidents only strengthened this divide. Nawaz Sharif was seen by the Establishment as an actor behind the Hamid Mir affair in which the military and its ISI was projected and targeted by a section publicly within Pakistan. While targeting of Musharraf could be tolerated, the Establishment would never like to see it being hounded by the media in public; when the serving ISI Chief became the target and his picture shown
continuously, that too live over the attack on Hamid Mir, the military and its intelligence agencies would have decided to strike back. Then came a short interregnum – Modi’s election and the invitation to his swearing in ceremony in New Delhi.
According to reports, the military was not too keen in Sharif taking part in the ceremony. Earlier, Sharif has made numerous statements during the election
campaign to improve the Indo-Pak dialogue process. For Sharif, better Indo-Pak relations would give him better leverage internally within Pakistan, and give him
more space to manoeuvre vis-a-vis the Establishment. The decision to strike back at Sharif should have been taken place immediately after the Musharraf trial, and
then during Hamid Mir/Geo incidents. The sudden return of Tahirul Qadri to launch a revolution and Imran Khan finding faults with the 2013 election process in 2014 is
no coincidence. It would be a different issue, whether the Establishment is using these two protesters to teach Sharif a lesson, or the Imran and Qadri using the
military’s support to achieve their own Endgame. So what would the military warn to achieve? Look at what is has achieved so far. There is complete chaos in the capital. Reports in print, electronic and social media would highlight the popular anger against the political leadership and their inability to co-habit. The first major
achievement for the Establishment in the entire process would be the thorough discrediting of elected leaders and the democratic process. Second, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the Establishment is attempting to reach an agreement with Sharif to diffuse the situation, which would ensure that the military would be in charge with Pakistan’s
policies towards US, Afghanistan and India.
Third, irrespective of coup, the political leadership both at the ruling and opposition sides know clearly who the real boss is. When the judiciary asked the protesters to
vacate, there was no response; but both Qadri and Imran went to meet the military leaders, when they were summoned. The government, though armed with
Constitutional provisions and even a support within the Parliament have been reluctant to take action. Certainly – neither the Parliamentary nor the Judiciary is
supreme. The GHQ is.

RELIGIOUS RADICALISATION IN XINCHIANG: IS CHINA'S GAME-PLAN TO BLAME?

Bhavna Singh


The term ‘unipolar world order’ has slowly been erased from the lexicon of current debates on world affairs. While the Obama Administration appears determined to keep the flag of Pax Americana flying around the world, events in Latin America, Europe, Asia and West Asia have begun to challenge the US-led global order. China and Russia have successfully penetrated Latin America by spreading their economic and military
presence hitherto completely dominated by the US. While Japan has been seeking in vain to chase the Chinese into Latin America, the Obama Administration has been accused of neglecting its own backyard. Many analysts raised eyebrows when US President Barack Obama promised considerable assistance to Africa last month but had little to offer to Latin America.
China already has a robust presence in Africa and has replaced the US as the principal trading partner of many Latin American countries. The US financial assistance has always been conditional to protection of human rights or promotion of democracy, but China imposes no strings; and thus, an increasing number of countries in Africa and Latin America are looking up to Beijing for assistance.
Notably, China has little to offer to strife-torn West Asia. It has taken a back seat in the game of diplomacy and has not even attempted to restore order in Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Syria or Iraq. The US on the other
hand has directly or indirectly remained a high profile actor in this region. The reigning superpower, however, has failed to contain, manage, and let alone resolve, the
ongoing violence in West Asia. The credibility of the US as a world leader has been questioned in view of Washington’s alleged mishandling of the Syrian civil war; the delayed response to the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS); the lack of satisfactory steps to re-establish order in the post-
Gaddafi Libya; and the inability to arrive at an agreeable solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. Critics have pointed to the US’ hasty withdrawal from Iraq before restoration of socio-political stability and its planned exit from Afghanistan despite the resurgence of
the Taliban as indicative of the US’ diminished ability and willingness to sustain its hegemonic world order. While some argue that the US is on the march to
become-energy independent and hence cares little about the West Asian muddle, the region remains critical to global energy security. Can the US economy sustain itself, if there is instability in the global energy market?
The US’ recent decision to seek NATO assistance in addressing the threat from the IS is but one among several examples that testify the US’ declining power to maintain world order on its own. There was little doubt that the US dominated the NATO during the Cold War. However, this domination ended after the collapse of the
Soviet Union and despite NATO’s geographical expansion.
The support received by the US from NATO in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 vanished in 2003 when the Bush Administration prepared to militarily intervene in Iraq. In the recent NATO summit in Poland, Obama persuaded some NATO members to expand its activities
to other parts of the world with the creation of rapid deployment force. The first such step would be to tackle the terror threat from IS. However, it signifies the US’
weakness than strength in managing the IS threat. The jerky balance of power in today’s world, however, is more discernible in Europe and the Asia Pacific where
the resurgence of Russian power and the emergence of China as a potential global power has put to the test the resilience of the US-led global order. American threats, sanctions, and/or even diplomacy failed to
prevent Russia from spreading its control over to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. Over the past several months, Ukraine has emerged as a new cold war battleground between the Obama and the Putin administrations. After Putin brandished his nuclear arsenal, his proposal for a cease-fire became effective in Eastern Ukraine. Similarly, the US seems ineffective in stemming the expansion of Beijing’s influence in the Asia Pacific both
due to China’s rising military prowess and vast economic muscle. China has occupied several islands in the South China Sea, harassed smaller neighbours, challenged the US’ naval vessels and surveillance ships
risking potential confrontation, declared Air Defence Identification Zones and patrolled in waters close to the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in East China Sea. The US has issued statements warning China and assuring its allies, but there is no manifestation of its effect. Significantly, China and Russia have been forging closer
economic and military ties to alter the global power structure, making it difficult for the US to stop the erosion of its global influence.

OF INQUILAB AND THE INQUILABIS

Salma Malik


The term ‘unipolar world order’ has slowly been erased from the lexicon of current debates on world affairs. While the Obama Administration appears determined to keep the flag of Pax Americana flying around the world, events in Latin America, Europe, Asia and West Asia have begun to challenge the US-led global order. China and Russia have successfully penetrated Latin America by spreading their economic and military
presence hitherto completely dominated by the US. While Japan has been seeking in vain to chase the Chinese into Latin America, the Obama Administration has been accused of neglecting its own backyard. Many analysts raised eyebrows when US President Barack Obama promised considerable assistance to Africa last month but had little to offer to Latin America.
China already has a robust presence in Africa and has replaced the US as the principal trading partner of many Latin American countries. The US financial assistance has always been conditional to protection of human rights or promotion of democracy, but China imposes no strings; and thus, an increasing number of countries in Africa and Latin America are looking up to Beijing for assistance.
Notably, China has little to offer to strife-torn West Asia. It has taken a back seat in the game of diplomacy and has not even attempted to restore order in Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Syria or Iraq. The US on the other
hand has directly or indirectly remained a high profile actor in this region. The reigning superpower, however, has failed to contain, manage, and let alone resolve, the
ongoing violence in West Asia. The credibility of the US as a world leader has been questioned in view of Washington’s alleged mishandling of the Syrian civil war; the delayed response to the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS); the lack of
satisfactory steps to re-establish order in the post- Gaddafi Libya; and the inability to arrive at an agreeable solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. Critics have pointed to the US’ hasty withdrawal from Iraq before restoration of socio-political stability and its planned exit from Afghanistan despite the resurgence of the Taliban as indicative of the US’ diminished ability
and willingness to sustain its hegemonic world order. While some argue that the US is on the march to become-energy independent and hence cares little about
the West Asian muddle, the region remains critical to global energy security. Can the US economy sustain itself, if there is instability in the global energy market? The US’ recent decision to seek NATO assistance in
addressing the threat from the IS is but one among several examples that testify the US’ declining power to maintain world order on its own. There was little doubt that the US dominated the NATO during the Cold War.
However, this domination ended after the collapse of the Soviet Union and despite NATO’s geographical expansion.
The support received by the US from NATO in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 vanished in 2003 when the Bush Administration prepared to militarily intervene in Iraq. In the recent NATO summit in Poland, Obama persuaded some NATO members to expand its activities
to other parts of the world with the creation of rapid deployment force. The first such step would be to tackle the terror threat from IS. However, it signifies the US’
weakness than strength in managing the IS threat. The jerky balance of power in today’s world, however, is more discernible in Europe and the Asia Pacific where the resurgence of Russian power and the emergence of China as a potential global power has put to the test the resilience of the US-led global order. American threats, sanctions, and/or even diplomacy failed to
prevent Russia from spreading its control over to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. Over the past several months, Ukraine has emerged as a new cold war battleground between the Obama and the Putin administrations. After Putin brandished his nuclear arsenal, his proposal for a cease-fire became effective in Eastern Ukraine. Similarly, the US seems ineffective in stemming the expansion of Beijing’s influence in the Asia Pacific both
due to China’s rising military prowess and vast economic muscle. China has occupied several islands in the South China Sea, harassed smaller neighbours, challenged the US’ naval vessels and surveillance ships
risking potential confrontation, declared Air Defence Identification Zones and patrolled in waters close to the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in East China Sea. The US has issued statements warning China and assuring its allies, but there is no manifestation of its effect. Significantly, China and Russia have been forging closer
economic and military ties to alter the global power structure, making it difficult for the US to stop the erosion of its global influence.

CHANGING GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER: OBAMA'S RESPONSE

Chintamani Mahapatra


The term ‘unipolar world order’ has slowly been erased from the lexicon of current debates on world affairs. While the Obama Administration appears determined to keep the flag of Pax Americana flying around the world, events in Latin America, Europe, Asia and West Asia have begun to challenge the US-led global order. China and Russia have successfully penetrated Latin America by spreading their economic and military
presence hitherto completely dominated by the US. While Japan has been seeking in vain to chase the Chinese into Latin America, the Obama Administration has been accused of neglecting its own backyard. Many analysts raised eyebrows when US President Barack Obama promised considerable assistance to Africa last month but had little to offer to Latin America.
China already has a robust presence in Africa and has replaced the US as the principal trading partner of many Latin American countries. The US financial assistance has always been conditional to protection of human rights or promotion of democracy, but China imposes no strings; and thus, an increasing number of countries in Africa and Latin America are looking up to Beijing for assistance.
Notably, China has little to offer to strife-torn West Asia. It has taken a back seat in the game of diplomacy and has not even attempted to restore order in Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Syria or Iraq. The US on the other
hand has directly or indirectly remained a high profile actor in this region. The reigning superpower, however, has failed to contain, manage, and let alone resolve, the
ongoing violence in West Asia. The credibility of the US as a world leader has been questioned in view of Washington’s alleged mishandling of the Syrian civil war; the delayed response to the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS); the lack of
satisfactory steps to re-establish order in the post- Gaddafi Libya; and the inability to arrive at an agreeable solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. Critics have pointed to the US’ hasty withdrawal from Iraq before restoration of socio-political stability and its planned exit from Afghanistan despite the resurgence of the Taliban as indicative of the US’ diminished ability
and willingness to sustain its hegemonic world order. While some argue that the US is on the march to become-energy independent and hence cares little about
the West Asian muddle, the region remains critical to global energy security. Can the US economy sustain itself, if there is instability in the global energy market?
The US’ recent decision to seek NATO assistance in addressing the threat from the IS is but one among several examples that testify the US’ declining power to maintain world order on its own. There was little doubt that the US dominated the NATO during the Cold War.
However, this domination ended after the collapse of the Soviet Union and despite NATO’s geographical expansion.
The support received by the US from NATO in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 vanished in 2003 when the Bush Administration prepared to militarily intervene in Iraq. In the recent NATO summit in Poland, Obama persuaded some NATO members to expand its activities
to other parts of the world with the creation of rapid deployment force. The first such step would be to tackle the terror threat from IS. However, it signifies the US’
weakness than strength in managing the IS threat. The jerky balance of power in today’s world, however, is more discernible in Europe and the Asia Pacific where the resurgence of Russian power and the emergence of China as a potential global power has put to the test the resilience of the US-led global order. American threats, sanctions, and/or even diplomacy failed to
prevent Russia from spreading its control over to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. Over the past several months, Ukraine has emerged as a new cold war battleground between the Obama and the Putin administrations. After Putin brandished his nuclear arsenal, his proposal for a cease-fire became effective in Eastern Ukraine. Similarly, the US seems ineffective in stemming the expansion of Beijing’s influence in the Asia Pacific both
due to China’s rising military prowess and vast economic muscle. China has occupied several islands in the South China Sea, harassed smaller neighbours, challenged the US’ naval vessels and surveillance ships
risking potential confrontation, declared Air Defence Identification Zones and patrolled in waters close to the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in East China Sea. The US has issued statements warning China and assuring its allies, but there is no manifestation of its effect. Significantly, China and Russia have been forging closer
economic and military ties to alter the global power structure, making it difficult for the US to stop the erosion of its global influence.

INDIA-AUSTRALIA NUCLEAR AGREEMENT: BESPEAKING OF A NEW AGE

Sheel Kant Sharma


The conclusion of a nuclear cooperation agreement between India and Australia last week is indeed a landmark achievement for their bilateral relations. Before leaving for his India visit, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was confident of reaching an agreement with India as he stated in Canberra that “We ought to be prepared to provide uranium to India under suitable
safeguards.” Considering the chasm that separated their positions twenty years ago on the main issues in the global nuclear mainstream, Abbot’s statement bespeaks
of a coming of age. He declared in India that “…there is a very high level of trust between us, and that is why we are signing this agreement.” Australia has provided
full assurance that it will be a long-term reliable supplier of uranium to India. Australia also supports India’s joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) as a member. The agreement will also cover other key areas in nuclear technology such as supply of isotopes and cooperation in regard to nuclear safety. Although Australia does not run nuclear power plants, it has an extensive nuclear enterprise comprising not only mining but also research in diverse areas including, for example, on making the
safeguards system more effective. It is to the credit of India’s nuclear program that it receives recognition from Australia in unequivocal terms, like “trust” and
scrupulous adherence to international laws “regardless of the ups and downs of the political situation in New Delhi.” This level of understanding and confluence of mutual interest takes the relationship to a truly strategic scale of cooperation; energy being central to it.
Looking at Australia’s immense natural resources and the vast unpolluted continent that lies at its disposal, Canberra’s role and profile in international arena in the coming decades will certainly grow much bigger. So far, it has played a modest role in the Asia Pacific compared to its potential albeit as a dependable and steadfast US ally and a robust economic partner for ASEAN and
China. India and Australia, as the Joint Statement issued after the prime minister’s visit demonstrates, are set to do a whole lot of things together for mutual benefit. The nuclear accord encapsulates and symbolises that coming together just as the seminal agreement between India and the US did in 2006. In recent years, a definitive sense has emerged in the Australian worldview that a strong and prosperous India will be a factor for peace and stability in Asia and the world.
Coming to the uranium metal, its fortunes fluctuate wildly depending on the temperamental swings of the mass psychosis about “radiation” on the one hand and the inexorable push of nuclear power as a relatively cleaner and sustainable energy option for the energy
hungry planet. From its highs in the short years of nuclear renaissance in the middle of last decade, uranium prices have come down to nearly half that peak post the Fukushima disaster and subsequent sharp
retardation in nuclear power prospect – not only in Japan and Germany but also in liability-obsessed India. India’s vacillation on nuclear power projects is particularly shocking since its power needs today exceed its production by figures that approach a 100000 Megawatt and even coal fired thermal plant capacity languishing in shortfalls as big as 90000 Megawatt due
to fuel crunch, according to some estimates. It is significant that Australia has come forward as a reliable supplier not only for nuclear fuel but also for coal. An uninterrupted supply of uranium and its
augmentation to meet the requirements in Indian nuclear power plants will also raise their capacity factors to record highs.
As it is the global openings since the US deal have brought enormous improvements in fuel situation and the Rawatbhata nuclear power plant units today can boast of achieving a global peak in continuous,
unbroken running of a plant. Australia has, along with its neighbour, New Zealand,
considerable moral clout in the realm of global nuclear and advanced technology. India should benefit from the Australian leverage for its entry in the NSG – Australia
has kept the nuclear option out for meeting its power needs despite its vast uranium resources.
So, its support may hopefully carry greater clout with conscientious objectors of nuclear power like New Zealand, Austria and Ireland that are not easily persuaded to relax the rules for India. The commercial
factor in uranium deals, while important for the Australian mining industry, is hardly so big as to be accused of driving its government’s stance in the energy debate. The environmentalists, as Prime Minister Abbott has stated, are a highly significant lobby in Australia – that constantly oversees the mining industry to ensure that the green standards are observed to the utmost
level of satisfaction. It now remains for the company representatives from both sides to thrash out the details of contract terms for
supply of uranium. India’s Nuclear Power Cooperation Limited has been keen to build lifetime inventories for suitably safeguarded nuclear plants and would naturally want to obtain long-term supply guarantees. This should not pose a problem to arrive at, given the India’s record commitment to its safeguards obligations.