Pakistan's Quest for Modern Submarines Ended up with Chinese Platform

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Pakistani government has accepted the summery request of Pakistan Navy to purchase of 8 new submarines from China. This was revealed by Pakistan Navy officials on March 31 while briefing National Assembly's defence committee. It was also reported that Pakistan Navy is looking for conventional submarines from European sources as well.

The country was in search of an affordable diesel electric submarine (SSK) since which could provide customization for Pakistani developed cruise missiles (CM) and Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM). This capability was critical for Pakistan Navy's submarine to put Pakistan's Naval strategic force command (NSFC) in operation. Current fleet of Pakistan Navy submarine comprises on French Agosta-90B and Agosta-70 submarine with no capability to fire CM or SLBM. Though Agosta 90-B is capable firing SM-39 Exocet anti-ship missiles but it lacks the ability to launch long range cruise and ballistic missiles.

The negotiations between Pakistan and China on a submarine deal initiated in 2011 when India opted for French made Scorpion submarines which are more advanced than Pakistani Agosta-90Bs acquired in 1990s. Six Scorpene submarines are currently being built at the Mazagon Dock Ltd in Mumbai with technology from French firm DCNS under project code named P-75. Around the same time when India initiated project -75, Pakistan was also interested in German built Type-214 SSKs which were considered an adequate response of modernization of Indian submarine fleet. But issues like higher cost and German refusal to upgrade the subs to make them able to fire cruise missiles. Pakistan already has tested surface and air launched cruise missiles and a submarine launched version is next logical step.

Though it is not clear which type has been selected by Pakistan Navy but IHS Janes has reported a Pakistani Foreign Ministry official saying that "in the recent past, there have been reports of discussions for the Type 041 submarines". It is believed that Yuan Class (Type 041) submarine has displacement in between 3500-4000 ton and is equipped with YJ-2 (YJ-82) anti-ship missiles (Mach 0.9, Range = 120 km), YJ-803 (180 Km) and a combination of Yu-4 (SAET-50) passive homing and Yu-3 (SET-65E) active/passive homing torpedoes. Yu-6 wake-homing torpedoes may also be carried. Yuan class is considered the successor of Type 039 Song Class submarine making it 3rd model of Chinese indigenous SSKs. Type 039 itself was a successor of Type 035 Ming Class submarine. Type 041, just like 039, is believed to be a combination of both western and Chinese technologies. Germany supplied propulsion system for Type-039 and according to a secret Indian report published in 2013, China was to built 15 more Yuan class submarines with German engines.  In Type 039, three German MTU 16V396SE84 diesel engines drive the large asymmetrical seven-bladed skewed propeller through a single shaft. The sub is said to have an operational range of 8,000 km. According to Global Security website, The Yuan incorporates lessons from the PLAN's experience with the Kilo. The Yuan incorporates some of the best features of the Song and the Kilo. Equipped with Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system, the Type 041 has also an export version as well which has been dubbed as S-20 with some reduced capabilities such as AIP system, lower total length (66m vs 75m of Type-041) and lower displacement around 2300 tons. It is not clear, if Pakistan has opted for S-20 (with modular AIP as is being offered by Chinese) or the original Type 041 which has been deployed by PLAN but there is a general consensus among maritime experts that these submarines would come with some specific customization as per the requirements of Pakistan Navy.  Some sources also of the view that Pakistan Navy is looking to work with two Chinese submarines S-26 and S-30 and both of these are based on new Type-032 Qing Class conventional submarine which remains more advanced than Type 041. Qing Class submarines have a length of more than 92 meters and displacement in excess of 6500 tons. AIP equipped submarine has special Vertical Launch (VLS) tubes for CJ-10 Land Attack Cruise Missiles (LACM). The deal for Qing class between Pakistan and China was reported in 2011. Both Yuan and Qing class submarines are believed to equipped with CY-1 anti-submarine rocket as well. Type-032 was completed in 2013 and has been in sea trials since then. 

It is also believed that Pakistan will built some of these submarines under transfer of technology just like Pakistan build one of four Chinese F-22P frigates. Reportedly, these subs would be built at Submarine Rebuild Complex (SRC) in Orama. There is no confirmed official statement regarding the cost of this entire fleet of submarines but there is a general understanding that an AIP equipped submarine equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles will not cost anything less than $400 million. Buy this estimation the minimum total cost of 8 submarines would be around $4 billion including training, logistics and ToT making it the largest order in history of Pakistan Navy. China will probably provide Pakistan with soft loan for this deal just like JF-17 fighter program,   

ANALYSIS

A deal of 8 Chinese conventional subs would be a leap forward in Pakistan's maritime security considering the prevailing balance of maritime power projection balance in Arabian Sea which is overwhelming in Indian Navy's favor. Indians are monitoring this deal very closely. After the evolution of Indian submarine fleet and its proposed future plans, such a deal from Pakistan was expected since long. The decision should had been made in 2010-11 times but most probably Pakistan Navy was also keen to observe Chinese submarine program and its success. All the potential Chinese submarines discussed above are part of PLAN fleet since number of years now and this gave Pakistan Navy  evaluation team considerable confidence in Chinese system. Considering Pakistan's demand for customized platforms made China the obvious choice for such project. 

But if we look closely at this news, this is not all about Chinese submarines. Pakistan Navy is looking for European platforms as well in form of used subs. Question is, Why so many sub-surface platforms Pakistan is keen to induct? What Pakistan is trying to achieve here in strategic sense with such procurement? One possible explanation of this quest is enhanced requirements of Pakistan Navy due to recent extension in Pakistan's maritime boundaries. Another and more precise answer would be one encompassing Pakistan's Naval Strategic Force Command and its operational status. Evidently, Pakistan is looking for having two tiers in its submarine fleet like all major naval powers. One consisting on conventional submarines like Agosta-90Bs and whatever used sub Pakistan can get from Europe while second tier consisting on submarines capable to firing SLBM giving Pakistan robust 2nd strike capability by the end of the decade as part of its minimum strategic deterrence policy. It must be remembered that the requirement of 12 conventional submarine were orignally part of the Armed Forces Development Plan (AFDP), a comprehensive program envisioned in 2010 for long term modernization of all three forces of Pakistan.      

India's quest for Permanent UNSC Membership Amid Fluid South Asian Geopolitics

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

"We have made considerable progress in establishing and expanding defence contacts and exchanges, including across our borders. We contribute to the maintenance of peace and tranquility - a pre-requisite for the further development of our relationship - and on the boundary question, my government is committed to exploring an early settlement."

This was stated by Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj as she winds up her four days trip to Beijing where she interacted with her Russian and Chinese counter parts and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The visit was a critical development in the backdrop of the US President Obama's recent visit to India in which both the nations vows to form a strategic partnership in Asia-Pacific in which India is ought to play a major role not only in the region but also at global level. Primarily, the visit was aimed to secure the Chinese and Russian support for Indian bid for a permanent seat in UNSC. Other obvious objective was to preparing grounds for Indian Prime Minister's upcoming visit of Beijing in May later this year.

ANALYSIS:

As far as the primary objective is concerned, there has no substantial development. Chinese are really concerned about new upswing in Indo - US relations particularly the Indian role in Pacific rim of Indian Ocean. Other than that, Indian permanent seat in the UN would also reduce Chinese political influence in the global and regional affairs and that is something not acceptable to Beijing.

Swaraj, during her visit, highlighted areas like economics, trade, tourism, infrastructural developments as way forward to boost bilateral ties. But these issues are trivial in nature and have limited implications for the both when viewed from strategic vantage point and this is what 13th joint communique released at the end of trilateral meeting of foreign ministers of India, China and Russia. "Foreign Ministers of China and Russia reiterated the importance they attached to the status of India in international affairs and supported its aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations." This was the only reference made to the Indian efforts to secure UNSC permanent mandate and it was exactly the same what was stated in the 12th joint communique released last year. Evidently, there have been no concrete progress on this account and owing the fluid regional geopolitics, Chinese will remain very cautious about a veto power India.

It is notice worthy that Chinese foreign minister will be visiting Pakistan on 12th of this month to finalize the upcoming visit of Chinese President Xi jinping that is expected in March this year.

RIC & Global Politics:

The visit and the subsequent meetings and the release of communique at the end of this RIC foreign ministers summit, despite no major development on Indian quest for permanent UNSC seat,  is an important event amid complex geopolitics in South Asia and Asia Pacific regions where India is looking to to play a more assertive role. Being world's largest market, India has become strategically attractive to US, China and Russia. China has emerged a powerful global players in the last ten years and Russia has certainly shown resurgence on global political affairs. China and Russia, both these permanent members of UNSC want UN reforms but not with India being a permanent member state and strategic partner of the US simultaneously. On the other hand, India holds the key for the US to maintain its political and military dominance in the region due to India's geography and close proximity to the Indian Ocean, vast population and one of the world's longest coastlines. With this profile, the fast changing geopolitics has placed India in a position to bargain with all three permanent members of UNSC to secure her strategic interests. Modi government is fully aware of this strategic importance of India and this explains Delhi's very aggressive and exertive foreign policy in the region. But, this foreign policy is about to hit a crossroad where Modi will have to make some harsh choices which can reshape the regional geopolitics and Indian role in it as well. India will have to address Chinese and Russian concerns over American overtures in the region and Indian role in them as a strategic partner particularly Washington's Asian Pivot strategy for 21st century which is going to marginalize the Chinese growing military and economic influence in Asia-Pacific, South Asia and Indian Ocean. 

Washington's policy aims to achieve the similar strategic results with India as it got with Japan and South Korea after World War II. The US is poised to have military footprint in India just like she established in Japan and South Korea. In Beijing, this US strategy is being perceived as an attempt of strategic encirclement of China and reaction is manifestation of  Beijing's won plans like 'String of Perl' New Silk Route,and Pak-China Economic Corridor etc. But in the long run, China will take a very cautious discourse in responding joint Indo-US strategic partnership and letting India go completely in the US camp is not an option for Beijing as well at least not now when China is fully focus on South China Sea. This is why, China wants more engagements with India on trade and business along with other measures of mutual trusts. But how long this Chinese strategy of engagement will work depends upon the various factors which are beyond Beijing's control like India's own ambitions to make Indian Ocean completely "India's Ocean", Indian participation in anti-China Quadrilateral alliance in Asia-Pacific, Indian permission to the US to use Indian military installations, Indian Navy's role in South China Sea as the US partner, Indian aggressive policy in Thailand, escalation of border disputes etc. All these developments are going to decide the outcome of regional geopolitics.

Amid this compounded regional scenario, it will be a daunting challenge for Modi to secure Chinese support on matters such as seeking a permanent UNSC seat. There are too many variables. Even Russian support Indian aspirations in the region but only as a RIC partner not the way Washington envisions India's greater role in the region. It was perceptibly expressed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at ministerial meeting as he reaffirmed the role of the three countries ' as a key factor in international politics' in a complex period for the world. 

There has been a general agreement since long that 21st century is going to be Asia's century and the prevailing fluid geopolitical landscape of South Asia explains why!

   
  

  

     

US military bases in India: Emergence of New Strategic Order in Asia

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

US President Obama has begun his 3 days official visit to India today. The visit is considered a significant one as  President Obama will be the first ever US president invited as chief guest on annual Indian Republican Day parade in Delhi on 26th January. It is expected that growing strategic partnership between the two states would enter in next phase through a series  of strategic agreements in field of defense, nuclear cooperation, security, diplomacy and trade. President Obama has already declared India as a strategic partner in his Asian Pivot strategy.

It is being reported that,during this visit,in response to a US proposal, India is to throw open its military,air and naval bases to the US which means that the US will have permanent military footstep in India as well. This deal is certainly going to change the strategic equation in Asia. It is believed that in return to this offer India would be able to use the US military communication setup in Indian Ocean along with other . But, the most significant clause, being reported, is related to joint security pact between the two states where India would also get US to fight alongside it in case of a war. Considering the Indian doctrine of "Two Front War" (a response to threat which stems from strategic partnership between Islamabad and Beijing), this deal is ought to be the counter-balance strategic equation among the Asian nuclear states where two out of three, are perceived to have an undeclared alliance against the third (India). Now after the inclusion of world's only super power in this equation, the strategic balance of power hangs in middle.

This is not the first time when such a proposal has been moved by the US. Last such attempt was made during the previous Indian regime of congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), and it was shot down by allies then. Defence Minister Antony too had vetoed it saying that it would compromise security of India. These clauses would come under the renewal of Defence pact signed in 2005. Under this pact, US had supplied India around $10 billion worth of arms. Now as the BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has replaced the government in Delhi, officials of both the states are hopeful that this new agreement would be reached eventually during the current visit of President Obama.

Apart from giving the US military access to bases of Indian forces, this proposed agreement would enable the US to have direct access to India's secured communication network. This access will enable the pentagon and other US bodies to have eyes and ears within India as well. In return, India would have access to the high-tech military hardware and active military  support of the US in event of war. 

The advantage, the NDA defence ministry argues, is that in turn Indian ships can get real time information through the US networks which is not possible today. According to the NDA's defense ministry, these agreements -known as "Foundational Agreements", are just the formal announcement for the cooperation which is already there and an arrangement that is already 'operational'. These agreements include the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement, the Logistics Support Agreement and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for geo-spatial cooperation.It points out that Indian ships in Gulf waters do refuel from US ships in sea and neither countries have objected. Now that US has shifted base to Asia, India is seen as a partner by US.

Indian response was promising for the US as Prime Minister Modi had instructed his defence minister to finalize the paperwork before Obama’s visit indicating Delhi's willingness for opening new vistas of strategic bilateral cooperation with the US.

ANALYSIS:

This new proposed strategic cooperation deal is a significant development in the region and is going to change the strategic scenario in Asia. But the implications of this agreement would be global.

1. This agreement would be perceived by Islamabad as a new strategic partnership against national security interests of Pakistan. Pakistan already has grave concerns over Indian presence in Afghanistan. 
2. This agreement would be a key development against Chinese strategic interests as well. Though it is not clear yet which bases India would allow the US to utilize, but to Beijing, it would be part of existing US encirclement strategy against China. 
3. US already has massive military presence in the East and South East of China (i.e. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) now with this strategic partnership would establish the US military footprint in South of China as well. It is worth-noticing fact that the US forces are already there in Afghanistan which border China from West.
4. It would be interesting to see how Moscow reacts over this new development. But one fact is certain that this strategic partnership would put India's so-called Non-Alignment stance to an end.
5. The ongoing strategic maritime competition for dominance over Indian Ocean between China and US led alliance of India,Japan and Australia  would intensify further. Smaller players like Pakistan and Sri Lanka are bound to play significant role due to their geographical proximity to India.   
6. As for as Pakistan is concerned, this partnership between India and the US necessitates a similar long term strategic arrangement between China and Pakistan. Pakistan foreign policy must seek overtures to bring about a balance in Islamabad's relations with the US and Russia as well.
7. Political change in Sri Lanka is also a significant development in context of overall emerging strategic order in the region. Sir Lanka has expelled RAW's station chief in Colombo for alleged involvement in ouster of pro-China Rajapaksa regime in recent election. Against Indian wishes, new Sri Lankan government has not changed pro-China policy of previous government due to which India felt that it was time to seek the US military support to counter Chinese maritime strategy around India. In this backdrop, Sri Lankan geography would continue to hold a significant strategic value in the region.
8. Sri Lanka is also vital for the native American interests as well. Chinese naval out reach in Indian Ocean has raised eyebrows in Pentagon and the US Navy which consider the Chinese moves to build naval bases in Sri Lanka as a hostile move. The strategic Naval base of the US in Deago Garcia is located South of Sri Lanka.

All these potential factor establish the fact that a new Asian strategic order is going to take shape in coming months in which the US would assert itself through military partnership and diplomatic outreach to increase the influence in the regional geopolitics. This is what the US envisioned in her Asia-Pivot policy. Indo- US strategic partnership framework is vital prong of this strategy which is primarily designed to encircle and contain China.

Obama’s anti-ISIS policy: Through Geopolitical Lens!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

President Obama has recently announced a new strategy to fight the ISIS in Iraq and Syria. US House of Representative has approved the policy as well. Before analyzing this strategy, let's quickly skim through the main vertexes of "new" American strategy to "degrade" and "defeat" ISIS.

1. Significant expansion of the aerial bombing campaign in Iraq
2. Training and equipping of the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
3. Bombing in Syria
4. Supporting, arming and training moderate rebels against Syrian government of Bashr al Asad.
5. Getting a coalition of European and regional allies on board in the fight against IS.
6. No boots on ground.

Would this policy yield anything positive for regional peace? Very unlikely! The fundamental flaw with Obama's entire anti-ISIS strategy stems from the failure of previous attempts to eradicate terror groups through air power campaigns and policy of using non-state actors as has been rightly identified by analyst Tim Fernholz in following words:

"The legal justification the Obama administration relies upon for its war powers is the same one that justifies air strikes against extremist groups in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan—failed or failing states where US counter-terror policy relies on dubious local allies and drone strikes to manage extremist groups. That may well be the future in Iraq and Syria".

Supporting non-state actors and bombing unconfirmed "terrorist targets" will never bring peace in any restive state. The failure of CIA's ever expanding drone wars provide an irrefutable testimony of this assertion. But a careful analysis of the US/West's anti-ISIS strategy leaves very little doubt that bringing peace in Syria is not among the real objectives of this wired "peace" strategy.

Apart from raising questions on overall strategy, one must be intrigued to investigate the criteria Washington is using to profile the Syrian rebels as "moderates" and "hardcore". We have been listening about moderate Muslim, moderate rebels and even moderate Islam. But no one in Washington or in the entire western media and intellectual circle shed any light on the definition of these "moderate rebels". As there is no clear definition or criteria exists to profile any group's tendency to do violence and terrorism it becomes an impossible task to identify such groups unless they have been identified already; an a possibility which hitherto cannot be confirmed.

How to distinguish between hardcore and Moderate rebels? Major policy flaw in Obama Strategy

Plans to arm and train such non-state actors in Syria leaves very little doubt in assertion that Obama's anti-ISIS plan is actually a recipe of complete security disaster which eventually would become a device to alter the map of Middle East once again after 100 years of World War I.

These concerns over Obama's policy and persistent fervor of White House to pursue this policy despite the above mentioned concerns demand to investigate this crisis and its response strategy through the lens of geopolitical developments taking place in the region as global powers compete to protect their strategic interests in the region.

China and Russia opposed American plans of removing Bashr Al Asad regime through a military intervention. US/NATO had to postpone their plans after Russia announced to send her naval fleet in the region. Ironically, ISIS has provided the US with a narrative which would not only enable Washington to prevent any diplomatic pressure from Russia and Iran against the planned invasion in Syria but would also create a conducive environment for regime change operation in Syria as well. This regime change operation is critical in the grand scheme of things and is part of new strategic US plan for the region. After 9/11, the US planned to launch a massive regime change campaign in seven Middle East states including Syria. This revelation was first made public by the former NATO commander General Wesley Clark in 2007. This assertion is further supported by the fact that now many experts within the US intellectual circles believe that it was Obama administration which made ISIS such a dangerous threat not only for the region but also the US interests as well. Albeit, their definition of the US interests in the region mainly revolves only around the lives of the US citizens.

Former NATO Commander - General Wesley Clark 

There is a third and more ominous view point as well in this regard. Many experts believe that the US policy is leading the entire region towards a new and more intensified conflict. This argument has its own merit and seems to be based on more realistic assessment. Syrian regime is an old Soviet/ Russian ally and this is why the US wants to through it out as revealed by General Clark as well. Russians on their part, would certainly respond to any such attempt by the US and for Iran and China it would be impossible to remain isolated in this entire conflict. In her initial response to Obama’s new Syrian strategy, Russia has warned that US air strikes against militants in Syria would be a "gross violation" of international law. Russia has asked the US to seek mandate of UN Security Council for any such attack something the US will never consider considering possible Russian veto to any such coalition. Iran, another Russian ally in the region, has already termed this anti-ISIS coalition as failure without its inclusion in it. This involves Saudi Arabia and other Sunni gulf states in this conflict as well.

In this geopolitical backdrop, the most fundamental question which still remains unanswered in the entire US Syrian policy is how today’s moderate rebel would not become a threat to regional stability and Syrian integrity tomorrow even if this policy pays off and root out ISIS successfully, regardless from the future of Bash Al Asad regime? Obama has not answered it neither those in Gulf States who thinks that ISIS would be eliminated and peace would be restored in the region. Ground reality, on the other hand is starkly obvious. Obama’s new policy may end one monster but it certainly would create another! This is exactly what transpired in Iraq after Saddam.

American Intrigue in South China Sea

Shahzad Masood Roomi

The US Navy has been conducting surveillance operations in South China Sea to monitor PLAN's maritime capabilities. These operations came to fore more than a decade ago when, in April 2001, two J-8s of Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) intercepted a US Navy EP-3E ARIES-II Surveillance Spy plane some 110 Kilometers south of Hainan Island in South China Sea. During the interception, a collision occurred between the EP-3 and one of the J-8s causing the death of a PRC pilot, and the EP-3 was forced to make an emergency landing on Hainan.This led to a serious diplomatic deadlock between two global players. China detained 24 member crew of spy plane after the incident who were released later on after the US government issued a statement about the incident. This was beginning of a quiet battle between the two states which still rages in South China Sea. The latest incident in this war took place when on 28th August 2014, China’s military told the United States to end air and naval surveillance near its borders, saying it was damaging relations between the Pacific powers and could lead to “undesirable accidents”.

Now question is, why the US is constantly undertaking such challenging and provocative maritime spy ops so close to the mainland China? Answer lies in the geography of the island and the fact that Hainan is home of PLAN's concealed submarine base; Sanya.  Hainan is located with in China's 200 km Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), it is not located in international waters though Chinese claim their territory far beyond the 200 Km EEZ. Next, the base houses PLAN's nuclear arsenal carried by Type-094 nuclear submarine. This is something that provokes so much reaction from Beijing over any US operation around the island province. Type-094 SSBN (Jin Class) carries JL-2 SLBM. According to the 2012 Annual Report  presented to Congress on ''Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China'' presented by the Office of the American Secretary of Defense, JL-2 has a maximum range of 14,000 kilometers. Due to these reasons, spying on PLAN submarine forces becomes strategic imperative for the US Navy.

PLAN's Type-094 SSBN

JL-2 SLBM would be part of the PLAN nuclear arsenal in coming years

Apart from this, even from a regional perspective, Hainan base is of critical importance for the PLAN as it is located in close proximity the Paracel Islands, known as the Xisha Islands. These reef islands are also a source of contention between China and the US strategic ally in the region, Taiwan. Controlled by PRC, Paracel islands are also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam. All these factors have turned Hainan and South China Sea in a strategic hotspot in global politics and also explains the American intrigue in South China Sea.

What would be outcome of this American intrigue and maritime surveillance operations is still to be seen but one thing is certain, it would be pleasant if Americans keep on ignoring the Chinese warnings.           

Eurasian Economic Boom & Geopolitics - China’s Land Bridge to Europe: The China-Turkey High Speed Railway

F. William Engdahl

The prospect of an unparalleled Eurasian economic boom lasting into the next Century and beyond is at hand. The first steps binding the vast economic space are being constructed with a number of little-publicized rail links connecting China, Russia, Kazakhstan and parts of Western Europe. It is becoming clear to more people in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia including China and Russia that their natural tendency to build these markets faces only one major obstacle: NATO and the US Pentagon’s Full Spectrum Dominance obsession.  Rail infrastructure is a major key to building vast new economic markets across Eurasia. China and Turkey are in discussions to build a new high-speed railway link across Turkey. If completed it would be the country's largest railway project ever, even including the pre-World War I Berlin-Baghdad Railway link. The project was perhaps the most important agenda item, far more so than Syria during talks in Beijing between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Chinese leadership in early April.