China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Attack on Pasni Air Traffic Control (ATC) Radar

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

As Pakistan and China sent strong strategic message to the world by showing the resolve to go ahead with strategically critical China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) by singing 51 various agreements, the forces afraid/annoyed by this strategic plan made their intentions clear when unknown terrorists tried to destroy one of the critical air traffic radar facility located in Pasni (Baluchistan). This radar is part of Karachi FIR (Flight Information Region) and plays a critical role in directing both domestic and international air traffic passing over Pakistani skies.

Source - Civil Aviation  Authority website 

Deputy Commissioner Gwadar Abdul Hameed said terrorists shot fire on the radar 8Km far from the location and managed to flee after exchange of fire with law enforcement agencies." No loss of life was reported in the incident.

ASF spokesman Abbas Memon told the media that all the installation of the Pasni radar were safe. He termed the attack on the radar an organized assault by terrorists.

ANALYSIS:

CPEC is being watched very closely by global media and diplomatic community. This strategic plan is yet another manifestation of the most prominent geopolitical trend of the 21st century. Strategic shift of power from the West to the East! The US once was the largest investor in Pakistan, but as the US economy strangled due to prolonged unfinished wars, China has replaced the US not only as the largest investor in Pakistan but also as the largest global economy. Through CPEC, China will built some 3000 Km of roads and more than 16,000 megawatts of electricity. China will also complete, $2 billion Pak-Iran gas pipeline as well.

Since 2006, Pakistan and China have been trying to implement the CPEC but Pakistan's precarious internal security profile prevented both the governments to initiate this futuristic mega project. After the persistent successes of Pakistan Army against the terrorists in North Waziristan Agency, in the restive FATA region after launch of Operation Zarb e Azb, the Chinese government, for the first time, began to see Pakistan as a secure country to kick start this delayed program to built Pakistan's infrastructure from the deep seaport of Gawader to the Kashger region of Eastern China. The project holds strategic significance for both the nations. For Pakistan, it is going to be a game-changer as far as the country's economic outlook is concerned.

Inflow of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to Pakistan has been decreased during the last 15 years. This project will encourage other investors around the world to see Pakistan as a safe place to invest. For China, the route is critical in order to secure the sustained energy supply route instead of relying on more expansive and dangerous Strait of Malacca.

In this backdrop of strategic importance of this plan for both the countries, the timing of this most recent terrorist attack and the visit of Chinese President Xi Pinjing is not a coincidence. Evidently, this attack was part of an attempt by hostile anti Pakistan actors (both state and non-state) to send a strategic message to the Chinese government to reconsider their plans to invest $45 billion in Pakistan. Usage of the RPGs against sensitive installations has become the most predictable tactic of the terrorists in Pakistan after assaults on Mehran air base in Karachi in 2011. In order to avoid similar attacks on other installations, Pakistani security forces will have to increase the area of secure defense perimeter against sensitive installations. RPGs have become terrorists' weapon of choice in such attacks. Even a failed RPG attack certainly can create serious psychological impact traumatizing the civilians. The timing of this attack must be viewed as announcement of new terror campaign against the Chinese personnel working on many projects and to those who are yet to come Pakistan to work on CPEC. Pakistan has already formed special security force against this potential threat. But keeping in view the remote areas where CPEC would be implemented, it would be prudent for Pakistani government to arm this security force with aerial surveillance capabilities to make its work easier and enhance its threat assessment capability.     

Yemeni Kids: A Global Tragedy is in Making

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

In ongoing conflict in Yemen, local kids have emerged the most adversely affected faction of the Yemeni society. So far, UNICEF has confirmed the death of 77 children and 44 others have been reported injured since March 26. According to UNICEF,  these numbers are only those where the ffatalities have been confirmed but the true toll was likely far higher.But this is the obvious aspect of this crisis, the real tragedy of Yemeni kids is far worst than this.

It is said that killing other human beings are difficult only for the first time. Once committed, this heinous crime takes away the humanity of the perpetrator turning him into something complete different in very negative sense i.e. a murderer, terrorist, serial-killer etc.

In Yemen, a similar tragedy is in making on a grand scale.According to UN officials, children make up a third of fighters in the armed groups in conflict-wracked Yemen. “We are seeing children in battle, at checkpoints and unfortunately among [those] killed and injured,” Julien Harneis, Unicef’s representative in Yemen, told AFP during a stopover in Geneva. It is usually argued that this young lot with arms is manifestation of the tribal culture but today's modern wars are not tribal fu   a 10 years old "fighter" can never know what he is fighting for when the conflict is too large and complex for him to comprehend. Generations of kids were turned into ruthless fighters in Africa and now the entire continent is in flames. Northern Africa (Egypt, Libya), Western Africa (Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria), Horn of Africa (Somalia), even the islands like Comoros witnessed the worst violence. The Collapse of governments in these region might be a reason for these societies to disintegrate but it is unfathomable  that if it is known that today, in Yemen, every third fighter is an under age child, why there is no rush for a decisive push for ceasefire or UNSC intervention like it has done in many parts of Africa? 

Answer is not very difficult considering the dynamics of Real Politics which are controlling or at least manipulating this local conflict. This unfortunate generation of Yemeni kids is just the victim of this brutal vying of national interests. Evidently, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is waiting for any of its permanent member to move a resolution to put  this unfolding tragedy in Yemen to an end but unfortunately, it seems that this conflict either does not affect their interests (as yet) or they are part of this conflict and want it to continue whatever the cost may be. Whatever might be the case, this lost generation of Yemeni kids would eventually seek other ventures in other parts of the world.

On the Question of Pakistani Troops involvement in Yemen

There is no doubt that the conflict in Yemen has strong sectarian overtones in its implications. This is more accurate in context of Pakistan where government finds itself in a strategic dilemma of choosing to join Saudi led coalition fighting in Yemen or Not. But this must be understood that there are other dynamics of this conflict. Most important of them is the poor track record of Yemeni governments towards various ethnic factions of the society. The history of Yemen prior to 1990 when the country was united, is also important. South and North Yemen had conflicting foreign policies and were part of opposing blocks during the Cold War era. The crisis of Yemen is manifestation of years of real politics revolving around power grabbing catalyzed by foreign interference.

Ironically, with just few exceptions, the commentary and analysis of the crisis revolves only around Sectarian implications which Pakistan possibly can face as a consequence of any decision Islamabad is about to take on the Saudi request of sending the troops. All the other aspects are being overlooked in this debate. Furthermore, Pakistan has not announced any decision in this regard so far. All the news in international media are based on pure speculations. There is a higher probability that Pakistan will play a role similar to 1997 OIC summit when Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif arranged one-to-one meeting between then Saudi Crown Prince, Abdullah and Iranian President Rafsanjani. This is the best possible discourse for Pakistan right now.

Any participation in the active war in Yemen against Shia rebels or ignoring the Saudi request all together would not serve Pakistan's interests. It must be cleared that Pakistani troops participating in join military exercises with their Saudi counterparts have nothing to do with Pakistan's decision regarding Saudi request contrary to what has been reported by some Arab media houses in this regard.

Fundamental Strategic Imperative for Muslim Word

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

This cold blooded execution of Palestinian youth by young IS executioner is yet another stern reminder about many aspects of fight against IS and nature of this threat.

So far, the US led coalition is only targeting the physical infrastructure (even execution of that remains debatable) but all important ideological aspect is being ignored in this strategy. Even Iraqi national army is addressing the problem as a mere political issue whereas in reality, this phenomenon of Khawariji trends in the Middle East has a history of more than 1300 years.

Now in 21st century, this phenomenon has become even more complex due to inclusion of propaganda component where internet is playing a crucial role. A role that was not even imagined when this wounder invention was made in late 20th century. Now, terrorists are deploying this medium as tool for their strategic communication tool to instill fear and despondency among masses around the world.

Another disturbing aspect of this particular video is showing of 10 years old executioner. This shows the indoctrination strategy of IS which is not unprecedented, TTP in Pakistan and Boko Haram in Africa also use similar tactics using young boys with fragile minds and limited conscience about value of human life. This is an aspect which must will have to be addressed by religious leaders of Muslim worlds. Conventional armies and weapons cannot these aspects of modern Khawarijism.

Now when this has been confirmed that the executed captive of IS was indeed not a Israeli spy but a Palestinian youth who joined IS in zeal. It is time for the Muslim intellectuals and scholars to instigate the debate on the 'reconstruction of strategic thought' inline with the requirements of modern times to end the confusion in young minds around the Islamic World about tactics of so-called Islamic groups like IS, TTP and Boko Harm and their relevance (or irrelevance) to Jihad, Qital and Khilafat. Prevention of intellectual hijacking of Islam is a critical imperative in modern geopolitics if we want to save other Mohamed Said Ismail Musalams from becoming victim of ISIS religious propaganda.

(Shahzad.leo@gmail.com)

Afghanistan: A Never Ending War!

Latest news suggest that almost 2300 US troops from three different units would be deployed to Afghanistan as part of regular rotation of the US forces in Afghanistan. The deployment would be for Spring and Summer seasons ahead.

The US has plans to cut the size of her forces in Afghanistan to half of current strength of 10,000 but the top US commander in the field, Gen. John Campbell, testified on Capitol Hill earlier this month that he wants "greater flexibility" to potentially keep more troops in-country. After his testimony, the US announced to rethinking about force withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Actually, under current geopolitical scenario, the US cannot disengage from Afghanistan. Resurgence of a defiant Russia, Chinese overtures in Afghanistan and renewed efforts of Pakistan to bring Afghanistan Taliban on the negotiation table have made this decision a delicate proposition for the US.
There are about 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan; about 8,500 of them are soldiers. This strength would not able to control the Afghan Taliban particularly in the countryside. Perhaps, right now the US strategy is to deny Taliban from capturing any noticeable town or city. 
It is uncertain if the war in Afghanistan would come to an end anytime soon. For now, it just remains a never ending conflict!

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.

What Pakistan Navy required the most?

Keeping in view the dynamic security situation in the region and balance of maritime power projection capabilities in Arabian Sea, What you think Pakistan Navy needs urgently the most?

  

Geopolitics of Pipelines and Energy Wars!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Many analysts around the world has been caught by surprise when, during his visit to Turkey, Russian President Putin announced to stop South Stream gas pipeline project which was to be built through Black Sea, around Ukraine, to Eastern Europe with multi billion dollar investment by major gas production and distribution firms. According to the Russian gas production giant Gazprom, major investor in the plan, the route of this planned gas pipeline was to run from Eastern Russia to Balkans through beneath the Black Sea, avoiding volatile Ukrainian territory, to Germany after passing through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungry etc. Major Russian goal through this pipeline was to follow the strategy to diversify the gas supply routes to the Europe.

South Stream pipeline Route ( Soruce: Gazprom)

According to the Western analysts, the ambitious project became the casualty of Ukrainian crisis and its demise shows the limits of Moscow's energy bullying. This analysis stems from the perception that the construction of South Stream pipeline would have given Moscow more leverage to demand concessions from the government in Kiev, which is seeking closer ties with Europe. It is worth noticing that Gazprom was a major investor in the project investing more than 50% of total cost. This was conceived in EU as a Russian attempt to monopolize the gas supply to Eastern rim of Europe.  On the other hand, Russian sources and analysts believe that the project was doomed by EU.

“If Europe does not want to implement the project, then it won’t be implemented. We will refocus our energy resources to other parts of the world,” Putin said on Monday in the Turkish capital, Ankara, after a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

This decision by Preisdent Putin has stirred a heated debate within EU as well. James Henderson of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, believes that countries on Eastern rim of Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary) are pretty exposed to a energy crisis if Ukrainian conflict escalates. Putin may be trying to fracture the discussion within the EU,” Henderson says.

Andras Deak, an associate fellow at the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, told Bloomberg News that "the scrapping of South Stream complicates the region’s energy security, making it all the more dependent on the Ukrainian pipeline. The EU and the IMF effectively will have to finance Ukraine’s gas bill now, if they want to make sure that gas keeps flowing through Ukraine to Europe.”

So how does this Russian decision is actually going to affect the regional energy security and geopolitics? Is it really a European win and a Russian lose? Or Russia is playing her cards more wisely on grand chessboard?

ANALYSIS:

This decision of abandoning the gas pipeline project seems inevitable one considering the contentious Russian-EU diplomatic ties over Ukrainian conflict. Ostensibly, it seems that the scrapping of South Stream would haunt Russian interests more than East European states (at least in short to mid term span), but a holistic analysis of this decision in context of bigger geopolitical picture demands a more closer examination of all the factors critical to the regional diplomacy.

European analysts believe that the main reason behind canceling the project is mainly economic and not political. Ruble has slided more than 22% against US Dollars during recent months causing US$90-100 Billions to the Russian economy. This explains why many Western analysts believe that Putin has caught in a perfect geopolitical storm due to its aggressive intervention in Ukraine. Coming out of this situation would not be easy for Moscow without making a compromise on Ukraine. But this Western analysis and narrative does not explains this decision in context of bigger picture of regional geopolitics.

By looking at the Western analyses, it seems that to overcome the financial shock, caused by Western sanctions, Putin is taking some immediate steps. After losing close ally like Germany, it would be difficult for Moscow to compensate the lost ground on economic front in short period of time. To make the matters worse, Russia is in no position to expand its Eurasian energy integration infrastructure towards South through Central Asian States (CAS) as the strategic sand has shifted and one of the major Cold War era Russian ally in South Asia, (India) has become the US strategic partner. Apart from that, CAS want to expand their own energy grid towards South (TAPI pipeline is vivid manifestation) and after that, India and Pakistan would be able to meet their energy demands from this pipeline.


But actually, Putin's decision was not irrational or illogical as Western analysts are trying to paint it.

Russia had already secured the huge Chinese energy market for herself before announcing the abandonment of South Stream. Earlier last month, Russia and China entered into a strategic energy partnership (worth $400 Billion). Apart from that, Russia has announced to built the gas pipeline to Balkans via a new route passing through Turkey.

Apart from that, Putin has outplayed the West on economic front by evading European and American project in Ukraine which was part of encirclement policy of Washington against Moscow. Putin rendered the plans hatched to cage the red bear in Russian mainland using Baltic States and Ukraine into quixotic dreams.

Despite the fact that till the recent deal with China and Turkey manifests into reality, the Russian economy would stay under stress there is no Soviet era like threat to Russian economy. This short term stress explains why National Bank of Russia had to cut its growth forecast for next year to zero sighting the decline in oil prices and Ruble's decline against Dollar. But believing that this stress would dent Russian economy in serious way is nothing more than a fantasy. In order to keep the Russian energy sector alive, the China-Russia deal was secured despite a heavy cost of accepting Chinese influence in Russian energy sector. Due to this deal, Russian oil & gas production company, OAO Rosneft, would sell a 10% stake in a Siberian unit to state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. One can argue that Chinese influence on the Russian policy making is increasing and this compromise by Russia is a manifestation of that. But for Russia, through this arrangement, Chinese would be providing much needed investment to the Russian energy sector. A natural strategic alliance between Beijing and Moscow is in making where former is securing its energy supplies by securing latter's economy.

Lowering the prices of oil failed to work the way it was expected. US-Saudi nexus kept the production of oil  at same oil while dropped the prices to dent the Russian economy but that hasn't work to required extent so far and in future it will not because unlike Iran, apart from oil, Russians are principle suppliers of gas to major part of Europe and the entire hoopla of ending the threat of monopolization of European gas supplies by eliminating the South Stream is a big hoax considering the fact that Russia is still biggest supplier of gas to Europe via Nord Stream pipeline which runs under the Baltic Sea from  Vyborg in the Russian Federation to Greifswald in Germany. 

Nord Stream Pipeline - Major Energy supply route to Germany and Western Europe

This makes it clear that the entire media buzz about the Russian economic and political isolation is nothing more than a well coordinated propaganda. The fact that Russian banks are buying the physical currency like Gold from all over the world which in the long run is going to support Russian currency against US dollars which is rapidly losing its value against gold.

A quiet aspect of this energy war in Eurasia is how Turkish geography would become more relevant in the regional geopolitics. If Russian plans to expand the gas pipeline to Greece via Turkey materializes smoothly, the Bulgarian resistance to South Stream would be another futile European endeavor and by looking at the recent developments, this possibility is not a distinct one!   

Russians, Americans and Middle East!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

The contours of Russian future policy towards the Middle East and the US were made clear by Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov’s, address to the UN annual session. He raised concerns over the current US policy against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and proposed a new inclusive and academic approach to address the problem.

“We propose to launch under the auspices of the UN Security Council an in-depth study on the extremist and terrorist threats in all their aspects across the MENA area. The integrated approach implies also that the longstanding conflicts should be examined, primarily between Arab nations and Israel."

He also pointed out longstanding issue of Palestine as the core reason behind the regional unrest.

“The absence of settlement of the Palestinian issue over several decades remains, as it is widely recognized as one of the main factors of instability in the region that helps the extremists to recruit more and more new Jihadists.”

 Most importantly, he raised some serious concerns over Obama’s new Syrian strategy against ISIS which rely on airstrikes and using local rebels against ISIS.

“We warned against a temptation to make allies with almost anybody who proclaimed himself an enemy of [Syrian President] Assad: be it Al Qaeda, Jabhat an Nusra and other ‘fellow travellers’ seeking the change of regime, including ISIS, which today is in the focus of our attention.”

Analysis:

This is something we don't often see from Russians. A diplomatic assault against the entire narrative of the US about ISIS. Washington never consulted with UN about attack on Syria and the reasons for not doing so are also obvious. In the presence of China and Russia, every move to seek a US planned military intervention would have vetoed. Reasons behind relying more on regional allies than on NATO are also obvious. The US and Europe don’t want to face any retaliatory actions by remnants of ISIS even if they succeeded in crushing the main body of this outfit. Apart from this obvious reason, inclusion of Islamic states is critical as it provides a moral and religious narrative in support of this fight against ISIS. Recent verdict by 100 top Muslim scholars is being consider a big moral victory for ongoing campaign against ISIS.

But still this military campaign is against the international law and norms as it has no UN mandate and is pursued under a pretext which is often challenged on the geopolitical grounds. This argument that whatever is transpiring in the Middle East, including the rise of entities like ISIS, is manifestation of geopolitical maneuvering has its own merits. According to the critics of the US policy, this is where the Russians are taking moral high ground in a bid to make the legitimacy of the entire anti-ISIS campaign questionable particularly after Obama's over-militarized strategy for Syria.

For now, the US and allies have a strong pretext of attacking ISIS in Syria and Russians are not in position to do anything more than using diplomatic means and international relations norms to question the legitimacy of Obama's new war in Syria. But Washington has already played that card preemptively "denouncing Russian aggression in Europe" which led Russians to consider cease fire in Ukraine and now Moscow is trying to rectify her mistakes but at the same time cannot allow NATO to expand too close to its borders. But that concern is not immediate one. Till Russia and Ukraine reach a settlement there would be no serious challenge to the US campaign in Syria. The scenario is changing fast in Ukraine as an initial cease fire has been reached which includes formation of a buffer zone. Question is, what if this new US campaign in Syria turns into another protracted war just like Iraq and Afghanistan something accepted even by the State Department as real possibility? What if Russia give her Ukrainian adventure a quick closure?

If that happens one thing is certain that Russian response to American interventionism against Moscow's allies would not remain confined to diplomatic and media overtures. From recent statements of Russian foreign minister it looks like Moscow is looking for a closure in Ukraine and European sanctions against Russia are also driving Moscow to look for a settlement in Ukraine. Despite these sanctions, Russians are well aware of the limitations of NATO. Almost entire Eastern Europe depend onRussian energy supplies particularly in winters. US cannot push too far with sanctions against Russia. This limits US diplomatic and political options against the Russian overtures. 

In 2012, The Economist, published following map showing the gas supply to Europe and it is self explaining about how much Europe needs Russian gas supplies.

On the other hand, any prolonged war in the Middle East would dent the US narrative. Civilian casualties would escalate as Washington is going to rely too much on airstrikes, at least in initial stages of war. The US faced international embarrassment over killings of innocent civilians in FATA region of Pakistan despite the fact that all the governments in Islamabad actually never resisted the US drone strikes. In the presence of a hostile government in Syria, it would be even more challenging for the US and her Gulf allies to justify each and every air strike and still ending the war soon. Any attack on Syrian military infrastructure would complicate the problem further, a scenario Washington would like to avoid but not sure for how long. By looking at the strategic flux the region is going through, one thing is certain that the chaos in Middle East is certainly a manifestation of international geopolitics and is bound to be compounded in coming weeks and months!  

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.

This time, Gaza fighting is 'proxy war' for entire Mideast

Josh Levs, CNN

"This is unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict," says CNN's Ali Younes, an analyst who has covered the region for decades. "Most Arab states are actively supporting Israel against the Palestinians -- and not even shy about it or doing it discreetly."

It's a "joint Arab-Israeli war consisting of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia against other Arabs -- the Palestinians as represented by Hamas."

As the New York Times put it, "Arab leaders, viewing Hamas as worse than Israel, stay silent."

One of the outcomes of the fighting will likely be "the end of the old Arab alliance system that has, even nominally, supported the Palestinians and their goal of establishing a Palestinian state," Younes says.

"The Israel-Hamas conflict has laid bare the new divides of the Middle East," says Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's no longer the Muslims against the Jews. Now it's the extremists -- the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their backers Iran, Qatar and Turkey -- against Israel and the more moderate Muslims including Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia."

"It's a proxy war for control or dominance in the Middle East," says CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

To understand why and what all this means, we need to begin with understanding of Hamas.

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood

Hamas, which has controlled the Palestinian government in Gaza for years, is an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood. To many Americans, the brotherhood is familiar for its central role in the power struggle for Egypt. But it's much larger than that.

"The Muslim Brotherhood is international, with affiliated groups in more than 70 countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE," says Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The Arab Spring showed the region that uprisings can lead to the Brotherhood gaining power. So it's a threat to the governments it opposes.

"Israel's ongoing battle against Hamas is part of a wider regional war on the Muslim Brotherhood," says the Soufan Group, which tracks global security. "Most Arab states share Israel's determination to finish the movement off once and for all, but they are unlikely to be successful."

"From the perspective of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE and some other Arab states, what the Israeli Prime Minister is doing is fighting this war against Hamas on their behalf so they can finish the last stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood," Younes says.

"Arab governments and official Arab media have all but adopted the Israeli view of who is a terrorist and who is not. Egyptian and Saudi-owned media are liberal in labeling the Muslim Brotherhood as 'terrorists' and describing Hamas as a 'terrorist organization.' It's a complete turnabout from the past, when Arab states fought Israel and the U.S. in the international organizations on the definition of terrorism, and who is a terrorist or a 'freedom fighter.'"

Egypt

Egypt's new President vowed during his campaign that he would finish off the Muslim Brotherhood. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the former military chief, deposed Egypt's first freely elected leader, President Mohamed Morsy of the Muslim Brotherhood, last year following mass protests against Morsy's rule.

El-Sisi was elected officially in June.

"In Egypt you have a regime that came to power by toppling a Muslim Brotherhood government," says Trager. "It's therefore in an existential conflict with the Brotherhood. So it doesn't want to see Hamas, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, emerge stronger in a neighboring territory."

Egypt also has another reason to stand against Hamas: rising violence and instability in Sinai, the northern part of Egypt that borders Israel and Gaza. Hamas' network of tunnels includes some in and out of Egypt used to smuggle goods include weapons for attackson Israeli civilians.

 Read the complete article

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/31/world/meast/israel-gaza-region/index.html 

Salala Attack: NATO's Bloody Attack On Pakistan

Shahzad Masood Roomi

The Motive:

In the early morning of Saturday 26 November two NATO Apache helicopters, an AC-130 gunship, and a number of fighter jets perpetrated a sustained and deadly attack on two Pakistani army border posts on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Located high on the Salala mountain ridge, the two army posts were brutally attacked for approximately two hours. In what was evidently a naked act of aggression, the US-led forces bombarded the border posts for forty-five minutes, left for twenty minutes, and subsequently returned – attacking for a further hour. Twenty-four Pakistani soldiers including two officers were murdered in the assault.

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.