International affairs

International affairs

Trump outplayed by Putin at summit The Statesman 24 Jul 18

Putin emerged the clear winner at the end of the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki. Surprisingly, it was Trump who was pushing for the summit and had directed his staff to move forward on the same from the time he assumed the chair. It appeared as if he was rushing to fulfil his election promises, without realizing that he would be facing a seasoned leader.

Putin came to the summit at the end of the FIFA world cup, an event which boosted the standing and image of the country. It was also an event attended by many world leaders. Putin has been in power for 18 years, while Trump for 18 months. Putin has complete control over his country and has ensured that no detractor is free. He has dominated the world scene in recent times, pushed the US into a defensive position in Syria and has close relations with all US enemies and contenders.

Trump on the other hand has been facing internal flak for his multiple policy failures in recent times, whether it be his behaviour in NATO, G7, UK or even the possibly unsuccessful summit in North Korea. Clearly, Putin had the advantage.

Trump, who was expected to raise multiple issues which concerned the US with Putin, did nothing, only angering his colleagues, detractors and intelligence agencies. His comments in the joint press conference ended with him accusing his own agencies while supporting Putin’s comments on non- interference. A few days before the summit he had criticized the German Chancellor Angela Merkel for buying Russian gas, claiming Germany was a captive of Russia for supporting a gas pipeline deal with Russia.

Back home from the summit, he continues to face flak. In his opinion, closer relations with Russia are more important than satisfying his detractors. What gave him further boost was Putin’s statement that Russia was desirous of Trump winning the election as all through his campaign he had stated that he sought closer ties with Russia.

In his last days as President, Obama had acted against Russia for meddling in US elections. Putin initially did not retaliate, as he expected things to change post the arrival of Trump. However, with pressure from Congress, Trump was prevented from changing stance and compelled into signing CAATSA (Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act). He was also compelled to stand by the UK in the poisoning case, and expelled Russian diplomats as also closed their consulate in Seattle. Russia reacted this time and expelled similar numbers of US diplomats, while closing their consulate too. No doubt relations between the worlds largest and second largest nuclear powers were at an ebb.

Worsening of relations were blamed by Trump on Obama, FBI and Mueller, who has been tasked with investigating the Russian interference. The fact that 12 Russians were indicted for the same almost on the day of the summit was ignored. Clearly, Trump accepted the words of Putin who claimed that Russia did nothing, except hoped Trump would win.

It does appear that there was either no discussion nor any consensus on resolving Syria, annexation of Crimea, interference in Ukraine and the poisoning in UK. It is also evident that despite suggestions, Trump did not raise any issue of human rights abuses in Russia. This has largely angered the US political and strategic community which felt that this summit was a sell-out by Trump. Thus, Trump only played to Putin, rather than dominate the discussion from the US perspective as he was expected to do.

Putin added further spokes to the US investigation by announcing that Mueller could either send a questionnaire to Russian agencies, who would obtain answers from those indicted or question them in Russia in the presence of Russian agents. This offer was based on an earlier agreement between both nations. Either option is a loss to the US. Sending a questionnaire would elicit replies which would stall the investigation for eternity. Questioning in Russia would open doors to Russian agents seeking to question their presumed spies in the US.

In one move, Putin has stalled any further move by the US on the investigation. Trump on the other hand unaware of the implications jumped on the offer by Putin, claiming it to be ‘spectacular’. However, anger against Russia continues to grow within the agencies in the US. The FBI and Mueller stand firm in their belief that there was clear Russian interference.

Even within his own circle of officials, his sell-out was almost a sign of self-destruction. Post the press conference, White House officials failed to even garner any answers to multiple questions being raised by local media seeking clarifications on Trump’s comments.

Trump may have promised Russia on smoothening of relations but would not be able to implement it. As Putin stated, when he presented a football to Trump, ‘The ball is now in your court’, it is there, but Trump can do little. Congress would continue to hem Trump from opening US doors to Russia. Sanctions on Iran, a close Russian ally would continue, impacting even Russian companies dealing with Iran. Trump would continue supporting Ukraine against Russia. CAATSA would remain as Trump does not have the power to lift it. He would remain critical of Germany for choosing Russian gas as against US supplies.

The investigation would now receive even greater internal support, though it can never come to a definitive conclusion, as Putin has effectively blocked the same.

India which was seeking a positive outcome as it seeks to reignite its ties with Russia and bypass CAATSA while procuring its S400 Missiles from Russia would be disappointed. The chances of the Congress giving a waiver to India now appear dim, considering the US perception of failure of the summit. For once Trump was trumped by a more wily and experienced Putin. His desire for a second face saving summit would remain a dream for some time.

Trump’s credibility in serious question The Statesman 17 Jul 18

Trumps statements and tweets leaves one wondering if his they are correct and factual. Post his meeting with Kim Jong Un, he commented that the meeting went well, and North Korea’s nuclear disarmament would be a success. Shortly thereafter he stated that sanctions against North Korea would continue as it remains a threat to the world. Soon information flowed that North Korea was speeding up the construction of a nuclear plant.

Pompeo rushed to North Korea and post his visit commented that disarmament would move smoothly. He however did not meet Kim Jong Un, who was reportedly busy visiting a potato farm. North Korea on the other hand accused the US of ‘pushing a unilateral gangster type demand for denuclearization’. Trump to save face claimed he received a letter from Kim Jong Un and all was moving ahead. Subsequently, in a press conference in London he stated that disarmament was likely to be, ‘a longer process than anybody would like’.

Post his attending the NATO summit, he took credit for the fact that he has convinced his NATO allies to enhance their contribution towards defence spending from the present to upto 4%. He stated, ‘I told people I would be very unhappy if they did not up their commitments’. In fact, in 2014, well before Trump became president, NATO members had decided to enhance their spending to 2% of the GDP by 2024.

Trump’s comments were denied by the French President, Emmanuel Macron, who stated that members denied boosting spending beyond what was agreed in 2014. So infuriated was John McCain, the head of the US Senate Armed Forces Committee that he tweeted, ‘President Trump’s performance at the NATO summit in Brussels was disappointing, yet ultimately unsurprising.’

Trump prior to landing in the UK had in an interview to a British tabloid, The Sun, criticized UK Prime Minister Theresa May. He had stated that May’s Brexit proposals, which include an ‘association agreement’ and a free trade area for goods, with the EU, will probably kill a US-UK trade agreement because it would leave the UK too close to the EU. He stated, ‘The deal she is striking is a much different deal than the one the people voted on’.

Post his landing in the UK he suddenly changed colours and stated that the interview was ‘fake news’ as it did not include his comments of praising her. Subsequently, post meeting her, he apologized for his remarks.

He has repeatedly stated that the US was spending 4% of its GDP on enhancing military capabilities, while the actual figure is around 3.57%. The other fact which he has never mentioned, even when threatening close allies like NATO, South Korea and Japan on sharing costs for their defence is that the US budget and developing military capabilities is not solely for protecting allies but to maintain the supremacy of the US military to enable the nation to enforce its brand of diplomacy, supported by a powerful military, across the globe.

It is also to challenge the growing might of China and Russia, rather than for securing the US. Interestingly, the US has never fought a war in recent history on its own soil. An article in the Washington Post of early Jun stated that ‘in 497 days President Trump has made 3,251 false or misleading claims’. It averages to 6.5 per day.

Trump has within a limited time of being in power changed international dynamics and pushed the US into isolation. Relationships and regional grouping which have paved the way for the US to be a dominant force are being broken and allies forming their own groups, discarding the US. His trade policies have led to the nations being impacted chartering their own path, ignoring the US.

His direct venture seeking to bring North Korea to heel has almost backfired. He has blamed China for the same, which is logical, but his worsening relationship with China would only make them work against him, rather than with him. Ignoring other international powers in dealing with a multitude of crisis including Iran and North Korea is leading the US into isolation and could indicate a failure in its foreign policy.

Nations are today evolving means of bypassing US sanctions on Iran and Russia. If they do succeed, it would push Trump into desperation. He may then be rash enough to join Israel and Saudi Arabia into launching military strikes on the country, pushing the region into greater risk. His terms to Iran for lifting sanctions are obnoxious to state the least and would be demeaning for Iran to accept.

An article in the New York Times of 31 Jan 2017 stated, ‘From defence treaties to trade pacts, foreign leaders are struggling to gauge whether they can depend on the US to honour its commitments. They are sizing up a fickle president whose erroneous remarks on small issues cast doubt on what he might say on big ones.’ His regular changing of staff has proved that his views and thoughts are neither coherent nor trustworthy.

His trade wars by launching additional tariffs on a host of goods, including steel and aluminium claiming it would boost internal production and increase job avenues is again based on half- truths. In an article in the CNBC of 01 Jun this year John Harwood states that jobs lost in industries that pay more for steel and aluminium inputs (example cars and beer cans) will far outnumber those gained from tariff protection. He adds, counter tariffs would damage American export sectors such as agriculture. That is what the country is witnessing now.

Trade wars between countries, rarely heard of till date are now the order of the day. Nations on whose products additional tariffs have been placed would be forced to respond, or else would be viewed as weak. This would further impact the US and it would gain more enemies and friends.

How many allies would the US retain once Trump finishes his tenure is anybody’s guess.

Why India must hold its ground against US on buying oil from Iran Daily O 01 Jul 18

The 2 plus 2 meeting scheduled for early July has been indefinitely postponed by the US citing ‘unavoidable reasons’. A day before the cancellation, Trump accused India for charging tariffs as high as 100% on American products. The meeting was to have been attended by the foreign and defence ministers of India with their counterparts from the US.

As a prelude to the meeting, a team from the US was here last week, seeking to allude India’s fears on the signing of the COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement). The original form was CISMOA (Communication and Information on Security Memorandum of Agreement) but was changed to the Indian specific COMCASA.

COMCASA is to provide a legal framework for the transfer of communication security equipment to facilitate interoperability between the forces. This is a part of three agreements proposed by the US to indicate enhanced ties and transfer of high end technology items to India. India had already signed LEMOA (Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement), which opened the two countries to replenish from each other’s bases. The third agreement under consideration is BECA (Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo Spatial Cooperation).

The aim behind COMCASA is to enable installing high end communication equipment on platforms being sold to India. This would open doors for sale of armed Predator Drones, as also would be installed in aircraft being procured from them. India has its own doubts, which include opening of its bases for US personnel to check the systems, the ability of the US to monitor Indian communications and its compatibility with Russian origin equipment.

Simultaneously, the US seeks to draw India into their dependency by pulling it away from Russia. It had therefore offered India the Patriot Missile systems in lieu of the Russian S-400, which India refused and then subsequently the THAAD missile systems. The CAATSA (Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) has been passed by the US Senate, without considering Indian requests, thus opening India to US sanctions in case it procures military hardware from Russia. Simultaneously, the US has informed India to stop its oil purchases from Iran by Nov 4, as they have placed sanctions on Iran.

To further pull India into their lap, Nikki Haley, the US permanent representative to the UN, a close confidant of Trump is visiting India. Her agenda appears to convey the message on oil imports and purchase of the S-400 missile systems. She made a public statement, ‘I would encourage them (India) to rethink their relationship with Iran’.

The timing of her visit is evident. It was as a prelude to the now cancelled 2 plus 2 meeting. Probably she would have briefed the PM on the true reasons for the postponement of the meeting. India is also presently in a trade war with the US, which could only worsen with time. Enhancing tariffs on both sides could take the present relationship downhill in no time.

The unreliability of Trump as a leader is well known. He has regularly been changing his decisions and aides faster than anyone else in history. He has in his short while in office angered all his allies, who have drifted away. Modi, who has had multiple meetings with Putin and Xi as also earlier with Obama, understanding the wavering Trump, has avoided the US. He has left the handling of Indo-US issues to his ministers. He has also not offered to host Trump in India.

India may be a security partner of the US but is neither bound by US demands nor by its decisions. It is clearly not dependent on the US for its own security needs, as NATO is. India may exercise with the US but has categorically stated that it would not operate under US command nor would it engage in joint patrols with it. All its purchases, while boosting its own defence capabilities also enable the US to reduce its unemployment. It does not seek weapons under aid but purchases them as per market costs.

The fact remains that US sanctions against Russia and Iran are for their own reasons and are neither backed by the UN nor the world community. Seeking to pull India into their personal battles is neither justified nor legally valid. If India bends, it would break its ties with its traditional allies.

The US has been known to create relations and subsequently discard them when the situation changes. Its traditional allies have now begun charting their own paths, ignoring the US. Presently it needs India for multiple reasons. Indian investments in Afghanistan assist the US in its seeking to develop the nation. India is the only nation in Asia with the military and economic power to challenge Chinese hegemony in the region, hence the US desperately seeks Indian military cooperation. The present strategy of the US appears to be to use India to hit back at Russia and Iran.

India cannot ignore its time tested international relationships based on its own national interest for US’s personal enmities. India-Russia relations go back decades. Russia has always stood by India. Presently over 60% of Indian military equipment is of Russian origin. While presently the US and Russia are at different ends of the spectrum, the US can change direction as it has done with North Korea. If India falls under US influence and drops purchase of S-400, it would never be able to restore its ties with Russia.

Indian investment in Chabahar port is immense and the port provides India with multiple strategic benefits. India had recently signed an agreement with Iran, post the visit of their President, Hassan Rouhani to India to increase its oil purchases from the country. Stopping it, on US demands, would push Iran away from India and would damage its agreement on the Chabahar port. China already in multiple conflicts with the US and the largest purchaser of oil from Iran would never accede to US requests. India doing so, would almost gift the Chabahar port to China.

India as a nation needs to pursue its independent foreign policy, despite its growing proximity to the US. As a first step it should not sign the COMCASA, signalling its disagreement with US unilateral policies. It has managed its earlier platforms with communication equipment available in the open market, it could do so now again. Both India and the US need one another, yet both are independent. If the US can toe its own foreign policy, so should India. It should clearly avoid toeing the US line.

The 2 plus 2 meeting should have been the forum where the message would have gone loud and clear. The US may have understood the Indian mind and determination. If the US is unwilling to listen, then India has limited choices, but to pursue its own national interests. It would thus have to bypass US sanctions or if it comes to the worst-case scenario manage with it.

Trump has about three and a half years left as president. The US would continue to need India more than India needs it, both during and after Trump. If the US does not accept Indian national interests now, it would after the presidency changes. India cannot be ignored, it would need to be wooed. If it backs down now, it would always be taken for granted and would lose credibility in the international environment as also lose its strategic leverages.

Can India trust Trump? CENJOWS 19 Jun 18

If Trump’s behaviour and attitude as was witnessed pre and post the G-7 summit is anything to go by, he would ensure that the US would be a disliked nation, despite all its positives. Trump arrived late for events, ignoring the dress code, seeking to convey a message that he does not care. He departed early and while on the flight, passed directions for the US representative not to sign the summit declaration. His belief that everything in policy is linked to business, which is his expertise, has broken all bonding with its allies.

The G-7 ended up becoming a G-6 Plus 1. Terming Trudeau, the Canadian PM, ‘very dishonest and weak’ has distanced relationship with their closest ally. During and post the summit he launched personal attacks on all members of the G-7. In a subsequent tweet he stated that the US paid ‘close to the entire cost of NATO’ to help protect the countries that ‘rip us off on trade’. The fact remains that the US is enhancing its military to counter threats to its power across the globe, not solely to protect NATO.

This was not the first time that Trump has angered his European allies. In the similar summit in Italy last year, Trump upset all by ensuring that the final statement included ‘the US is in the process of reviewing its policies on climate change and on the Paris agreement and thus is not in a position to join the consensus on these topics’. He subsequently withdrew from the Paris accord.

Trump’s actions including ignoring allies, changing rules of the game based on his own assessment and opening trade wars is pushing the US into a corner. His withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, despite the French President and the German Chancellor seeking to change his mind has only increased distances. His imposing CAATSA has forced nations to seek options to bypass it. His questioning NATO spending on defence has had limited impact.

His decision to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem had no supporters in the UN. Despite all her threats, Nikki Haley could almost get none to back the US. Even US attempts to criticise the Hamas for attacks on Israel left them alone. Israel could only avoid international criticism because of US veto. Thus, the US seems to be losing support of its closest allies.

The latest was his announcement on cancelling annual US-South Korean exercises post his recent meeting with Kim Jong Un. He stated that these were being cancelled to cut down costs. As per Trump, ‘We will be stopping the war games, which will save us a tremendous amount of money.’ He also criticised South Korea for not bearing more of the costs. He added, ‘We have to talk to many countries about treating us fairly.’ Kathleen Hicks, a former senior Pentagon official stated that his comments are misleading as savings would likely decrease combat readiness.

He even commented that in case talks progress further with Kim Jong Un, he may even consider the withdrawal of US forces from the region. Trump’s comments and decision has also surprised the Pentagon, which was never asked for its views and even angered his Asian allies, South Korea and Japan, who always considered the US presence and these exercises as a display of US security guarantee not only against North Korea but also China.

The summit with Kim Jung Un was nothing but a photo-op. Vague promises were made, no timelines laid down, no assurances made, yet Trump made grand announcements. The reality is that North Korea would never trust the US alone. Kim is aware of the US regening on its deals with Libya and Iran. Hence, he would need the backing of China and Russia. The fact that Kim flew for the summit on an Air China flight is an indicator of Chinese support, which Trump has conveniently ignored.

China has already countered the US by demanding removal or partial withdrawal of sanctions, despite Trump’s statements. It may have been requested by Pompeo to hold fort for the moment but would in conjunction with Russia raise it soon. If the US backs down, it would lose respect from North Korea, if it agrees, Trump would lose face. China would never miss an opportunity to embarrass the US, with whom it is already in a trade war.

Trump has launched a trade war with all allies. No nation can sit back and let the US dictate terms. Hence, counter increase in tariffs are being announced. India has also responded with additional tariffs on US almonds, apples and Harley Davidson motorcycles amongst others.

Trump’s actions and comments have resulted in his allies wondering if the US could be depended upon. In fact, nations may have begun having doubts on whether Trump would even honour US military commitments. It is possible that he would ask the concerned nation or group to first promise to bear expenditure before he commits his forces. Therefore, many have begun charting their own paths, ignoring the US.

The EU decided for the first time to create a 13 Billion Euro defence and security fund to help build up depleted militaries that are heavily reliant on the US. Similarly, the EU also proposed a 10.5 Billion Euro ‘European Peace facility’ to fund EU military missions abroad. The reason for this are claimed to be two. Firstly, is the sharp criticism of his allies by Donald Trump and secondly is the departure from the Union of Britain next year.

India, with whom the US claims to be increasing its strategic relations has also begun ignoring US sanctions. It is ignoring US’s CAATSA imposed on Russia and is moving ahead with its purchase of Russian military equipment. Indian foreign minister, Sushma Swaraj stated recently that India would ignore US sanctions on Iran, since they are not backed by the UN.

While Trump’s closest aides are seeking better ties with India, there is always a doubt whether Trump would suddenly change direction. A team of ‘specialists’ from the Pentagon are in India to negotiate the text of the COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement) as preparations for the 2+2 dialogue. There are also reports that the US is seeking to convince India to procure their Patriot 3 Missile systems, in lieu of the S-400, which India seeks to procure from Russia.

Understanding the unreliability of Trump, Modi has hardly made any visits to the US, as he had done under Obama, nor has he seriously considered inviting Trump to India. A visit to boost ties could become an embarrassment, as most US closest allies have experienced. His one meeting with Trump is possibly more than enough. On the reverse, Modi has begun mending ties with Russia and China, as he sees them as safer bets.

If Trump could cancel his South Korea exercises on a whim, it is quite possible that he would cancel the ‘Quad’ next, almost without warning. Therefore, India and Japan need to expand the grouping ignoring the US, as under Trump, it remains untrustworthy. Since India does not have any financial involvement in security matters nor a dependency on US for its security it can ignore his rantings. Cancelling defence deals would impact the US more. It would push India into the Russian fold for perpetuity as also impact US business, as India would be forced to cancel orders. Thus, India holds the cards for the moment, but it can never take an irrational Trump for granted.

The Indian defence and foreign ministers would be travelling to the US for the 2+2 summit next month. India should be ready to renege its deals if the US is unwilling to grant it immunity from CAATSA and Iran sanctions. In the present environment, the US needs India as a counter to China, investment and development in Afghanistan and its huge defence orders. Threats is not the right approach but conveying its concerns firmly must be done. Trade wars with the US may continue but threatening allies with sanctions is another ball game.

Under Trump, the reliability of the US as a dependable ally is fast losing ground. Its own allies and partners are drifting away, only because Trump views everything on financial terms. If the US national leadership, barring Trump, does not act in unison, the US would be left all alone, seeking to battle everyone in domains beyond security, only because of the twisted belief of one individual. India is moving in the right direction, spending greater time and energy enhancing relations with China and Russia, rather than with the US.

India’s international balancing act The Statesman 12 Jun 18

India seeking to expand its ties across the globe, has been receiving positive signals. Nations flock to sign security and economic pacts with India. All this because of the nation’s military and economic might, which guides its foreign policy. The present government has since its inception been on an international overreach seeking to enhance the nation’s stature. While India has clearly shifted into the US camp, yet it continues to ignore the US’s challengers in the region for its own security interests.

India seeks to re-establish ties with China which had moved into a freefall, post the Doklam standoff. Though it exercises with the US and Japan, it has deliberately kept Australia out of the group. The US and Japan have openly indicated that this grouping is against Chinese hegemony, while India has made no such comments. In fact, it has been the reverse from the Indian side, seeking to downplay the intentions behind the exercise.

Even within Asia, India and China continue to establish footholds in the others backyard, though with caution. India has close ties with Vietnam and is considering exporting BrahMos missiles to them. It has now been granted a naval base in Indonesia. All ASEAN members, as guests for this year’s Republic Day, signed defence cooperation agreements with India. China already has a base in Sri Lanka, has enhanced relations with Maldives and may soon possess a base in Myanmar, all within India’s backyard.

In the Shangri-la dialogue in Singapore last week, Modi stated that the two Asian neighbours have shown ‘maturity and wisdom’ in managing issues and ensuring a peaceful border, adding cooperation between the two was expanding. His positive comments were appreciated by China. In the presence of the US Defence Secretary, Jim Mattis, he also stressed on ‘freedom of navigation, unimpeded commerce and peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with international law’ and ‘impossible burdens of debt’ both hinted at China. This was a clear example of a careful manifestation of a neutral foreign policy.

While the US imposes sanctions on Russia and Iran, India has officially announced that despite US imposing CAATSA, India would continue with its military purchases from Russia. In addition, it has maintained that it would purchase oil from Iran and continue with its development of the Chabahar port. India has stated that since these sanctions are not supported by the UN, India would not accept them.

India has over 60% of its military equipment of Russian origin. However, in recent times, India seeking equipment from Western suppliers, including the US, slowly pushed the two countries apart. The Indian economy is almost twice that of the Russian, though bilateral trade is low. India remains wary of growing Russian proximity to Pakistan and hence would desire to rekindle the relationship to earlier levels.

Therefore, it cannot let the US sanctions impede its arms purchase from Russia. It may seek a diplomatic way out, but if push comes to shove, it would be a tough decision. India may have to risk US sanctions, but cannot break its Indo-Russian relations, on the whims and fancies of the US.

Simultaneously are growing relations with the US, which in deference to increasing Indian ties, has rechristened its Pacific Command as the Indo-Pacific Command. The change may be symbolic, but is indicative of growing relations. In every forum, the US continues to state that India is a natural strategic ally, with whom it seeks to enhance ties.

The reasons for the US’s comments are obvious. Firstly, India is the only nation in Asia, which possesses the military and economic leverage to challenge the Chinese. Secondly, for India, Afghanistan is a natural ally, where it would seek to maintain a strong economic foothold, not military, which benefits the US. Thirdly, India’s growing military demands would fuel the US economy, which was experiencing a downfall and increased unemployment. Finally, as the worlds largest democracy, it is but natural that the two nations would see eye-to-eye on multiple issues.

There are hiccups though. India wants to continue with its engagement with Russia and Iran, two of the US’s main adversaries for multiple reasons, which would always remain a stumbling block. India is carefully crafting its foreign strategy, ignoring taking sides as also avoiding commenting on contentious international issues, which are a fallout of the growing rivalry.

Its memberships of organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) dominated by Russia and China would always remain a thorn. India was North Korea’s third largest trading partner, until the sanctions. Though it cut down its trade, it is amongst the few countries, which continues to maintain diplomatic relations with them, despite the US then desiring India withdraw its staff.

Israel and Iran are sworn enemies. Both see the other as a threat to their survival. India has again been playing a safe diplomatic manoeuvring game between the two. While it voted against the US decision to shift its embassy to Jerusalem, it never participated in the debate, nor criticized the US decision. An Israeli newspaper made a comment that in the event of an Israel-Iran war, whom would India support.

It is amongst the largest purchaser of military hardware from Israel as also the second largest procurer of oil from Iran. The bonhomie between Modi and Netanyahu was evident, so was the understanding between Modi and the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani during their visits to India. India has never commented on the US withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), nor stopped its procurement of oil nor its development of the Chabahar port.

The present government has pushed Indian diplomacy to the limits, maintaining relations with opposite camps and sworn enemies. It has managed to walk the tightrope so far. However, as time passes and the US begins pushing India into denuding its Russian and Iranian relations, because of their own strategic interests, then maintaining relations as at present would be a true test for the Modi government.

Russia, China and the Korean cauldron The Statesman 05 Jun 18

From the first meeting between the leaders of the two Korea’s in the demilitarized zone in end Apr, the announcement of denuclearization of the peninsula and willingness for direct talks with the US on the subject, hope has risen across the globe that a resolution is likely.

From insults and barbs between the leaders of the US and North Korea to a possible bonhomie, a lot has moved in just over a month. Kim Jong-un has moved from being a ‘little rocket man’ to an individual with whom the US can talk. With days left for a possible summit, hectic diplomatic parleys appear to be ensuring that it does take place. Singapore, the destination is gearing up to host the two leaders.

The US NSA, John Bolton’s remarks supported by the US Vice President Mike Pence, that North Korea should follow the Libyan model, where Gaddafi handed over his nuclear designs and equipment in exchange for removal of sanctions, leading to his downfall, almost derailed the summit. North Korea hit back, calling Mike Pence a ‘political dummy’. Talks were brought back on track by an unscheduled meeting between the leaders of the two Korea’s. Trump also had to shift stance and disconnect with the comments.

Trump has gone further ahead and melted down from his earlier stance that the talks should lead to denuclearization or he could walk away. He has now stated that it is unlikely to happen in one sitting, ‘there’s a very good chance that it won’t be done in one meeting or two meetings or three meetings. But it’ll get done at some point.’

Diplomatic meetings are occurring simultaneously in multiple locations. In New York, the North Korean leader’s envoy, Kim Yong Chol, and US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, discussed possible outcomes of the summit, while the two nation’s delegations have been meeting in the demilitarized zone, seeking to reach a final declaration. A letter from Kim to Trump confirming the summit has been handed over. The delegates would next be meeting in Singapore, ahead of the summit, to iron out protocol and other issues.

While the US and North Korea continue discussions, Russia, alongside China are carefully orchestrating a possible solution from behind the scenes. Kim Jong-un has visited China twice, each time before he has met the US Secretary of State, possibly to obtain the views of Xi Jinping and discuss a way forward. China has remained a steadfast supporter of the regime, though during the last one year when Kim was conducting his tests, he ignored even China.

Just as delegation level talks between the US and North Korea appear to be moving forward, Russia wanders in. Russia had maintained a steadfast silence throughout, watching from the side lines, selecting the appropriate moment to wander in.

The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, visited Pyongyang when talks were ongoing in New York. The comment by Lavrov, ‘It’s obvious that when a conversation starts about solving a nuclear problem and other problems of the Korean peninsula, we proceed from the fact that the decision can’t be complete while sanctions are still in place.’ Kim in his remarks mentioned ‘US hegemonism’ and his desire to boost relations with Russia. Sergei, by his comments, hinted that it would demand partial lifting of sanctions.

For China and Russia, the survival of North Korea is paramount. Both the nations border North Korea and would never desire a US backed Korea on their doorstep. Thus, ensuring survival of the regime is essential. While presently talks are scheduled between the US and North Korea, they remain key stakeholders. Thus, the direct hint towards lifting of sanctions by the Russian foreign minister.

If the US believes that it alone can be the guarantor for North Korea to surrender its nuclear weapons, then it is living in a fool’s paradise. Every nation which has trusted the US has been let down. Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and now Iran have realized that the US cannot be trusted. Japan is already feeling marginalized.

North Korea would therefore need to bank more on China and Russia, two nations which desperately need North Korea to survive. These are better bets as guarantors, alongside the US. Further, the deal would need to be ratified by the UN, ensuring that the US does not pull the plug at a later timeframe as Trump has done with Iran.

The hint given by Russia on sanctions is clearly that post the meeting at Singapore, it would raise stakes in the UN Security Council for partial lifting of sanctions against North Korea. This move aimed at enhancing confidence would be strongly supported by China and other permanent members, already miffed with the US on Iran.

It would put the US in a bind as employing its veto would result in their efforts thus far moving down the drain, while it would be unwilling to agree, as in their perception it is sanctions alone which has compelled North Korea to act. The comments of Jim Mattis over the weekend that North Korea would not get any sanctions relief until, ‘verifiable and irreversible’ steps are taken, may not hold good.

A lot is at stake as the summit draws close. North Korea would never jump and surrender weapons which assure its security on the words of Trump. It may place further nuclearization on hold and possibly admit to UN checks. It would demand more than just the US guarantee, if it seeks to surrender its weapons program.

It may seek to involve Russia, China and the UN into discussions. There is no doubt that China and Russia would end up with a greater role than what the US envisages. However, at every step it would demand lifting of sanctions and aid in return. In the long run, for once Trump may find himself outmanoeuvred by a nexus of North Korea, China and Russia. Now that he has stepped in, walking out may be nigh impossible.

Is the US a reliable strategic ally? ORF 02 Jun 18

The US announces in multiple forums that it is seeking for greater cooperation with India in the strategic defence sector. In a meeting on the side lines of the G-20 ministerial conference, MOS External Affairs, General VK Singh and US Deputy Secretary of State, John Sullivan reaffirmed the strong US-India strategic partnership and India’s status as a major defence partner of the US. The statement issued by the US also read, ‘We want India to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the field of economic assistance and development’.

The two-plus-two Indo-US dialogue, involving defence and foreign affairs ministers, is scheduled for July. The US claims that the maximum military exercises it conducts with any nation is India. It seeks to collaborate with India to counter a belligerent China. It promises to supply India with military hardware, with cutting edge technology, yet to be even provided to most of its closest allies. At the same time, it issues policy decisions on its own terms without any consideration on the strategic implications of its decisions for its allies and close strategic partners.

On 02 Aug 17, Donald Trump signed into law a bill pushed through by the senate, termed Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). The bill was aimed at imposing sanctions on Iran, Russia and North Korea. The bill amongst multiple issues also imposes secondary sanctions against those transacting with Russian defence or intelligence sectors. It also impacted nations exporting pipelines to Russia.

While India has been impacted by this bill in its military procurements, including frigates, helicopters and the S-400 missile systems, the EU has been hit by the pipeline clause. Even before the bill was signed by Trump, Germany and Austria issued a joint statement, commenting that the bill heralded a ‘new and very negative quality in European-American relations’. The EU President described the sanctions as illegal under international law. India has been in negotiations with the US for a waiver, which has been supported by most US advisors, including Mike Pompeo.

Recently, Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal, also termed as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This despite all other nations forming part of the agreement trying to convince him against it. Enmity between the US and Iran had always existed. US decision placed the deal at risk and could lead to Iran re-commencing its nuclear program, leading to tensions in West Asia, which could destabilize the entire region. Other signatories of the deal decided to remain committed.

The US secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, post US withdrawal threatened to impose the ‘strongest sanctions in history’ against Iran if it did not accept a series of US demands. These included Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions, curtailing its ballistic missile program and withdrawing all its forces from the Syrian civil war. It is very clear that Iran would never accept US terms. Thus, with others backing the deal, it may still hold, but sanctions are very likely. Iran has given the EU and others backing the deal till 31 May to come out with a solution.

The other nations which have signed the deal have planned to continue with their engagements with Iran. The EU has proposed to shield their companies from US sanctions, for doing business with Iran. All EU nations backed a decision to counter US sanctions by updating a twenty-year old ‘blocking statute’ which was originally enacted to circumvent a US embargo on Cuba. This statute prohibits EU companies from complying with US sanctions and permits them to claim damages from the ‘person causing them’.

Realistically though, while it may send a strong message to the US, it may not be enforceable as the companies violating US sanctions may not be able to claim damages. The German economy minister stated to a newspaper recently that the government will help German firms with business in Iran but cannot entirely shield them from US sanctions.

The US decision would deeply impact India. India has already decided to double its oil imports from Iran in the next fiscal year. Presently, India imports 6,20,000 barrels per day from Iran. Simultaneously, its investments in the Chabahar port (USD 500 Billion) would be impacted. The development of the port, meant to be India’s gateway to Central Asia, an alternate port for Afghanistan and India’s answer to Gwadar would be affected. China would jump into the fray at the first sign of Indian hesitation. Any delay or withdrawal from Indian side would ensure that Indian-Iranian relations would never be the same.

Trump’s announcement of ‘on summit’, ‘off summit’ with North Korea without consulting his allies have left them wondering of US’s intentions. The South vowed to continue dialogue and as per reports both leaders met again at the demilitarized zone. South Korean President Moon Jae-in stated after meeting the North Korean leader that the North is eager for the summit. John Tierney, of the Centre of Arms Control and Non-Proliferation stated, ‘The first rule of diplomacy is always consult your allies, yet our key allies in the region were blindsided by the move.’ He added that the Trump administration has no unified diplomatic strategy.

Its unilateral decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem set West Asia on fire leading to mass deaths and injuries. Most of its allies from NATO and EU criticized its actions, but Trump bashed ahead. Under Trump, the US has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement on climate change, UNESCO and the Trans Pacific Partnership. Such unilateral actions by an individual, who visualizes a different path for his nation, pushes back progress made by the international community over the years. It also indicates the unreliability of US decision making.

Trump has managed to divide the world as never before. His unilateral decisions including enforcing sanctions, where none were required has raised more questions than answers. The major issue which arises and impacts many nations is finding a way through the sanctions. In the present global environment, sanctions are considered an easier alternative to employment of military force.

In the case of Iran, companies or countries continuing to pursue business with Iran, post the stipulated period when sanctions are enforced, could be barred from access to US markets apart from other punitive actions. Nov 4th is the possible deadline for companies to cease buying Iranian oil and conducting business in Iranian ports. The US can however issue waivers or simply choose not to apply these penalties.

The fact remains that the US imposes sanctions for its own strategic reasons, without consulting its partners and allies. However, once applied, it impacts those who are uninvolved in the region for imposition of sanctions, as is the case with CAATSA, imposed for supposedly Russian interference in US elections or Iran, where the US feels that the deal was one-sided. This unilateral action compels its allies to seek waivers on issues which are in its own national interest. The classic example is India seeking waiver to purchase military equipment from Russia.

These actions also indicate the unreliability of the US as a strong ally. It has selfishly only considered its own interests rather than those of its partners. Hence, based on its recent actions, US allies and strategic partners need to sit together to evolve their own mechanisms for defeating US sanctions and establishing a system where such unilateral decisions are proved wrong and remain ineffective. Unless the US is hit back in a manner where it realizes that without taking majority of its allies along with it, its decisions would not be successfully implemented, it would continue unashamedly.

India needs to reconsider the depth to which it is willing to engage the US in the strategic domain. Moving forward in security collaboration by opening discussions on Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (Comcasa), should be put on hold till the issue of US sanctions not impacting Indian national interests are clarified. This does not imply that India shifts camps but ensures that the US is conveyed Indian strategic interests would not be compromised, nor would India beg for waivers, but would retaliate by not cooperating in areas where the US most desires it to. India has the strength and the economic power to do so and it should. If it does not, it would lose other close friends and allies including Russia and Iran.

Can India play Afghan card in the Maldives? The Statesman 29 May 18

At a seminar in the Vivekananda International Foundation last week, the navy chief, Admiral Sunil Lanba stated, ‘Maldives is a challenge for us. The present government in Maldives is more inclined towards China. The constitution has been tweaked and some islands have been handed over to the Chinese for development. We will have to wait and watch.’ He added that patrolling of the Maldives Exclusive Economic Zone by the Indian navy has re-commenced as also has the training to their naval personnel.

India’s ties with Maldives, ideal in the past, nosedived after it criticized the declaration of an emergency by present government headed by Abdulla Yameen. In fact, Yameen from the time of becoming the president had always favoured a pro-China approach. Presently, 70% of Maldives foreign aid flows from China.

While India ignored calls for military action during the emergency, its posturing and attitude pushed the nation closer to China. So strong was the Indian voice and threat of military intervention, that the Chinese mouth piece, Global Times, even commented, ‘If India one-sidedly sends troops to the Maldives, China will take action to stop New Delhi. India should not underestimate China’s opposition to unilateral military intervention.’ India also refused to accept a special envoy of Yameen, sent to justify reasons for the coup, pushing the Island nation further away.

In Afghanistan, on the other hand, India is the nation being looked upon. While China and Russia are also diplomatically engaged, the country providing maximum economic development and aid is India. India has also begun providing Afghanistan with military equipment, which would increase in the times ahead. The US has been requesting India to do more for the economic development in the country, while it continues to employ military power to handle the Taliban. The proximity of India to the Afghan government is well established.

Therefore, India holds the key for any country seeking to enter Afghanistan for economic development, which would subsequently lead the way to enhanced participation in determining the future of the country. Whenever talks take place between the Taliban and the Afghan government, India would be a stakeholder, albeit from behind the scenes. It is this power of India, which has angered Pakistan.

It is also with this backdrop, that in both one-to-one summits of PM Modi with Xi Jinping and Putin, that the possibility of the two nations independently joining with India in a developmental project in Afghanistan has been raised. Both nations seek to establish footholds in the country, which could bring them into greater involvement when peace talks do take place. Further, if peace is to return to the country, there would be immense reconstruction, which would open doors for their greater involvement. In both the cases, India would be the lead nation, which would identify the joint project.

Geo-strategically Afghanistan is essential for both, China and Russia. It borders China’s restive Xinjiang Province and nations of the Central Asian Republics, all Moslem majority regions. Afghanistan is also fast becoming a base for ISIS fighters, relocating from Syria and Iraq. Neither Russia nor China seek their entry into their own regions. While both nations maintain a direct contact with the Taliban, which they consider the lesser of the two evils, however due to this, their relations with the Afghan government is undermined. A foothold in the country and a say in its future would benefit both.

Maldives for India is its backyard. Its proximity to India and its location astride key shipping lanes adds to its geostrategic importance. Maldives moving the Sri Lankan way in providing a permanent base to China would enhance India’s security concerns. Further, as a member of SAARC, it was the only nation, unwilling to support India when it took the decision not to attend the Pak summit in 2016. Post the visit of the Pak army chief to Maldives, a few months ago, there is a likelihood of increased Pak presence in the country, which would add to India’s security concerns.

Indian actions in the recent past, including criticizing the present government, have been a reason for its greater proximity to China. This needs to be reversed. Further, If Indo-China relations of the future are to be maintained on an even key, and minor border skirmishes ignored for long-term benefits, then the nations need to have greater economic coordination and cooperation. India also needs to move back into the Maldivian economy in a manner that its foothold there is almost permanent.

The most ideal option then is for India to seek a pro-quid-pro from China on establishing a major joint venture in the Maldives, akin to what China proposes in Afghanistan. The only difference between the two being that while India takes the lead in Afghanistan, China takes the lead in Maldives. The terms and conditions for both must remain the same, ensuring that in either case, the second nation, China in Afghanistan and India in Maldives, remain in the fray and are not pushed out, despite change of governments.

Such an action would benefit both nations, beyond just the economic sphere. It would give both a foothold in the nation which has a major geostrategic importance, as also enhance economic and diplomatic cooperation. This could also act as a cooling factor when tensions rise due to border standoffs. While the host nations, implying Maldives and Afghanistan, need to be taken on board before decisions and investments are done, however both India and China have their leeway in the country’s concerned. A win-win for both nations must be considered and Indian request to China on this must be processed, prior to commencement of a joint project in Afghanistan.

India in a bind The Excelsior 24 May 18

Trump walking out of the Iran nuclear deal, India’s growing proximity to the US including they seeking to designate India as a major strategic ally, India’s close relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia, both arch enemies of Iran, and immense investments in the Chabahar port, when assessed together appears to be a diplomatic nightmare. Added to this confusion is India seeking to maintain close ties with Russia, an ally of Iran, but under multiple sanctions from the US.

The Iran nuclear deal, also termed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was reached in Jul 2015 between Iran, five permanent members of the UN, Germany and the EU. The other nations which signed the deal have decided to support it, though the US proposes to re-impose sanctions. How effective would be the support of others in the face of US sanctions remains a mute question.

India has always claimed to be following an independent foreign policy, however maintained its limits of engagement within international norms, avoiding diplomatic squabbles. It continued to purchase limited quantities of oil from Iran, even during international sanctions, though delayed payments, which were cleared post the lifting of sanctions. India pushed back development of Chabahar till the US lifted sanctions, post the signing of the nuclear deal.

India announced only last month that based on incentives offered by Tehran, government owned refineries plan to double Iranian oil imports from next year. India is Iran’s second largest oil client after China. With rising oil prices post the US action, India is already financially impacted. Since the sanctions are US specific, China may not adhere to it and if India does, then relations with Iran may be affected.

India therefore appears to be in a bind and would need deft diplomatic handling to overcome its predicament and maintain its commitments. It was impacted by the US imposing CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) and is seeking a wavier to continue with its purchase of the S-400 air defence missile systems, helicopters and frigates from Russia, though for India these are a strategic necessity.

The US needs India for multiple reasons including countering growing Chinese belligerence in the South China Sea and financial assistance in development of infrastructure in Afghanistan. Therefore, it may agree for the waiver at present, which again is indicative of India requesting for what should be its right. However, Iran is a different kettle of fish altogether. The hatred between the two has only been growing over the years.

The US seeks a regime change in Iran, which could come about by imposing sanctions resulting in internal unrest. Simultaneously, Iran and Israel are locked in an increasing state of strikes and counter strikes. Saudi Arabia is backing the US as it views growing Iran influence as a threat to its own sovereignty and dominance in the region. The launching of Iran made and delivered missiles from Yemen into Saudi territory has only increased tensions.

Thus, US sanctions on Iran, likely to be imposed in the coming days would impact Indian investments in Chabahar. India cannot afford to abandon the Chabahar port investments as China would willingly jump in, forcing India to lose out on what is being visualized as a counter to Gwadar. Further, this port would be India’s gateway to Central Asia, through Afghanistan. With most other nations, which were signatory to the Iran nuclear deal, still backing it, new sanctions would not be pushed through the UN but would be solely of the US.

The nature of sanctions though yet to be announced, would impact banks dealing with companies involved in the oil and nuclear business with Iran. This is the only manner by which the Iranian economy could be hit leading to unrest. Indian decision of shifting oil procurement would impact Indo-Iran relations adversely. If it decides to continue as hither-to-fore, then its relations with the US may be impacted.

India has avoided passing any comments, either against Iran or on the US pulling out of the deal, closely monitoring US and Israel actions. Sanctions imposed by the US would be readily accepted by Israel and Saudi Arabia, impacting India and its relations. India presently has good relations with both camps, hence would need to tread carefully.

India presently procures armaments from both the US and Israel. US sanctions invariably target sale of military hardware and spares to nations which ignore US diktats. India as the US’s largest military hardware purchaser cannot afford to be impacted. While India may yet seek other options, the US would also lose. The same would be the case with Israel.

Hence, while both nations would seek Indian support in the imposition of sanctions, they would always leave a small window open for negotiations, as neither nation wishes to lose the benefit of the Indian market. It is this window which Indian diplomacy would need to exploit.

Diplomatically, India would maintain neutrality in UN discussions on US and Iranian actions. It would need to continue development of Chabahar port solely because of its economic and security implications. This may still be accepted in international security circles, mainly the US, as it enables development of Afghanistan and reduces their dependency on Karachi and Pak’s sudden closure of borders.

The major issue would be its oil procurements from Iran, which may come under US sanctions. In this case it may have to resort to plain talking with the US, as its own security and economic interests are affected. Since it would remain within international norms, as UN sanctions are nigh impossible, it should be able to push it through. Bowing to US pressure and reducing oil procurements would break the bonhomie and trust which exists between India and Iran, which it can ill-afford.

At some stage, India as a growing military and economic powerhouse, whom the world seeks to engage must indicate the strength of its own foreign policy, rather than being cowed down under pressure. It cannot keep switching its foreign policy goals based on the idiosyncrasies of the US and its maverick presidents. It must ensure protection of its investments alongside its foreign policy goals. While neutrality is an ideal policy, however the same comes under increasing pressure when opposing power houses challenge each other. It is managing them that indicates India’s diplomatic power and leverages.

US-North Korea talks are now meaningless The Excelsior 11 May 18

The two Koreas appear to be moving forward post the successful summit between the two leaders. The agreement signed, details of which were released later, indicates steps taken between the two nations to create an environment of peace, post the rise of tensions in the peninsula, after North Korean nuclear and missile tests last year. Within days of the meeting between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un, the loudspeakers broadcasting propaganda on both sides have begun being dismantled. Post the meeting even the main issue of testing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles appear to have been resolved.

The subsequent announcement of North Korea to close its nuclear testing facility at Punggye-ri in full international glare has also brought to close a major irritant between the US, its Asian allies and North Korea. The same would begin later this month and would likely be monitored by the UN. It was nuclear and long-range missile testing which compelled trump to label Kim Jong-un as the little ‘Rocket Man’ and threatened him with fire and fury. With Kim agreeing for talks, the little ‘Rocket Man’ has suddenly become ‘very honourable’ in Trump’s eyes and an acceptable member of the international community.

It is nuclear disarmament that Trump wants to discuss with Kim, when he plans his summit in the coming weeks, but is it worth the effort or would it push the progress made by the two Koreas into the sunset, is the issue. After all Trump is impetuous and unreliable in behaviour. His present advisors including Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, his new secretary of state and NSA, are staunch anti-North Korea, despite Pompeo having met him over the Easter weekend. For them, the only solution is North Korea dismantling its nuclear weapons and handing over the same to the US, as Gaddafi had done earlier with his nuclear designs.

Though Kim did announce that he was willing to denuclearize provided the US promised not to launch any offensive, but would he trust the US, as its past record indicates otherwise. To further add to the confusion is the comment in the joint declaration of a four party meeting involving the two Koreas, China and the US for considering denuclearization. The attitude of the US over the decades would make any leader who heads a totalitarian regime and is anti-US, doubtful of US intentions.

It was promises by the US which made Gaddafi hand over his nuclear weapons designs. Years later, it was the US which supported the Arab spring which led to his ouster and subsequent killing. The same happened with Saddam, whom the US engaged on the pretext of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the western powers under the guidance of Obama pushed the Iran nuclear deal, Trump has vowed to kill the deal, while supporting any coalition against it, including its arch enemies, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Despite multiple threats and screams, the US has been unable to force Pak to act against terror groups and terror group leaders on its soil, as it possesses nuclear weapons. Nor has Pak even indicated a willingness to push the Taliban for talks. All US pressures and threats have led to naught. Hence, if Kim accepts the words of Trump and begins denuclearization, his days are likely to be numbered.

Therefore, while he has announced closure of his nuclear testing site, stated the ultimate aim is a denuclearized peninsula, no time limit has been set. Dismantling would never be an easy decision as it would leave him vulnerable to US covert actions. Kim would have known that he needs no further tests. His missiles may still not be able to target mainland US, but he has the power to target Japan, South Korea and US military bases in the Pacific. This is enough for him to possess the level of security that he requires for the future of his regime.

A hawkish US seeking to push through immediate denuclearization would witness complete surprise. Further, if the US pressurizes and it fails, in the current international standing, it would have no support for any further sanctions in the UN. Russia and China may on the other hand demand easing of sanctions as the North has begun fulfilling its part of the agreement. The present summit between Trump and Kim would only be testing waters. Kim would never commit in front of Trump alone any plans for denuclearization.

Any formal discussion on denuclearization would involve at least China, if not Russia and other powers too, akin to the Iran deal. The aim would be an international guarantee, at least from both rival camps, ensuring that the US would never take unilateral action. China would never want a unified Korea as it would bring the US to its doorstep. In this context, the Trump-Kim meeting may be an eyewash and meaningless.

More important is the fact that the forward movement made in the talks between the two Koreans is still in the nascent stage, hence any rough push by either side including breaking dialogue would ensure that this progress is also pushed back. Kim’s visit to China prior to the talks has ensured that China would back it, hence he pushed the involvement of China in a long- term peace deal. The US with its current relations with both Russia and China may be unwilling for such multilateral talks, hence leading to a stalemate.

Expectations on both sides are opposite, therefore finding common ground is difficult. While there would be immense preparatory meetings and interactions prior to two major leaders sitting across the table, yet chances of derailment remain high.

It is safer for the world if Trump decides to push back his meeting, letting the progress in talks between the two Koreans settle and enhance confidence, rather than walking in and mitigating the environment.

Are US and Russia only playing games in Syria? (English Version) Amar Ujala 28 Apr 18

Post the launch of a chemical attack on the town of Douma on 7th Apr, the west was aghast. The anger over the earlier incident of poisoning of Skripal in London had yet to recede. Trump vowed action, while Russia warned of consequences. For the US, Syria was a war where it was trapped, with almost no exit. Trump had recently announced the withdrawal of US troops from the country but was compelled to put his decision on hold. By retaliating, Trump could show his support to the victims, while diverting his failure to withdraw.

The US presently maintains a force of about 2000 soldiers, mainly special forces and engineers, who operate in Eastern Syria alongside the Syrian Democratic forces (SDF), a Kurdish-led group of militias. They have liberated most of their region from the ISIS, though pockets remain. The Euphrates divides the US backed forces from the Russian and Iranian backed Syrian forces.

The US is aware that if it withdraws, Syrian forces, backed by Russia and Iran would seek to retake the territory held by the US backed SDF. Simultaneously, Turkey would seek to destroy these forces to secure its own borders. Hence, The US would remain trapped in Syria for a prolonged duration, despite the ranting and raving of Trump.

Trump announced his decision to strike Syria and was backed by UK and France. Despite Russian threats and warmongering, the strikes were launched on the early morning of 14th Apr. Three sites were targeted. These, as per western press, were associated with the chemical weapon capabilities of Syria. As per reports, a total of 110 missiles were fired. Syria has claimed that its air defence systems intercepted most of the missiles, however a few struck their targets including its research centre in Barzeh.

Russia reported that none of the missiles struck areas close to Russian air and naval bases in the country, which remain under the protection of their air defence systems. As per Syrian reports, three civilians were wounded in the strike. The US state department called the attack as a ‘one time shot’ aimed at sending a strong message. It further claimed that important infrastructure was destroyed which would result in a setback for the Syrian regime. Russia and Iran condemned the strike.

A few issues emerged in subsequent briefings. The US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dunford, stated, ‘We used the normal deconfliction channel to deconflict airspace. We did not coordinate targets’, with Russia. The French government stated that the Russians were warned beforehand. Their defence minister stated, ‘we do not seek confrontation and we refuse any possibility of military escalation and that is the reason we ensured that the Russians were warned beforehand.

While addressing the European Parliament, French president Macron stated, ‘These strikes don’t necessarily resolve anything, but I think they were important’. He added that the intervention was for the honour of the international community. Hence what flows was whether the strikes achieved their aims, or were they only a display for the world, because Russia other than calling a special UN Security Council meeting, did not react.

Nikki Haley, the US permanent representative in the UN Security Council, stated that further sanctions would be announced against Russia for its support to the Syrian regime, which was subsequently denied by the White House. This confusion reinforces that the strikes were possibly only a demonstration from the west, to indicate to their allies that they acted.

UN representatives from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are visiting Douma to confirm the use of chemical weapons. Presently, Douma is in the hands of Syrian government forces, with the rebels having withdrawn. Whether they would discover use of chemical weapons or even who used them would be known over time. Ultimately, like most other investigations this too would remain unclear.

Syria had, about four years ago, surrendered all its chemical weapons. A strike on a chemical factory or storage facility or even a research establishment which is actively being used, would have released chemicals or an immense vapour in the region, easily detectable. The storage facilities struck were near civilian populated areas and would have resulted in civilian casualties. The same did not happen as the strike possibly was on empty buildings with nothing within them.

A strike of such immense proportions as being projected by western powers, would have caused irreparable damage and casualties. Syrian claims of only three injured belies the true intention and nature of the strike. These is a possibility that the warning given to Russia to avoid escalation may have worked in the favour of Syria, which could have withdrawn its manpower, however if the stockpiles did exist, then their destruction would have been evident.

The US claiming it is assessing post-strike damage even after a fortnight, the strike was either ineffective or only a game being played. The west, desperate over years to change the Syrian regime of Assad has realized that with Russian and Iranian backing, it would never succeed. Russia and Iran have established their bases in Syria adding to western problems.

Israel, which shares a border with Syria and has in the recent past launched its own missile strikes on Iranian bases remains wary, but silent. Its major worry is expansion of Iranian influence and hold in the region. Thus, it is interacting with Russia and Turkey to keep Iran at bay. The latest to jump into the bandwagon is Saudi Arabia, which is in discussion with the US to deploy forces in the country.

The strike possibly was only a show to the world that the west is concerned, whereas it was an expression of their frustration on being unable to fulfil their aim of overthrowing Assad. Hence when Macron stated that the intervention would not resolve anything and was for honour of the international community, he was possibly the only leader who spoke the truth.

US sanctions and Indo-Russian arms deals 18 Apr 18

Post its annexation of Crimea in 2014, sanctions began being applied against Russia. With the US claiming Russia’s active interference in its Presidential polls, sanctions only increased. The diplomatic cold war kicked in when the US expelled 60 Russian diplomats and closed its Consulate in Seattle. Russia responded likewise distancing ties with the west. The Syrian chemical weapon incident and counter strikes have added to the distance.

In Aug last year, Trump was pushed into signing a law termed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATS) based on Russian interference in US Presidential elections. Trump was initially unwilling to pass the act; however, it was pushed down by the US Congress, compelling him to sign it. This act states that any country engaging in ‘significant transactions’ with Russia’s intelligence or defence sectors could be punished. Amongst the nations most impacted is India, whose defence ties with Russia go back decades.

India had signed an inter-governmental agreement for the purchase of the S-400 Air Defence system in Oct 16 in Goa, but the same has been held up due to price negotiations. It is now likely to be cleared when PM Modi visits Moscow later this year. In addition, the two nations are at an advanced stage of procurement for four Krivak III guided-missile destroyers for the navy. The Indian armed forces have 60% of their equipment of Russian origin, spares for which continue flowing from Russia. Downtrend of relations would impact maintainability of the equipment.

Thus, India cannot ignore Russia. There is no way, despite any US actions or threats, that India would sacrifice the maintenance of its Russian origin equipment. In addition, the US had requested India to assist in maintaining Afghanistan’s equipment, mainly those of Russian origin, since the US could not purchase spares as it had imposed sanctions on Russia. India did the needful.

Russia has remained India’s largest arms supplier over the years, followed by the US in recent times and then Israel. Indian relations with Russia were always strong, however as it began tilting towards the US, there has been a slow thaw in ties. Indian attempts to re-ignite the earlier relationship appears to be stalling. Russia has begun moving closer to China and Pak, with claims of a Russia-China-Pak collusion.

As per the CAATS India could be barred from purchasing US defence equipment, if it procures military hardware from Russia. The basic fault in the approach of CAATS is that the act was meant to sanction Russia, however, by targeting the purchaser, it would be sanctioning India. For India, if CAATS is seriously applied, it would be a loser in some way or the other, mainly because it procures from both nations. Therefore, this would adversely impact Indo-US ties.

Should India be concerned about US sanctions post this purchase or should its own national security be paramount is the debate.

India-US ties have mushroomed in recent times, despite differences in some domains, mainly economic and H1B visa’s. The US considers India as its critical security partner in the region. It coordinates with India to counter a rising China, support in the development of Afghanistan and as a net security provider in the Indo-Pacific. India is today amongst the most important security partners of the US. The signing of the LEMOA has only brought the two nations closer. Thus, Indo-US ties are on the rise, which could be offset in case the US considers implementing sanctions. It recently warned Turkey over the purchase of the S-400, which has had no impact.

For the US, presently involved in different forms of conflicts on multiple fronts, India is an essential partner. With China the US is in an economic standoff and over the South China Sea while pursuing a diplomatic standoff with a militarily strong Russia. In addition, its military involvement in Afghanistan requires a nation which can financially support development of the country. Thus, India assumes a significant role in its security strategy, in both the Indian sub-continent and the Indo-Pacific region. It cannot simply override Indian security concerns for its own diplomatic battles.

Simultaneously, India needs to be concerned about its own national security. Despite a slight thaw in Indo-China ties, there is always a doubt on what the dragon could attempt next. With winters receding there is a likelihood of more encounters akin to Doklam. Chinese development of infrastructure close to the border, especially in Arunachal Pradesh has compelled India to enhance its deployment. There has been no change in Pak’s approach to supporting subversive activities on Indian soil. In addition, a Pak-China nexus, resulting in a two- front conflict is always a concern.

India, therefore needs to take its own decisions on which equipment it needs for its armed forces. It cannot be cowed down by US sanctions on issues concerning its own national security. It was offered the earlier version of US Patriot Missiles, which it turned down, in favour of the Russian S-400.

The US also realizes that it can push India only this much and no further. Indo-US ties have begun looking up after a prolonged period. For the US, Pak was a natural ally as India drifted close to Russia. With Pak unwilling to change its spots on supporting terror groups and aligning closely with China, the US drifted away. Further an economically rising democratic India, the only nation in the region to counter a hegemonistic China, becomes a natural ally of the US.

India being amongst the largest purchaser of military hardware, increasingly from the US in recent times, is responsible for enhancing employment within the country. The two nations cannot risk letting a skewed policy come between increasing security and economic collaboration. If the US even considers threatening India on CAATS, it would be the loser, as India would be compelled to avoid purchase of US military hardware.

India moved towards Russia for military hardware in the seventies due to clauses in US policy of stopping supplies, if the equipment was employed against US allies. It has restarted, post the US amending this clause specifically for India. A new threat would break the growing bondage for a long time. It would damage US strategy for the region while simultaneously leaving India vulnerable. The only logical solution is talks through this skewed law, to avoid undesired distancing of relations.

The changing global order (English Version) Amar Ujala 12 Apr 18

The last few months have witnessed a rapid change in global alignments. Post Russia seizing Crimea in 2014, the west began imposing sanctions. Trump was expected to turn things around, when he announced during his campaign on multiple occasions that he would be good friends with Putin. With proof of Russian involvement in US elections now becoming a reality, he has been compelled to impose sanctions after sanctions on the country. In the latest round many Russian oligarchs have been included in the list.

The poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in UK led to most western nations ordering Russian diplomats to leave. While the affected nation, UK expelled 23 Russian diplomats, the US expelled 60 as also ordered the closure of the Seattle Consulate. 14 other nations joined the US and UK in expelling Russian diplomats. Russia responded likewise against each nation, including ordering the closure of the US consulate in St Petersburg. This pushed relations between the US and its allies and Russia to its lowest ebb, post the cold war. It is now being termed as the new cold war.

Trump keen on fulfilling his electoral promises and seeking to reduce the trade gap against China, imposed tariffs on many Chinese products. In the first round the US imposed tariffs worth USD 50 Billion. China responded likewise, placing import duties on American fruit and pork amounting to the same amount. The US responded by adding tariffs on another USD 100 Billion worth Chinese imports. China would respond, worsening trade relations. While China can expand its markets, the US would be more impacted. The US is already contesting Chinese claims in the South China Sea. Thus, US and China are moving into a trade war, apart from already being militarily hostile to one another.

The US Pentagon had stated in its national security strategy, earlier this year, that while the war against terrorism is slowly ending, threats from Russia and China are increasing. Russian proximity to Iran, Syria, Turkey and China have challenged US domination in Europe and Eurasia. Its support to opposing powers in Syria have enhanced its confrontation with the US. It has ensured alongside Iran and Turkey, that the US would not be able to enforce a regime change in Syria. The US is now contemplating pulling out of Syria as it visualizes no future in its involvement. Russia has also refused to rollback in Crimea, thus challenging the west.

China’s growing economic power, drawing nations into its fold by enhancing economic aid at exorbitant rates of interest based on its Belt Road Initiative (BRI) has challenged US dominance in the region.

This has compelled the US to consider both Russia and China as its adversaries. Latest US actions have pushed Russia and China even closer, setting aside their earlier suspicions, especially of Chinese growing presence in the Central Asian Republics, challenging Russian dominance. Thus, emerges the new cold war, with the US on one end and China and Russia on the other.

At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) conference on international security in Moscow, the new Chinese defence minister, Wei Fenghe, stated, ‘The Chinese side has come to show Americans the close ties between the armed forces of China and Russia.’ He went on to add, ‘The Chinese side is ready to express with the Russian side our common concerns and common position on important international problems at international venues.’ These statements highlight that western actions have pushed two militarily powerful nations, once mutually suspicious of each other, into one another’s arms.

Post the SCO conference, the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, also visited Moscow, where he stated, ‘Moscow and Beijing should work together to bring some common sense to those who think they can do anything they like’, clearly aimed at Trump. Presently the two most powerful leaders on the planet are Putin and Xi Jinping, both having a strong grasp over their nations, with virtually no challengers. Both nations are militarily powerful. Their joining hands to challenge the west can change the global balance.

Into this quagmire are India and Pakistan. Pak is already a Chinese stooge, dependent on China for everything, while being insulted and accused by the US. It is but natural that it would also be seeking to rush into any alliance which would challenge the US, thus ensuring its own security from US actions.

Russia, aware of distancing Pak-US relations and Pak influence over the Taliban has enhanced its engagement with it. The two nations conduct joint exercises and have increased diplomatic engagements. Russia, against Indian requests has already sold few MI-35 helicopters to it and would also commence offering other equipment also. With Pak influence, Russia and the Taliban have begun direct engagement. Recently, the US force commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, stated in an interview to the BBC that Russian weapons were being smuggled to the Taliban across the Tajikistan border.

India is moving closer to the US, though it continues its diplomatic engagements and procurement of arms from Russia. Russia is evidently moving away from Indian shores and closer to Pak and China. Though India abstained from voting in the UN on the Skripal poisoning incident, it had no impact. Both Indian adversaries, China and Pak, are already close allies. Bringing Russia into their fold would remove it from being the one source of strength India could always count on.

Thus, this emerging Russia-China-Pak axis would be a challenge not only to the US and the west but would also impact India as it would reduce India’s diplomatic support base. This axis would impact future global issues including resolving the ongoing crises in West Asia, North Korea and Afghanistan. The US would face challenges from this axis militarily, diplomatically and economically. India can expect almost no support from Russia, whereas Pak could. India may need to reconsider its diplomatic strategy for the long term.

Is Russia-China-Pak axis becoming a reality ORF 04 Apr 18

The west, led by the US is presently involved in a new cold war with Russia. Post the re-election of Putin and Trump’s congratulatory call, it appeared that relations could again be moving forward. However, to support the UK on its tough stand against Russia over the poisoning in London on 4th Mar of Sergei Skripal, a former Russian Military Intelligence Officer who acted as a double agent for UK in the 1990’s and 2000’s, the US led the way by expelling sixty Russian Diplomats, including twelve from its mission to the UN in New York. It also ordered the closure of the Russian Consulate in Seattle.

The US termed all the diplomats it expelled as intelligence operatives and its reason for closing the Seattle Consulate was its proximity to a US submarine base and Boeing. Alongside the US and Canada, a host of nations belonging to the EU also expelled varying numbers of Russian diplomats. A total of 27 nations expelled 150 Russian diplomats. The US statement on the expulsion read, ‘Today’s actions make the US safer by reducing Russian ability to spy on Americans and to conduct covert operations that threaten America’s national security. With these steps, the US and our allies and partners make clear to Russia that its actions have consequences.’

Earlier, the UK had expelled 23 Russian diplomats over the incident, with Russia responding similarly. For the UK, this attack on its soil was a violation of international norms. Russia has denied all involvement. It has criticized the US and EU on their present step and has responded expelling the same number and closing the US consulate in St Petersburg.

This tit for tat action has pushed relations already strained since its annexation of Crimea, further downhill. The Russian Ambassador to Australia stated that western action could lead the world into a cold war situation. Simultaneously, the Russian Ambassador to Indonesia added that it could escalate beyond a cold war to an ice war, which could be fatal.

Putin had to respond in kind, failing which he would be considered weak. Obama expelling Russian diplomats in his final days in office over possible Russian interference in US presidential elections, received no immediate Russian response, as it hoped Trump would take a different view. Not this time.

In Syria, the worsening of relations now places US and Russia on different sides of the fence, adding to increased casualties, more brutality by the Syrian regime and no end to the conflict. The only sufferers would remain the local population. There is no way that the US would be able to push any further strictures through the UN security council on Syria. Trump frustrated with no progress announced a possible withdrawal from Syria.

Further, Russia has supported North Korea in multiple ways, as it also shares a small land border with it. The recent visit of Kim Jong Un to China, indicates Chinese proximity to the nation re-emerging. This would open doors for Russia to wander back in, adding to an already doubtful case of any early resolution of North Korea’s nuclear status. There are reports that the North Korean Foreign Minister would shortly travel to Russia, even before the meeting between the two Korean heads.

While the diplomatic feud would linger on in Europe, tensions between super powers rising, signs of resolving the Syrian crises going up in flames, India would be also affected. The already distancing US-Russian relations had enhanced Russian-Chinese proximity. With US sanctions on Russia, it was China whom Russia had turned to. Through China, Russian involvement and interaction increased with Pak.

Simultaneously, Russian involvement in Afghanistan has witnessed an upswing. The US even accused Russia of arming the Taliban. In an interview to BBC, General John Nicholson, head of US forces in Afghanistan stated, ‘We know that the Russians are involved’. He added that Russian weapons were being smuggled to the Taliban across the Tajikistan border.

For Russia, the rise of the ISIS in Afghanistan is a major threat, hence it is seeking to enhance its involvement in the country. It is also aware that without the support of Pak, it could never become a major player. Thus, there is a sudden warming of relations between the two. Joint military exercises, diplomatic exchanges and even a decision to sell military hardware are on the cards. Russia is known to be in direct parleys with the Taliban, a fact accepted by their foreign minister. The official reason being quoted is the Taliban’s enmity with the ISIS.

With India moving closer to the US, there is already a slow distancing with Russia. Though we continue to purchase military equipment from them, the warmth and support which existed earlier appears to be waning. Russia continues to fulfil diplomatic essentials with India including the host of bilateral agreements and summits, but its decision to enhance its ties with Pakistan against Indian requests, indicates a change. Similar problems would flow by the increased warmth between China and Russia. It is unlikely that India could depend on Russia in the days ahead, as it had previously.

India has neither commented on the Sergei Skripal incident nor on the actions undertaken by the US and its allies. It is attempting to follow the middle path, ignoring both sides. However, while its silence may be appreciated by the west but could be misconstrued by Russia. For Russia, silence would imply tacit support to western actions, while even commenting on maintaining diplomatic norms and avoiding plunging the world into a cold war, could be considered more favourable.

Putin and Xi Jinping are the two most powerful leaders on the planet, holding complete sway over their nations. The two joining hands would only enhance distances between the west and them in the days ahead, as also create a strong bloc against a US-NATO combine. With Pak firmly in the Chinese pocket, the possibility of a Russia-China-Pak axis is a reality. This would result in the US finding the going more difficult in Afghanistan, while for India countering or isolating Pak may become a challenge.

India must act more professionally in the diplomatic sphere, if it desires to maintain steady relations with both camps. The defence minister is scheduled to visit Moscow shortly, and is expected to firm up agreements on the purchase of the S-400 Triumf Missile system. She is also expected to place Indo-Russian ties back on a firm footing. Whether there would be any success on either of the two issues, time would tell. However, assuring Russia of Indian support and seeking to reduce Russian tilt towards Pak should remain her priority.

Kim Jong Un’s China visit: What could be in store for the rest of the world Daily O 03 Apr 18

The North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un’s secretive three days visit to China by a special train was confirmed by the media on both sides post his return. This was his first visit to any nation after his assumption to power in 2011. Pictures released in the Chinese media showed a relaxed Kim smiling and waving during the visit.

A statement accredited to him but issued by the Chinese press read, ‘It is our consistent stand to be committed to the denuclearization on the peninsula. The issue of denuclearisation can be resolved if South Korea and the United States respond to our efforts of goodwill, create an atmosphere of peace and stability while taking progressive and synchronous measures for the realization of peace.’ It is indicative that he would place the demands which they would have to accept, if peace is to return.

During the visit, Kim held talks with Xi Jinping on the existing situation and the proposed talks with his Korean counterpart and the US president. Media reports indicate Kim making copious notes during his interaction with Xi. Kim is expected to meet South Korean President Moon Jae-in on 27th April, followed by a summit with US President, Donald Trump. Japan has also indicated a desire for a direct summit, discussions on which have yet to commence.

China had always been a major trading partner and close ally of the country. In recent times, there were reports of a fade in Chinese influence, compelling China to support sanctions against the regime. This visit indicates a possible thaw in their relationship. Reports state that the visit was undertaken on an invitation extended by Xi. Post the visit, a message sent to the US by China stated that ‘the visit went well’. This visit and the bonhomie visible indicated that China would play a key role in any resolution concerning North Korea.

For China, a unified Korea with close ties to the US is undesirable, as it could enhance threat perceptions and have the US at its doorstep. At the same time, a belligerent North Korea, unwilling to toe its line remains an equal threat. Thus, while it would desire a resolution of the crises, it would desire it on its terms, where the North remains as a buffer between US aligned South and China. Simultaneously, the North remains a close ally. Hence, ensuring the survivability of the regime is essential.

Russia is also in the process of moving closer to the North. There are reports of the North Korean Foreign Minister travelling to Moscow shortly, well before Kim Jong Un meets his Southern counterpart. This would bring Russia and China on the side of the North, taking advantage of the growing rift between the US and them. Kim is also aware that with the ongoing diplomatic cold war, the US would never be able to push any further sanctions through the security council.

President Trump and his advisors have been stating that the only way forward is for North Korea to roll back its nuclear weapons programme, an action which is very unlikely. The new US National Security Advisor, John Bolton, even went on to state that North Korea, akin to Libya should surrender its nuclear material to the US. He had for long been advocating employment of military force.

China would now be possibly the only nation, other than North Korea to be aware of the true status of the North Korean nuclear weapons program. While North Korea may still lack relevant technology for re-entry of its missiles, however it is in a state to threaten South Korea and Japan and has proved it in recent tests. Hence, it is assured of its survival. Surrendering its only means of survival is clearly unlikely.

This issue would have been discussed in detail with China. China aware of US long term intentions would never have suggested that the North accede to surrendering its nuclear weapons, despite all pressures. With Chinese and Russian backing and the fact that most North Korean Nuclear installations are located close to the Chinese border, the possibility of US launching military strikes are almost nil.

China, would have suggested only capping on future tests. This would ensure that no US government ever attempts to overthrow the regime. Alongside that would be a demand to lift sanctions. This may be unacceptable to the US, but would be enough for China and Russia, already at daggers with the US to insist on partial lifting of sanctions at the UN. Even if vetoed by the US, China and Russia would begin supporting the regime to ensure it survives.

China would also have suggestions on limits in North’s conversation with the South. In this case, it would be a desire to open borders, reduce tensions and increase economic cooperation. The two sides should also declare an end to hostilities, which have remained in place since the Korean war. This would come at a cost, which would include reduced US deployment and cessation of joint exercises with them. Most importantly would be withdrawal of US THAAD missile systems.

Kim is being benefitted with the increasing distance between the US on one side and Russia and China on the other. He would seek to use that advantage to his benefit. China would be seeking to ensure that North Korea remains a nuclear power, always at a distance from the US, dependent on it for economic and diplomatic support. It would also push the North to be more open towards the South seeking to move the US away from the peninsula. Russia would desire embarrassment of the US by creating conditions for Trump to walk away in frustration. How the US reacts is what the world is waiting for.

Trump-Kim summit: Who will be the gainer? ORF 26 Mar 18

Post the South Korean delegation interacting with Kim Jong Un and his suggesting a direct across the table dialogue with Donald Trump, intensive diplomatic lobbying commenced. The South Korean delegation called on the White House, where as per reports, Trump ambushed them and led them to his office, where in minutes he agreed to meeting Kim Jong Un.

This action by Trump has surprised many, who continue to wonder, what the outcome would be, even if the summit does take place. The South Koreans were themselves surprised as they had expected intense discussions prior to even obtaining an interaction with Trump. Trump may have visualized that if this bilateral summit succeeds, he would have achieved the impossible and along with it, international fame as being the only US President to have successfully dealt with North Korea. He even tweeted that if it does not proceed as per his thoughts, he could even walk away midway. Such an action would turn the situation extremely hostile.

Diplomatic summits at such levels are preceded by multiple contacts and diplomatic parleys to ensure that the right atmosphere is created, thus ensuring no failures. In this case, both are known mavericks, impulsive and spontaneous in behaviour. The Japanese Prime Minister aware of the situation is himself considering a direct summit with Kim Jong Un. Preparations are underway for a direct North and South Korean dialogue in April. The US has no diplomatic contact with North Korea, being represented by Sweden, which is not a member of NATO, however desperately seeks to curtail their weapons program, as its speed of progress could threaten the US mainland in a brief time frame.

North Korea on the other hand has been under a series of sanctions, seeking to cripple its weapon program, none of which seems to have succeeded. It remains defiant as ever, threatening South Korea and Japan, known US allies. Its missiles under tests, have flown close to the Japanese mainland adding to tensions. Attempts at pressurizing China, supposedly a known ally, to force Kim Jong Un to change his stance, have drawn a blank. Thus, it emerged that Chinese influence on the nation has waned. It appeared that North Korea was determined to continue with its nuclear development plans despite threats of military action by the US.

North Korea remains the most repressive regime on the planet. It desperately seeks to survive. Kim Jong Un is witness to other dictators who questioned the power of the US but lacked nuclear weapons to ensure their survival. Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein are two who were overthrown since they possessed no nuclear weapons to guarantee their survival. Gaddafi had admitted to receiving nuclear weapons designs and components through an international smuggling network, which he had handed over to the US in 2004, enhancing his vulnerability.

Kim Jong is aware that Iran having agreed to international monitoring of its nuclear weapon program continues to face US sanctions for multiple reasons. Even the deal remains under threat since Trump assumed office. Thus, for Kim, survival implies possessing nuclear weapons, not for any direct assault, but to ensure survival of his regime. Even if he cannot reach mainland US, threatening South Korea, Japan and US bases in the Pacific are enough guarantee.

There are doubts on the level of development which North Korea has achieved thus far. Experts claim that the nation still does not possess the capability to threaten the US. Others have claimed that the country does not have the technology to mount nuclear weapons onto missiles. Thus, information available with the US, solely due to the nature of the closed regime is sketchy, placing it at a disadvantage. The US may be clear on its ultimate aims, but lacking detailed inputs remains doubtful on how to reach the desired end state.

The sudden announcement of talks by North Korea, post its participation in the Winter Olympics, as part of a joint Korean team surprised the world. The North Korean Foreign Minister visited Sweden to interact with his counterpart, since they would most likely be the intermediaries. Sweden is also being considered as a likely venue for the talks. There would be multiple reasons for North Korea to have suggested a summit, none of which appears to be linked to the impact of the sanctions.

Firstly, it could be to announce to the world that it possesses nuclear weapons and should now be considered a nuclear power and treated as such. Thus, the world should guarantee security of the regime even if it decides on curbing further testing. Secondly, it could be seeking to buy time to complete development of its program including amalgamating the missile and the device, without any further testing. It has already proved it possesses the technology. Thirdly, by sitting across the table with Trump, Kim Jong Un would have obtained legitimacy and status as a world leader of repute, who brought the US to discuss on his terms.

There are few aspects on which Kim Jong Un would never relent. Foremost would be dismantling his weapons and missiles. He knows that accepting such an agreement, despite any promises of aid and assistance made by Trump would open doors for his removal in the years ahead. Secondly, opening his country for international agencies, either for aid or monitoring. His people are brutalized and have been taught to accept him as ‘God’. He would never let that change. Finally, opening his nuclear installations for international verification. North Korean nuclear installations are all based close to the Chinese border, thus ensuring that any attack on them would impact China the most. This ensures their security.

Presently, it does appear that North Korea holds all the cards, since the US remains concerned about the North’s missile program. The US may seek a curb on fresh testing and development but may not be able to push for international monitoring. It may have to promise security and sanctity of the regime, reduce deployment in South Korea and curtail anti-North exercises, but may never get the North to agree on dismantling its nuclear weapons. Thus, while peace may return to the region, the North would always possess the power to threaten.

Trump has appointed John Bolton, a known critic of North Korea and one advocating bombing North Korea as his new National Security Advisor. Bolton has been advocating that North Korea hand over its components of nuclear program to the US like what Libya did in 2004. The Trump administration fails to realize that all nations do not jump to the US tune, least of all North Korea. If it moves forward with this intention, then its chances of success appear zilch from the start.

Trump may have accepted to commence dialogue with Kim Jong Un in haste, however the US and its allies possess limited information on the true state of their nuclear program. It may have its end state clear, but unless its inputs are updated, Kim Jong Un holds the cards. He walks in for the meeting fully prepared, demands clear, knowing he holds the cards.

The possibility of Trump walking out in frustration pushing all progress back, is stronger than Kim Jong doing so. No matter what the outcome is, Kim Jong Un would be the winner. It would be a meeting of two mavericks, either of which could throw a spanner in the discussions, while nations under threat would remain on tenterhooks.

Changing geo-political alignments CENJOWS 15 Mar 18

Lord Palmerston had rightly stated, ‘There are no eternal allies nor perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests, it is our duty to follow’. This is clearly coming to fore within our neighbourhood. For India it is an indicator that we need to monitor our region carefully as changing geo-political alignments would have major negative security implications. This is also a signal that our foreign policy and shifting international camps would impact support when and where it truly matters.

Till recently, India and Russia were close, with Russia being our major weapon supplier and steadfast supporter in all international forums. It stood by India even as the US and the west were seeking to sanction India, backing Pakistan. As India began moving steadily into the US camp, our attempts at keeping Indo-Russian ties on an even keel began fading.

The present government opined that we could keep Russia on our side by enhancing defence procurements, thus boosting their dwindling economy, impacted by western sanctions over Ukraine. The drift was visible when Putin last visited India, but we were unwilling to accept and projected a brave front. Though there are numerous bilateral meetings and agreements, somehow, Russia and India have been slowly drifting.

Russia was Pak’s sworn enemy, especially since Pak raised and supported the Taliban against the Russians in Afghanistan. It was Pak’s backing to the Taliban, with financial and equipment support from the US which compelled the Russians to withdraw from Afghanistan in disgrace. India had always exploited this chasm to own advantage. With India moving to the US camp, Russia and the US drifting apart, Afghanistan becoming more unstable, the rise of the IS and the growing power of the Taliban, which Pak is known to officially support, relations have begun to change.

Russia is moving closer to Pak, conducting military exercises with it, providing it military hardware and officially signalling the rebirth of their relationship. The first group of four to handle the Afghan crises included Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran. Even Afghanistan was out. It was only after India raised its concerns, did Russia bring it both on second thought. While Russia has not openly supported Pak, it has neither chastised it. Clearly a sign of changing geo-political alignments.

The proximity of Russia to Pak would impact us in multiple ways. It could imply Russia maintaining a neutral stance in international forums when we need their backing to even delaying supply of critical spares of Russian origin equipment when Indo-Pak tensions rise or providing Pak with military equipment impacting India’s conventional military power.

Nepal had always been a strong partner of India. The Madhesi agitation, with possible Indian backing, impacted Indo-Nepal relations, despite all Indian assistance over the years. With Oli as their Prime Minister, India may lose its control over Nepal, despite controlling the tap of imports to the nation. China would gain by his election and with Nepal joining the BRI, it would soon be part of those nations indebted to China. The recent visit by the Pak PM to Nepal and the warm reception accorded, possibly done at China’s behest, would only add to geo-political alignments unfavourable to India. Nepal was a conduit for anti-India activities by the ISI and could again become one.

Maldives has clearly moved away from Indian control. Its debt to China would ensure that India remains distant and unable to directly influence the Island nation. India’s proximity to Sri Lanka, post the arrival of the present government is likely to be short lived as recent bye elections have shown the revival of Mahinda Rajapakshe, the erstwhile anti-India President. There is likely to be a reversal, which if it occurs would push India further away.

Our proximity to the US has truly not gained us any benefit in the regional context. The US, despite all its tall claims is unwilling to challenge Pak beyond a level. It needs Pak’s support in multiple ways, whether it be the use of Karachi, their air space or even pushing the Taliban to join peace talks. Our relations with the US, especially since Trump has assumed power is more linked to economy and the business which India can provide to their defence manufacturing industry, than true proximity. On many occasions, the US is known to shift its international goals as its national focus shifts. Claims of a strong strategic alliance and terming the region as Indo-Pacific including signing of the LEMOA has in no way shifted US goals in India’s favour.

On the contrary India is moving closer to ASEAN nations with whom China continues to have multiple disputes. Most of these nations have signed security pacts with India. Thus, India is stepping into Chinese turf, again shifting geo-political alignments, challenging China. Similar has been the status of India’s relations with countries of West Asia, notably Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who were staunch supporters of Pakistan. This would reduce support to Pak, which was always taken for granted.

In simple terms as a nation’s power develops, it changes its geo-political alignments to suit its growing interests. In South Asia, nations which we considered close to us and took their support for granted have begun drifting away, Nepal and Maldives for now, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh would depend on which party is in power.

The biggest damage to our relationship has been the slow distancing of Russia from being our closest ally to a distant partner. Russia too is changing its own geo-political alignments based on its own changing interests. The Russia-China nexus to Russia-China-Pak nexus should be of concern to us, which we seem to be glossing over. Pak provides Russia a greater role in Afghanistan, which remains the US’s Achilles heel.

We may claim to be balancing relations, but that is only when the other nation is weak or seeks our support, Iran and Palestine being examples. It would never be the case with Russia, which clearly states, either with us or not. International groupings and camps are such that balancing may sound logical but is not a reality.

Geo-political alignments change with interests and goals of nations, but the distancing of a reliable partner may not be an ideal status for India, especially as China enhances its role in our immediate neighbourhood. The defence minister is scheduled to visit Russia shortly. Unless there is intense homework done, mending fences including weaning Russia away from Pakistan may not happen. This would then be detrimental to Indian interests.

Simultaneous India, US pressure could jeopardize Pak ORF 13 Feb 18

Trump’s administration, post his anti-Pak tweet on New Year’s Day, has begun applying pressure on Pak to act against the Taliban and Haqqani network. Hardly a day goes by without comments from a member of his administration conveying in strong terms that it expects Pak to act. Simultaneously, the US has commenced launching drone strikes on Pak soil. The number of strikes is likely to increase. To add to Pak’s woes, the US has officially authorized its military commanders in Afghanistan to target terrorist camps and hideouts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

With an increase in terrorist strikes in Afghanistan, pressure would only increase. The recent attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and ambulance blast had hallmarks of Pak’s direct involvement. The Afghan government conveyed the same to Pak with proof including phone taps involving recent attacks. This added to pressures on Pak.

India, on the other hand is relentless in its actions along the LoC. It continues to respond to Pak’s provocations in full measure. Its surgical strike and other smaller cross border strikes indicate that it is willing to up the ante. It has begun retaliating heavily to Pak’s ceasefire violations. Pak’s denials of the surgical and cross border strikes are indicative of Pak being wary to respond, knowing India may hit back harder. It has however continued to push militants across the border and keeping the LoC active, thus continuing with its policy without respite, banking on its nuclear deterrence.

The Indian army chief, General Bipin Rawat, openly challenged Pak’s so-called nuclear threats, when he stated that if tasked by the government, the army is prepared to cross the border into Pak and call Pak’s nuclear bluff. It compelled Pak to respond with challenges and threats. However, it gave Pak an uncomfortable feeling that India may again seriously consider the ‘cold start’ doctrine, which it has professed and regularly practiced as part of its exercises, but never openly admitted. Thus, it continues to fear Indian counter-strikes.

Within Pak, the army is divided between two frontiers, Eastern and Western. On its Eastern front with India, it does not expect induction of militants, hence maintains a lesser strength, yet Indian response must ensure levels of alertness as also enhanced firepower. It suffers regular casualties due to Indian actions. On its Western front, where there are strikes by the Baluch Freedom Movement fighters and the TTP and the army is involved in battling militancy. It is facing pressure and losses from both directions, yet hides its figures, fearing impact on morale of its forces and the nation. Declaration of casualties would damage its image of invincibility.

Internally Pak remains a divided nation. The control of the military, supported by the judiciary has ensured that no political leader questions the army or its strategic intent. Neither can any party profess peace talks with India or curb the power of the deep state. The strong man, Nawaz Sharif, is out of reckoning and his party heading the government under threat from multiple quarters. This being the election year, there is a likelihood of religious and fundamental parties being a part of the future government. Whoever forms the government will have to toe the military line.

International pressure also continues to mount on Pak to curb supporting terror groups. The next meeting of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is scheduled next month in Paris. India, backed by Russia and the US are expected to make a strong pitch for the world body to compel Pak to step up its fight against terror funding. China would attempt to shield Pak but may not succeed.

Pak thus would try wriggle its way out, seeking a face saving yet safe passage through this mess. An analysis of the situation from Pak’s angle would suggest limited options available to it. It would historically consider India’s strong response along the LoC and conventional military action as it biggest threat, as it has no plans for talking peace with India. Hence, would never consider compromising on its anti-India stance. Thus, anti-India terror groups would continue getting requisite support. Its Kashmir policy, guided by its military would not change anytime soon. The LoC would continue remaining hyper active.

It may delay action against the Taliban and Haqqani network for now, hoping the US considers giving priority to talks with them. It is presently hoping that the US would realize that it needs the support of Pak’s Karachi port and air space and can only push Pak thus far and no further. Hence, it continues to make statements on no bases and promises to act on concrete inputs yet does nothing.

It is fearful of taking on the Taliban and Haqqani network directly for multiple reasons. Firstly, in its view, it would shift the battle in Afghanistan into Pak territory and involve the Pak army, which is already under intense pressure. Secondly, it could lead to them joining hands with anti-Pak groups, the TTP and JuA, making it disastrous for Pak itself. Finally, if it does take them on and eliminates a few leaders and the group is compelled to go in for negotiations, then Pak would never be able to consider Afghanistan as its strategic depth. It would remain ignored by them, even if they become part of the government.

It may be willing to undertake actions against the IS directly and restrict the Taliban and Haqqani network from enhancing its operations, provided the US engages the TTP and its affiliates alongside the Baluchistan Liberation Army. It may even offer to bring the Taliban and Haqqani leadership to the negotiating table. This is possibly Pak’s Afghan policy.

In summary, while it may be willing to negotiate with the US for Afghanistan, it would never compromise on its anti-India policy. By adopting this approach, it may be able to undermine world pressure and enable it to continue with its anti-India stance, which it considers as it biggest threat. Unless its bluff is called, and pressure enhanced, it would take the US and the west for a ride, without changing anything on the ground.

For India, solely mounting pressure along the LoC may bring satisfaction to the troops deployed and the nation but would not curb Pak’s actions. Unless the losses are made visible to the Pak public and escalated to the level that Pak realizes that it is the loser, it would not change. India possesses the firepower and determination to act, ignoring Pak’s threat, hence must be willing to up the ante.

Its counter actions should be such that it adds to Pak’s pressures of its western front. It has been done before and should be repeated. Employment of artillery to strike deep, without considering collateral damage should be the immediate action, alongside diplomatic pressures on Pak to act. Only if cornered on both fronts with equal pressure and increased losses to its forces, would it see sense and possibly respond. Otherwise, the current trend would continue unabated and both India and Afghanistan would witness Pak sponsored violence.

Afghan attacks- time for US to change Pak strategy The Excelsior 07 Feb 18

Last month has been witness to massive attacks on the population of Kabul. A strike on the Intercontinental Hotel claimed 20 lives, following which was the explosive laden ambulance suicide attack which claimed over 100 lives. This is still the winter season and under normal conditions the Taliban and their affiliate the Haqqani network spend this period recouping and preparing for their offensives to be launched in the spring. Is this a change in trend, a sinister design or a message being conveyed by those who control these groups?

Since the announcement of his new South Asia policy, threatening Pak with his new year tweets, Trump has put forth a strong message to these groups and their sponsors in Pak. He has also changed the rules of engagement, giving permission to military commanders in Afghanistan to target hideouts of these groups in both Pak and Afghanistan. Thus, strikes by air power have increased manifold in Afghanistan and rattled the Taliban. Drone strikes across the border into Pak have also commenced, location of which remains under dispute between Pak and the US. Few of their leaders have also been eliminated.

The Taliban and Haqqani network have been compelled by pressure to change their approach. This pressure flows from their hierarchy, which has gone underground, fearful of being struck as also their handlers in Pak. The direct involvement of Pak in the latest terror strikes were conveyed to them by a team headed by the Afghan Intelligence Chief on a visit to the country. The team had evidence including phone taps to prove that the attacks were planned in Pak and executed at their behest. The father of one of the terrorists killed in the Intercontinental Hotel attack claimed his son was trained in Pak and the news of his death was conveyed from a call from Pak.

The US knows that if it must succeed, which it should or else pave the way for more attacks on US soil, has limited options. Trump, aware of the gravity of the situation announced no talks with the Taliban, unless they are convinced that they cannot defeat the US-Afghan combine. A fact which the US is aware and details of which were released by their own department is that the Afghan government retains control or exerts influence in about 56% of the nation’s 407 districts. Around 30% remain contested and 14% are under the control of various militant groups including the Taliban.

Since the involvement of Pak is evident in each terror strike, the pressure on them would continue to mount. The US knows that unless it forces the Taliban and Haqqani leadership away from Pakistan, denies them resources from the country, it would continue to stumble. Hence, it should be willing to risk counter move of Pak, including threats of blocking the use of Karachi port and its airspace, by increasing drone strikes into Pak.

Pak would, since it considers the Taliban as akin to its own para military force and the only means of controlling the narrative in Afghanistan, would delay acting against them till they are forced to do so. It changed its stance post 9/11 and can be forced to do so again, provided the US applies the right nature of force.

The military in Pak controls a weak central government, already under threat from multiple sources. An election year implies that no political party would seek to anger the military. Drone strikes, simple threats and military to military dialogue would elicit promises from the Pak army and nothing more. All these actions including aid cuts have led to increased terror strikes.

The US’s changed strategy of enhancing air strikes has forced the Taliban leadership to hunker down for the moment. It cannot be seen to lose face nor accept US strikes without hitting back. Hence, it is now compelled to adopt a different strategy of striking at the heart of Kabul, to convey that it still possesses power and can cause requisite damage. By striking in Kabul, they seek to convey the ability to penetrate any part of the country. If they need to be reined in and Pak also be forced to act, then the approach to be adopted must change.

Pak could and would support protestors from religious groups blocking or destroying US cargo destined for Afghanistan. This could impact US operations and become a counter pressure on them. It has been done before and could be repeated. Therefore, an air corridor, costly but viable would need to be considered.

Pak is in deep financial mess. The first action would be to block international financial institutions from providing loans to an already almost bankrupt Pakistan. China would provide financial assistance, but not the quantum Pak needs to overcome its dire financial state and at a higher rate of interest. Alongside would be to remove Pak from its non-NATO ally status. This may be cosmetic but would convey the message.

The third would be to commence placing Pak as a terror supporting nation. China would block it, possibly with Russian support, but introducing it in itself would hurt Pak sentiments. The fourth would be to enhance drone strikes deep into Pak and simultaneously stop targeting of the TTP, the anti-Pak Taliban.

Finally, would be placing top military hierarchy on the watch list or designating them as terror supporters. Most children of senior Pak military officers are either working or studying in the US. Since this action would hurt them directly, they would be compelled to act, albeit discreetly.

If the US is to succeed, then it needs to adopt out of the box measures, alongside expected ones, which would hurt those who support the Taliban. It cannot afford to mollycoddle Pak and expect it to act. Tough times require tough actions. The fact remains, how far is the US willing to go.

US-Pak battle of wits rages The Statesman 16 Jan 18

Since the tweet by Trump at 4 AM on new years day, blaming Pak for consuming US funds and doing nothing in battling the Taliban and Haqqani network, relations between the two have only been spiralling downhill. The US has suspended all military assistance to Pak, issued threats and yet attempted to cajole them to act. Like always, back channels employing military to military contacts continue. Pak on the other hand has been crying as always, that its true contribution has been overlooked, US should consider its own failures prior to blaming it and the groups operate from Afghan soil, not Pak.

To further confuse the environment, it briefed the diplomatic corps stationed in Islamabad on Indian interference in their war on terror, ceasefire violations and involvement in supporting anti-Pak terror groups in conjunction with the Afghan intelligence service. As a final threat to the US, their defence minister announced suspension of all intelligence and military cooperation with them, while claiming that the aid cut has had no impact.

Factually, Pak knows that the US is aware that it has and will continue to provide support to the Taliban and Haqqani network. It may have to repeat Musharraf’s actions of turning 360 degrees and challenging those whom he supported under US pressure, provided its terms and conditions are met. Pak has adopted a strong stance mainly because it feels that the US needs it more than they need US support. This flows from a collection of reasons.

Firstly, with the Taliban and Haqqani leadership safely ensconced deep within Pak, it knows that US strikes if any, could cause immense collateral damage, worsening an already deteriorating relationship, compelling Pak to react adversely. Secondly, it is aware that without Pak support, the Taliban may not come to the negotiating table. Thirdly, it knows that the US, mainly because of its enmity with Iran, with sanctions and low diplomatic relations with Russia would require the services of the Karachi port and Pak airspace. Thus, it could always shut access adding to their woes. Finally, it is aware of Chinese support, which came as soon as the US imposed aid cuts.

Many former diplomats including Richard Olsen, the former US ambassador to Pakistan, have stated that such humiliating and penalising action against Pak may not work. He states that ‘it is likely to respond by showing how it can truly undercut our position in Afghanistan’. He also stated that, ‘the generals (in Pakistan) knew that as long as the US maintained an army in Afghanistan, it was more dependent on Pak, than Pak was on it’.

The US had made a strategy for Afghanistan and must stick to it. It was aware of the crucial role which Pak would play in it. Further, throughout its involvement, it was losing soldiers to Taliban strikes, which were being financed by the same funds which it gave Pak. Thus, indirectly it was paying Pak to kill its own. This had to change. The present decision-making leadership in the US are Afghan veterans, aware of the pitfalls and blocks which it may encounter from Pak and would have evaluated options to counter them.

There would be diplomatic and military options to enforce on Pak in case it blocked the use of the Karachi port. The US, if compelled, could establish a costly air corridor, while making it difficult for Pak in multiple ways. By enhancing drone strikes, even deeper into Pak, accepting collateral damage, while targeting the Taliban and Haqqani leadership, would lower the standing and image of the Pak army, which it cannot accept. Diplomatically it could commence removing Pak from a non-NATO ally status or even declaring it a terror supporting state, thus denying it funds from international monetary bodies.

However, unless major fears of Pak which it would have stated quietly to the US, denied publicly, remain unaddressed, it would continue to hesitate. Thus, the importance of back channel diplomacy continuing. These include denying India a significant role in Afghanistan, which it considers its strategic backyard, controlling the TTP, the Pakistan Taliban, which has safe bases within Afghanistan and the fear of failure of the US in subduing the Taliban, which could compel it to turn inwards against Pak. Officially it has only stated that it would prefer dialogue with the Taliban, rather than an offensive, fears of India supporting the TTP and increased pressures on its Eastern borders with India. It would always remain fearful that if it reduces forces on its Eastern front to employ against terror groups, India could take advantage and enhance pressures.

Chinese support to Pak, assures it of being protected from action in international forums. If China could protect Hafiz Saeed from being declared an international terrorist, it would ensure Pak is not officially chastised, despite it openly terror groups as an instrument of state policy. However, with major funding being blocked, China would become Pak’s main support base. Slowly and steadily it would devour all Pak institutions. This may be detrimental to long term US interests of obtaining cooperation from Pak.

Thus, there remains multiple issues, which unless mutually addressed between Pak and the US and resolved to satisfaction would delay Pak from effectively contributing to US operations. Trump may have spoken in frustration and anger, as he is known to tweet even before his own government is ready, but not without being aware of options available to the US to counter Pak. Thus, as a follow up to his tweet, his government has acted and enforced serious cuts in military aid to Pak. Strong comments by the leadership have only enforced the US views.

Despite all its bravado, claims and comments, Pak would act. It would only be seeking reassurances on its concerns. It was forced to change tack post 9/11 and it would do so now again, as it is aware of the implications of avoiding such an action. Pressure should continue to flow, failing which, it would backtrack.

Trump has rightly rattled Pak The Excelsior 10 Jan 18

Trump’s tweets at 4 AM on New Years day, aimed directly at Pakistan has opened a can of worms. Pak’s political and military leaders as also diplomats at the UN and Washington have been crying foul, but to no avail. China, as usual, has come running to wipe Pak’s tears, while India and Afghanistan, who have faced the brunt of Pak sponsored terrorism have smiled stating that finally the US has opened its eyes and seen how they have been fooled by Pak.

Pak has been claiming, backed by China, that it has suffered the maximum battling terrorists, sacrificing thousands of lives of innocents. What Pakistan has failed to state is that it is battling terrorists that it itself created, through its own follies, and they are not state sponsored. The Baluch freedom struggle, news of which rarely trickles down, targets only security forces and is the result of Pak’s flawed and oppressive policies in the region. It would not end, unless Pak changes its policies of oppression and force and accepts the genuine demands of the Baluch.

The other major terror group targeting Pak as a nation is the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which has its hideouts along the Pak-Afghan border. A reading of its history would indicate that the group was created by the actions of the Pak government and army, under the dictatorship of Musharraf. The TTP was born post the army’s siege and subsequent assault on the Lal Masjid, which led to over a hundred dead. The attack took place in Jul 2007.

Most of the students of the madrassahs attached to the Lal Masjid, who fought the army in 2007, came from the FATA territories and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) where the ISI was actively supporting the Taliban. It was from the Lal Masjid that the ISI recruited militants for Kashmir and Afghanistan. Its location was a stone’s throw from the ISI HQs and close to the high security red zone in Islamabad. Post the attack, most returned and re-joined the militancy. In Dec the same year, forty militant leaders met in South Waziristan and decided to form a united front under the banner of the TTP, to avenge the Lal Masjid attack by targeting the Pak state.

By 2008, the TTP was almost completely in control of the seven FATA agencies and had expanded their influence to include a large part of KP. Their influence had reached close to Islamabad. Subsequent raids on army HQs and ISI offices located in high security zones, indicated the increasing power of the group. It is this home grown and state created group whom the Pak army battles, not a state sponsored Taliban or Haqqani network or any group targeting India.

Pak seeks to avoid informing the world is that it is battling freedom struggles and insurgencies created inhouse, whereas Afghanistan and India face insurgencies sponsored and supported by the Pak deep state. Trump is therefore correct when he has threatened Pak for its actions. China’s claims of supporting Pak is only to secure its own investments, despite knowing Pak is on the wrong foot. It would readily jump in to replace the US in Pak, ensuring Pak would be beholden to it.

Pak created and strengthened the Taliban and Haqqani network only to ensure that Afghanistan remains as its strategic depth. It is aware that any civilian government in the country, would prefer India to Pak, hence only these groups could keep India away. However, it miscalculated.

The US, since its induction in Afghanistan has been attempting to subdue the Taliban, which it never could, solely due to Pak support. Obama, almost gave up and planned a withdrawal of troops. The US security agencies realized that with Iraq and Syria being rid of ISIS, it is possible that they would relocate to Afghanistan and recreate a threat for the west and the US. Thus, it was forced to return and seek to establish order. Logically, its priorities would be to battle the Taliban, bring it on the negotiating table from a position of strength and then handle the ISIS, with the support of the Afghan army.

For the Taliban and Haqqani network to come to the negotiating table, their present leadership needs to be eliminated, which is secure in bases in Pak. Thus, Pak must act and either arrest or eliminate or push them out from their secure bases. For Pak, this is an almost impossible task, which they have avoided for years. The reasons are many.

Firstly, there are many within the deep state which have close links with the Taliban, having either fought alongside them or interacted with them. Secondly, the Taliban obtains its funds through the drug trade, which either moves through Karachi or along the land border through India. In either case, the military establishment of Pak would be involved. Hence, targeting the Taliban would be akin to hurting themselves.

Thirdly, is the integral fear of the Taliban and Haqqani network turning inwards if even threatened with eviction. This, alongside the TTP would become a new menace for the army to handle. Finally, it cannot hand over any high-ranking prisoners from these groups to the US, which the US continues to demand, as it could open a Pandora’s box of Pak army’s direct involvement.

Thus, Pak would continue to fret and scream, but would never act. It tried to continue playing the game, but this time their bluff was called. For the US, it implies acting with care, as their dependence on the Karachi port continues, unless they establish an alternate routing. This is the card Pak would continue to exploit. However, if the US seeks to end the Afghan war and withdraw in a position of strength it should pressurize Pak to act.

While it is pushing Pak to act only against terror groups operating against Afghanistan, it needs to realize that unless Pak changes its complete policies of supporting terror, its actions would only be temporary to buy time. If Pak is to be forced, then a series of measures, ranging from diplomatic, economic and military, including enhancing drone strikes and embarrassing the army must be adopted. It is only by proving to the nation, that the army cannot ensure national security, would it be forced to act. Time for words are over, now is time for action. Delaying action would be playing into Pak hands again.

Donald Trump and Pakistan (English Version) Amar Ujala 04 Jan 17

The new year tweet by Donald Trump, blaming Pak for taking US funds and doing nothing in terms of supporting its war in Afghanistan, has brought Pak and its fake anti-terror policies back into focus. As expected Pak jumped and sang its same old song stating that it has done more for eliminating terrorism than any other country in the region, while the US has not compelled Afghanistan to curb anti-Pak terror groups operating from their soil. Following Trump’s tweet, the US re-appropriated the USD 255 Million it had earmarked for Pak.

Pak has always failed to explain what its war on terror implies. The Pak army launched an operation post a siege in Jul 2007 on the Lal Masjid, leading to over a hundred deaths. Most of the dead were from Pakistan’s North-Western provinces. The Lal Masjid was the place from where the ISI used to recruit maximum militants to operate in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Tribal leaders, whose supporters had died, swore revenge. On 14 Dec 2007, over forty militant leaders from the North-West commanding a strong militant base, joint hands and formed a united front under the banner of Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP). It is this group that the Pak army has been battling, in addition to freedom struggle of the Baluchi’s. It is their own creation, which has turned against them.

The Pak government machinery including the army, polity and foreign office condemned Tumps statement. Pak should have expected a strong statement, as recently, the US Vice President, Mike Pence, had stated in Afghanistan that Trump has placed Pak on notice. The Pak National Security Council met, post Trump’s tweet, and sought to project a united front. Pak even summoned the US ambassador and lodged a protest. India and Afghanistan supported the comment, while China jumped in to back Pakistan, as it had always done and was expected to do. The Pak foreign minister went on to add that Pak could account for every penny that the US had given.

It is well known that the US was aware of Pak acting against their interests in Afghanistan, but their dependency on the Karachi port and hoping Pak changed its policies, forced them to maintain status quo. US silence over the years only emboldened Pak to continue with its good and bad terror group policy. The US was aware all the time of the presence of anti-India groups, including the LeT, JeM and HuM, amongst others, however chose to turn a blind eye. Even the elimination of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mansoor on Pak soil should have been ground enough for them to act, but it maintained status quo.

The US knows that it can never succeed in Afghanistan, unless Pak joins the battle, by pushing terror group leaders out of their sanctuaries on Pak soil. Once in Afghanistan, they could be tracked and relentlessly pursued by US air and drones, thus compelling them to come to the negotiating table. It is ultimately by getting to talk, while being in a position of strength, can it hope to establish peace in Afghanistan and withdraw. The recent release of US citizens from the clutches of the Haqqani network by the Pak army on their territory was claimed by them as an example of joint support. However, they failed to state that one abductor had been captured alive, whom the US desired to interrogate. Pak refused, adding to US anger and frustration.

Finally, it was Trump who took the bull by the horns and unilaterally announced strict action against Pak. The US has begun applying all forms of pressure on Pak. Economically the IMF, almost controlled by the US would restrict aid to Pak, similar would be other lending bodies. Pak’s foreign exchange is presently critically low hence it seeks an IMF bailout. Though this cut may not mean much, but is clearly a message that Pak must act, failing which, further hurting actions, including removing it from the list of non-NATO allies may be done.

While Pak still has China to give it the desired diplomatic support, yet it is now caught in its own web of creations. If it adheres to US demands and acts, it would anger those very groups which it created and like the TTP, they could easily turn against them. It would make the TTP stronger with others joining, in case Pak tries to push them out. This would only add to the present woes of the Pak army. Thus, it hesitates to act.

The other reason for delay and hesitation by Pak is that it views Afghanistan from an Indian prism. Its desire to control the government in Kabul, by installing a Taliban led or controlled one would ensure India has no role in the country. This would only happen, in case the Taliban and Haqqani network becomes stronger and gains greater internal control.

In case Pak still does not act, after this clear warning by Trump, the US would be forced to take the next step, which would be enhancing drone strikes across the border into Pakistan, targeting terror groups camps and leaders. Such strikes are bound to result in collateral damage which would impact the standing of the Pak military, being unable to ensure security of its own populace. It would further mitigate the atmosphere between the two nations. The US knows that such an action would only end in criticism, no counter actions. Even China would be unable to support Pak.

The US pressure would be maximum at this time of the year, as the Taliban and Haqqani regroup prior to launching their spring offensive. Post the launching of the offensive, the US would be divided in its approach, as it would be battling on multiple fronts. It is aware of the criticality of the time factor, hence has begun applying multiple pressures on Pak.

While Pak would face increased tensions on its western border with Afghanistan, India has begun enhancing pressure on its Eastern front. Cross border strikes, strong retaliation to its ceasefire violations and eliminating infiltrating militants have begun pushing the Pak army to its limits. India should plan to enhance pressure on Pak’s western borders, while the US commences drone strikes on its eastern front. Since the US has officially warned Pakistan, India should join hands with it to isolate the nation. With US and Saudi relations warming, direct pressure from Saudi Arabia, another close ally, may push Pak harder. Pak is now in a catch 22 situation. It knows it has to act, but does not know how it should.

New US national security strategy and our neighbourhood (English Version) Rakshak News 28 Dec 17

President Trump’s government unveiled its new National Security Strategy (NSS) last week. It has since been dominating headlines in the region. The NSS lays down his government’s views on existing and emerging threats and its strategy to counter them. The NSS is mandated by Congress based on the Goldwater Nichols act and each President is expected to issue it annually. Since the US’s changed strategy in Afghanistan and enhanced deployment, the region has gained prominence in their eyes. Hence Pakistan, a primary supporter of the Taliban and Haqqani network as also a stumbling block in establishing peace in the region, was bound to figure prominently in the NSS.

China has always been viewed as a competitor, both militarily and economically by the US. It’s aggressiveness in the South China Sea, subduing nations post advancing loans with high rates of interest, supporting the troublesome regimes of Pakistan and North Korea, dominating its neighbours with whom it has border disputes and expanding into Africa, thus seeking to change existing world order, has put it into direct confrontation with the US. Its trade imbalance is also a matter of concern.

Amongst the countries whom the US considers as a major threat, as listed in the NSS, apart from China and Pakistan, are Russia, North Korea and Iran. Iran and North Korea have not even bothered to respond to the claims of the US. Pakistan and China, comrades-in-arms have criticized the approach adopted by the US. Russia too has accused the US of moving back into the cold war era. India on the other hand has been viewed as a ‘leading global power and a strong strategic and defence partner’ and hence has welcomed the NSS.

For the US, South Asia and the Indo-Pacific, which it terms extending from the West Coast of India to the shores of the US, are regions of keen interest. Its demands on Pak to do more to curb terror groups operating from its soil and ‘demonstrate that it is a responsible steward of its nuclear assets’ was bound to anger them.

For Pak, the US NSS which states a closer interaction and ‘supporting India’s leadership role in the Indo-Pacific and the broader region’ is bound to cause anxiety. Its mention of supporting South Asian nations to ‘maintain their sovereignty as China increases its influence’ would anger China. These remarks have been deliberately placed into the NSS.

Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Pakistan and possibly in the future Nepal and Bangladesh are heading deeper under Chinese influence. Sri Lanka has handed over the Hambantota port to China on a ninety-nine years lease, while Myanmar is in discussion with China on its repayment problems. Nepal with a pro-China government in place would possibly soon follow. The Doklam crises emerged from China seeking to break Indian influence in Bhutan and move it away from the Indian camp.

Pakistan would soon become a Chinese state considering the quantum of investment done and resultant repayment difficulties it is likely to face. The US is also aware of similar increasing Chinese influence in Africa. Thus, both China and Pakistan view the NSS to be more pro-India than a true independent US strategy.

Pak fails to realize that Afghanistan is presently at a crucial juncture for the US. It cannot withdraw without ensuring stability, nor can it enforce it unless the Taliban and the Haqqani network are compelled to come onto the bargaining table. It therefore needs Pak to cooperate and stop providing them sanctuaries. The NSS is clearly a hint for Pak to comprehend US demands, which if it doesn’t, would be enforced by employing diplomatic and military pressures.

Hence, the NSS mentions, ‘We will insist that Pak take decisive action against militant and terrorist groups operating from its soil.’ These statements were further endorsed when the US Vice President, Mike Pence, stated in Afghanistan that Trump has placed Pakistan on notice, much to the anger of their national leadership.

With growing military control over Pak as also increased military support to fundamentalist and terror groups, there is a fear of the stability and security of their nuclear assets. The biggest nightmare for the western world is Jihadis gaining control of Pak’s nuclear assets. This is probable as the army is pushing fundamentalist and terrorist groups into political legitimacy by enabling them to contest the 2018 elections. Thus, the words in the NSS of Pak demonstrating its responsible stewardship of nuclear assets.

The US is aware that in the region it cannot face challenges alone. Hence, India which has disagreements with both Pakistan and China is a natural ally. India’s growing military and economic power, proximity to trade routes and geo strategic location makes it a force multiplier to partner in the Indian ocean. It is for this reason that the US, Japan and Australia have joined hands with India to form the ‘Quad’. Its exercises are closely monitored by China, which views it as being against them.

While the NSS would remain a guiding document and its implementation may vary, it has stated US likes, dislikes and challenges. Pakistan is now in international cross hairs solely for the wrong reasons. Its policy of employing terror groups as a diplomatic tool and supporting fundamentalist organizations has brought forth international ire. India on the other hand is a growing power, engaging whom would only be a benefit. To continue to garner Indian support, the NSS has on many occasions spoken in the Indian tone.

How strongly would it be implemented, time would be the best judge. However, it has clearly brought forth the fact that the US may not in the close future engage positively with China and Pakistan, nations inimical to Indian interests. It would need greater Indian support with passage of time.

The Jerusalem vote The Excelsior 28 Dec 17

President Trump, on 6th Dec, unilaterally accepted Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced the move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv there. It was not a decision in haste, nor did it stem from his imagination. The US house of representatives had passed a law in 1995, demanding the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Every President who did not implement it had to certify the same every six months, which Trump also did once. This time he took the bull by the horns.

Earlier Presidents avoided this decision, knowing it would enhance tensions and move the US away from being the main peace negotiator. Further with multiple international crises dominating US foreign policy, they avoided adding another. Trump was hoping for support from Saudi Arabia, whose ties with Israel and the US are presently on the rise, however was trumped. Once announced, the US could not back down, hence desperately desired international support at the UN.

The issue was raised at the UN Security Council (UNSC), which voted 14 to 1, compelling the US to enforce its veto. Subsequently, the same came up for discussion in the UN General Assembly, where it was voted against by 128 nations. While the vote has limited impact, and cannot compel the US to change its decision, the behaviour of the US, prior and post the vote, bears relevance. Both the votes conveyed that the international community did not support the US decision.

Nikki Haley, the US permanent representative in the UN, commented post the UNSC decision, ‘What we have witnessed here is an insult. It won’t be forgotten.’ Prior to the General Assembly vote, Nikki Haley wrote to almost all the 193 UN member states warning of possible retaliation by the US, if it voted against them. She even went on to state that the President was taking the matter personally.

Speaking to members of his cabinet prior to the UN general Assembly vote, Trump stated, ‘For all these nations, they take our money and then vote against us. We’re watching those votes. Let them vote against us. We’ll save a lot’. All this failed to deter the world, which voted overwhelmingly against the US. Trump was very clearly playing upto his domestic audience, when he made his announcement, rather than the international community.

While members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) were clearly expected to vote against it, so were many European nations, who have been involved in negotiations for settling the issue, India’s vote came as a surprise. India has a growing relationship with Israel and is also a strategic partner of the US, hence was expected to either abstain or vote in its favour. Further, Israel has always backed India on Kashmir, while Palestine has never, preferring to support the OIC, which backed Pakistan. India, on the other hand, had been a supporter of the Palestine movement, since its non-aligned days.

India did not criticise the initial announcement made by Trump on the subject. It maintained a studied silence, despite many opposition parties demanding a government statement. Even requests from many pro-Palestine nations, including their own envoy, did not evoke a response. This indicated that the government stood by Israel. Silence at the right time conveyed the correct message to those who mattered.

Simultaneously, India was aware of the implications of the UN vote. It knew it’s vote may hurt US and Israeli ego, but would never bring about a change in its decision. The General Assembly vote is neither binding nor a direction. Israel is aware, and the Indian decision would have been conveyed to them prior to the voting. The comment that Israel was ‘disappointed’ by the Indian action was expected, but meant no impact on relations. Israel has been sanctioned on many occasions by the UN, which it has ignored. In Oct this year both Israel and the US announced their withdrawn from UNESCO, citing anti-Israeli decisions.

By casting the vote against the US, India has reiterated its support to the Palestine cause, as enunciated by us historically. Hence, diplomatically India has played the correct card, not criticizing the decision, while voting in an inconsequential exercise. The vote by the General Assembly has limited international implications. Nations voted as per their own national interest perspectives.

Saudi Arabia, a leader in the Moslem world, whom the US expected to support, is presently moving closer to Israel, seeking to jointly challenge Iran’s rising military power and influence. Iran is an anathema to all three, US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. While Saudi Arabia has objected to the US decision and voted against the US action, it is unlikely to take further action as it goes against its present national interest. It would be similar with most other nations. Europeans voted more from their conscience and concerns, rather than from challenging the US.

The US, which claimed to have a solution in mind when it made this announcement would no longer be a mediator in the peace process. The announcement has angered and weakened the Palestinian authority, which now cannot accept further US involvement in the region. If it does accept, it would be rejected by its own people. Thus, the US would temporarily lose its influence in the region. For Israel, whom Trump always supported, it would be a boost in the arm. It would give them leeway to enforce stringent measures on the Palestinians, increasing tensions in the region.

India has successfully played a balancing act, by enhancing its relations with Israel, while simultaneously engaging with Iran and Palestine, sworn enemies of Israel. Hence, its actions have been laudable. It has supported the anti-US vote in the General Assembly, receiving gratitude from Palestine and not commented on the US decision, thus being diplomatically proper. It also did not comment on the US decision in the General Assembly as many others did. Ultimately, it did the best it could under the circumstances, mainly due to its proximity to US, Israel and Palestine.

Security challenges for the US in Asia The Excelsior 20 Dec 17

In his remarks on ‘meeting the foreign policy challenges of 2017 and beyond’ Rex Tillerson commented on North Korea and Pakistan as the US’s two major challenges in the coming year. These two have remained on the US agenda for some time, but there has been no forward movement by any government. Trump has adopted a more stringent approach than his predecessors and been very vocal in his views. Whether the approach would produce results is wait and watch.

North Korea has always been a problem for the US. The US desires a regime change, creating within the ruling elite, a fear for its survival. It is this fear which has compelled it to go nuclear. The present ruler, Kim Jong-un, has witnessed the removal of dictators who opposed the US, but lacked nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi, while observing nuclear powered nations like Pakistan, supporting terror groups and neither being threatened nor punished, hence has realized that the only way to ensure survival is possession of nuclear weapons with delivery means. Thus, no amount of sanctions or threats would force North Korea to give up its nuclear program.

The North Korean leadership has remained in complete control of the country, even employing brutal means and has ignored citizen welfare while ensuring military might. It possesses outdated military equipment whose operational readiness remains in doubt. The only factor which has compelled the world to take note of the state is its desperation to develop nuclear weapons for its survival. The fact that South Korea and Japan are within its nuclear reach already, while it seeks to develop missiles to target the US mainland, has the west worried.

Tillerson has even offered North Korea talks without any pre-conditions, but there appears to be no response. Trump on the other hand continues to threaten to wipe out the country, compelling Kim Jong-un to enhance speed of development of nuclear delivery means. The US, under pressure from allies is unwilling to accept the fact that North Korea will never give up its nuclear program.

The US has limited options against North Korea. It cannot plan and launch any attack on North Korean nuclear installations as these are based close to the Chinese border and the fallout would impact China as also lead to retaliatory strikes. Sanctions in every form have been adopted, but to no avail. The national leadership is willing to allow its populace to suffer, while its nuclear preparedness continues unabated. It is clearly following the words of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who stated post India’s nuclear blast, ‘we’ll eat grass but build the bomb.’

Hence, its only options remain of convincing the North Korean leadership of its willingness to accept their nuclear program, assure it of not considering any regime change and seek discussion while they continue with development. The only rider which it could place would be requesting North Korea to limit their tests during talks. This implies creating an aura of confidence prior to commencement of talks. Can it do so in 2018, amid Trump’s rhetoric, is the mute question.

Pakistan had been an ally which the US had nurtured over the years. In fact, the US kept pumping arms and aid to Pakistan, hoping it would change and curb terror groups, which it failed. It used US funds to sponsor those groups itself which target US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Thus, US was indirectly funding groups which attacked them itself. It took a straight-talking Trump to finally clear the air. The US knows it cannot walk out of Afghanistan, leaving it in a mess as it would become the next hub for the IS. It must create a semblance of order within the country.

For any progress towards peace, the Taliban and Haqqani network leadership must be convinced that it cannot win and should open dialogue. This is only possible, if the leadership is hounded out of its safe havens in Pakistan into Afghanistan, where they can be relentlessly targeted by US air and drone strikes.

For this strategy to work, it needs Pakistan to cooperate, which it has been unwilling to do. Visits to Pak by senior members of the US government, threats and restricting coalition funds has still not produced results. Pak has, like earlier, promised but failed to deliver.

Winters are generally the period when the Taliban regroups and reorganizes for its spring offensive. Thus, this is the time when the US would need to reconsider its strategy and act. It again has limited options when dealing with an unrelenting Pak. It must keep in mind its dependency on the Karachi port for its logistics requirements, while considering options.

Its first option is to enhance drone strikes across the border, even deep within the country, targeting the Taliban and Haqqani leadership, ignoring collateral damage. The next option would be to announce an enlarged role for India at the strategic level within the country. These could impact Pakistan as it fears Indian role in fuelling anti-national activities from Afghan soil. For a nation, which openly supports terrorism as an instrument of state policy, only threats impacting its internal security could bring about a change in its approach.

There are other challenges which equally impact the US, mainly due to Trumps myopic view. These include growing Iranian influence in West Asia and an anti-US alliance brewing post Trump’s announcement to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While these could be handled diplomatically, North Korea and Pakistan remain major headaches.

Tillerson was right when he mentioned about these two major challenges, continuing into 2018. Unless the US takes a pragmatic approach to North Korea and a sterner approach to Pakistan, there would be little progress. It needs to win the trust of North Korea and apply greater pressure on Pak. Time would dictate whether it succeeds or continues to flounder akin to 2017.

US at loggerheads with Iran The Excelsior 16 Nov 17

Trump was screaming against the Iran nuclear deal all through his election campaign, promising to pull the US out, when he came to power. When it was time to certify the deal, he did not, letting the US Congress take the decision, indicating his keeping the promise he had earlier made, but just about. His actions against the deal has few international takers, including nations which signed alongside him, but he does not care.

He has been ranting and raving at North Korea, even calling Kim Jong Un names and threatening to wipe the country off the face of the earth. The more he ranted and threatened the country, the more aggressive became its tests, compelling him to re-evaluate options. He has enhanced military cooperation with South Korea and Japan, deployed THAAD missiles in the Korean peninsula and had his strategic bombers overfly close to the North Korean borders seeking to enhance pressure on the country, but to no avail.

During his visit last week to Seoul, his initial comments against North Korea appeared to be softer in tone. However, when he addressed the South Korean parliament, he was his usual raving and ranting self. In China, his insistence that China do more to get North Korea to dismantle its program was again pushing Kim Jong Un to the wall.

The two nations may be apart geographically, but Trump’s unilateral actions only enhance threats across the globe while harming US interests more. The more offensive he becomes, the more he threatens them, the more they turn against the US.

Iran is a major power in the region. Its enmity with Saudi Arabia is well known. US and Iran are clearly on different sides in the Syrian conflict, with Russia allied towards Iran. Similarly, Iran and Saudi Arabia, presently close to the US, are on different sides in Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon. With Russia supporting it, the only actions which the US can take is sanctions, which may ultimately be ineffective.

Iran also borders Afghanistan and is known to be supporting the Taliban, including providing them with weapons and funds. The US drone strike, which eliminated Mullah Mansour in May 2016, on Pakistan soil, was launched when he was returning post an extended visit to Iran. While the message was aimed at conveying that Iran is interfering in Afghanistan, there is little that the US can do.

It is established that that the Taliban launch attacks through Iranian soil into Afghanistan. There have also been reports by the Afghan government that Iranian soldiers have been killed alongside the Taliban. With the US wading into the country again, seeking to bring the Taliban to the bargaining table, unless it acts positively with Iran, it would be facing another direction of Taliban assaults.

North Korea is developing nuclear weapons to ensure security and continuity of the regime. It is this regime which the US has been threatening over the years, compelling it to possess a deterrent. Its swift efforts at developing nuclear weapons and delivery means is just that. The nation is aware of the overthrowing of Saddam and Gaddafi, solely because they did not possess nuclear weapons, while Pakistan may be threatened, but never attacked, because of its possession of nuclear assets.

Trump may rant or rave, but his military knows that short of war, which is unlikely, unless launched by North Korea, there is little which they can do. Flying of bomber missions, deployment of THAAD missile or enhancing joint exercises with South Korea and Japan, would only enhance the desire within the Kim Jong Un regime, to develop delivery means at a faster pace.

Whatever Trump may state, ultimately only diplomacy would be the answer. By drawing himself into an open conflict with Iran, he is appearing to side with Saudi Arabia to contain it. This may appear ideal in the short term, but if he does force Iran’s hands, it may again seek to go nuclear, enhancing threat for the entire region. There is already a worry within western security circles of the security of Pak’s nuclear assets, to add to this would be similar concerns about Iran.

It would also increase tensions within the region as Israel, Iran’s avowed enemy, would seek to launch pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear assets, adding to the confusion. It was to prevent escalating the conflict that Barrack Obama devoted considerable time and energy to push the deal through. With Trump being forced to place sanctions on Russia and the fact that both Russia and Iran are working together in Syria, US actions may be countered by Russia.

Further, other nations involved in approving the Iran deal have realized that Iran could be pushed this far and not further. One wrong step leading to the collapse of the deal, could compel Iran to recommence its nuclear project at a faster pace. Unlike North Korea, Iran already has the delivery means, hence would be a riskier option. The US can only contemplate pre-emptive strikes, which would increase security risks.

India has ties with both nations and can be a stabilizing factor between the west and them. However, knowing the unpredictability of Trump, India has not even considered offering its good offices.

Trump has, in his limited tenure as President, begun creating more tension spots across the globe than any of his predecessors. His speech in the security council was more rambling and threatening, rather than being conciliatory as expected of a global superpower. He has failed to realize that threats would only work if the nation can be subdued militarily or by economic pressure. Both Iran and North Korea would never succumb to such pressure. Both seek to ensure the survivability of their nation, hence would be willing to up the ante, in case compelled. Trump should listen to more saner voices within his government, rather than resort to ranting and raving.

Russian support to the BRICS declaration is tying down Pakistan Daily O 17 Sep 17

Strong statements by the US president, indicting Pak for its support to terror groups on its soil, was followed by the BRICS statement, which officially listed terror groups emanating from Pak. Pak objected to both the statements and is presently working on reorienting its US strategy. With both China and Russia behind the BRICS statement, Pak was caught between the pincers. Its denials were feeble and ignored by the international community. It even compelled its army chief, General Bajwa to state that the Kashmir issue should be resolved by dialogue.

Afghanistan continues to openly criticise Pak for its terror supporting actions. The US has begun hinting on the possibility of placing Pak or those involved in supporting terror groups under sanctions. To indicate its firmness, it has already ordered the closure of Pak’s largest bank, Habib, in New York, on charges of financing terror activities. Thus, Pak continues to face ever increasing heat.

Recently, there were two comments made by Russia concerning Pakistan. In its first set of comments, Russia welcomed the BRICS summit statement listing terror groups. It was evident that Russia had impressed upon China during the summit, to drop its reservations on naming Pak based terror groups, in the joint statement. A Russian diplomat went on to state that the naming of terror groups was an important breakthrough for countries sharing concern of terrorism in the area. This clearly implies that Russia would support India in its dealings with Pakistan. The BRICS statement automatically gave Russia diplomatic leverage over Pakistan.

The second statement was issued by Pak newspapers recently and quoted their foreign ministry officials as stating the both Russia and China have agreed to support the country in case the US plans on imposing sanctions. US sanctions are basically for those groups operating in Afghanistan, including the Taliban and the Haqqani network, being officially supported by the deep state. While the two statements are linked to Pak supported terror groups, they are not contrary.

The newspaper statement indicates the impact of geopolitics and international relations. Both China and Russia have poor relations with the US, hence would never permit US sanctions against Pakistan, unless they are also impacted, as has been the case with North Korea. Thus, while they would support Pak in the case of sanctions, by employing their veto, however would continue applying pressure on it to reduce support to terror groups.

In panic post the US and BRICS statement, the Pak foreign minister, Khawaja Asif, rushed to China. The joint statement issued post the visit, mentioned that nations should recognize the contribution of Pakistan in fighting terror groups on its soil. There was no mention of the BRICS declaration, nor of terror groups operating from Pakistan soil.

Hence, the statement was a diluted one, indicating only support against US actions, however quiet on anti-India terror groups. This has been the first innocuous statement as compared to most earlier ones on the subject between the two countries. China, due to its massive investments in the country, is compelled to support Pak against any US actions, military or imposition of sanctions.

Russian support to the Indian stand on Pak based terror groups, as was evident in the BRICS statement, is likely to put pressure on Pak to begin curbing terror groups operating from its soil. Russia is unlikely to give Pak a free run in its future endeavours on launching terror strikes on India. This could be a quid pro quo for support from US threatened sanctions. Here is where Indian diplomacy should be concentrating, taking advantage of the position Pak is in. Further, Russia is seeking new markets for its defence industry crippled by western sanctions, post its misadventure in Ukraine, Pak is a welcome addition.

The game at play is Afghanistan. Russia and China seek a larger role in the handling of the Afghan crises, as they or their satellite nations are directly impacted by the growing presence of the ISIS in the country. Presently, the combined Russian and Chinese initiative includes Pak, Iran, Afghanistan and India. It is also known that Russia, China and Iran are in contact with the Taliban leadership, for varying national interests. The US on the other hand seeks to operate alone in Afghanistan, with India supporting and participating in economic development. With sanctions imposed on Moscow, the US cannot be seen to be collaborating with Russia on Afghanistan.

Pak is and would remain on the cross roads. Pressure would continue to build from the US, including even drone strikes across the border on its supported anti-Afghan terror groups. China and Russia would only support it from US sanctions, however, if terror activities increase from its soil, it may be the loser. Hence, it would need to walk a tight rope. It has its own internal problems which restrict its actions.

The deep state controls terror groups operating from its soil, while the polity bears the brunt of international criticism. The defence minister recently made a statement wherein he stated that the state needs to do more to curb the activities of anti-India terror groups. Opposition leaders condemned his comments. Statements emanating from Pak that there are no groups operating from its soil had no takers. Even China refused to buy these words, as the last joint statement indicated.

Pak, despite tall claims and counter statements on the BRICS summit can only bank on Russia and China to pull it out of the mess it has created for itself. This can only happen if it cracks down on terror groups within.

For India, this becomes a diplomatic opportunity to engage positively with Russia to ensure that pressure continues to be applied on Pak to control anti-India terror groups, if it desires Russian support against possible US sanctions. We need to look ahead and take advantage of the position Pak is in, thus ensuring building pressure from those it considers its allies. Diplomatically sleeping now, would let this opportunity pass into the sunset.

India can help diffuse NK crises The Excelsior 13 Sep 17

The recent North Korean missile launches and hydrogen bomb tests had the US and its allies worried. Japan and South Korea voiced their displeasure, while Trump threatened them with ‘fist and fury’. A special session of the security council was requested for by Japan, France, Britain, South Korea and the US. It is expected to vote on its future actions in the coming days. The session was clearly divided amongst permanent member nations.

Nikki Haley, the US representative to the UN stated that the North Korean regime of Kim Jong Un was ‘begging for war’. Simultaneously, representatives of China and Russia advocated a different approach. The Chinese representative, was clear when he said that ‘China would never allow chaos and war in Korea, while his Russian counterpart, stated that sanctions alone will not solve the crises. These differences are likely to derail any strong measures being desired by the US.

North Korea has a small land border with Russia, one thousand five hundred Kms with China and two hundred and fifty Kms with South Korea. For China and Russia, North Korea is a buffer and considering the experience of the breaking down of the Berlin wall, would never desire a pro-US Korean state from being created on their borders, in case of a regime collapse, triggered by US actions.

Hence comments by Chinese and Russian representatives at the UN were clearly aimed at ensuring that North Korea remains in its present form, a buffer between them and US influenced and supported South Korea. North Korea is also aware that it would be supported to the end by these two powers, who like them, always consider the US as a major threat.

Further, to ensure security of its nuclear and missile installations and deny the US from launching successful precision strikes, North Korea has positioned most of them close to its border with China and near China’s three most developed industrial regions, its three North Eastern provinces. This would result in nuclear fallout spilling into mainland China and further impacting them by mass refugee inflows. This is another reason for China to ensure that there should not be any hostile actions against the regime.

For North Korea, it is easier to threaten South Korea and Japan, than the US mainland, mainly due to its missile technology limitations. Guam has been added, as its technology grows. It is also aware that it may not be able to engage the US in a direct conflict, but can threaten both, South Korea and Japan. It has proved this fact on numerous occasions. The North has its artillery and missiles deployed targeting Seoul, which is barely sixty Kms from the border. Japan has been within its missile ranges and the latest North Korean missile launch was over the second largest Japanese island of Hokkaido.

North Korea is clearly aware that threatening the US verbally and South Korea and Japan by military might would invite strong reactions from the US. This in no way indicates that the North Koreans are suicidal and desire to engage the US in a war. To understand the reasons for this continuous demonstration of threats, there is a requirement to understand their internal dynamics.

Kim Jong Un is presently firmly in power in North Korea, though younger than almost all forming part of his inner circle. He would take some time, before he has people of his own choice surrounding him. His recent purges have proved his control over the nation. The ruling elite has little concern over the masses. It is certain of their support, since it follows institutionalized brainwashing. This is evident when locals display dramatic emotions in the presence of their leader despite lacking basic medical care and food.

Even after the great famine, which claimed to have consumed over two million lives, there were no protests. The people have become accustomed to suffering and lacking any knowledge of the outside world are blissfully unaware.

The states complete control over the media ensures that the populace only hears and sees what the government desires. Hence, for most, the outside world does not exist. It is only the elite, which has partial access beyond North Korea. The elite realizes that any change in regime would impact them the most, hence remain loyal and trustworthy, solely to enjoy their own privileges.

Militarily, the nation is weak. It is aware that it cannot face the might of South Korea alone, however, its missile power and nuclear weapons provide it with a guarantee of security. Its military equipment mostly consists of outdated Soviet era weaponry. It has immense shortages in spares, ammunition and fuel. It is incapable of launching an offensive, hence is compelled to fight a defensive battle. Its force multipliers remain missiles, nuclear and chemical weapons, terrorism and cyber-attacks.

The world is aware that North Korea’s missile and nuclear program has been supported by China with technology being provided by Pakistan and China. There have been reports that the Chinese ambassador requested for an audience with Kim Jong Un, prior to the last set of sanctions, but was unsuccessful, infuriating the Chinese government, which then agreed for sanctions.

All earlier sanctions have failed to impact the North Korean nuclear and missile development programs. The nation has concentrated its limited income on missile development, to ensure regime security, without caring for its masses. In earlier sanctions, the UNSC banned export of coal, iron, lead and seafood products. It was worth a third of North Korean exports of three billion dollars. It also restricted sanctioning permits for new workers abroad. However, it failed to deter the country and a Hydrogen bomb test followed.

Presently new measures being considered could include air and maritime restrictions and restricting oil to North Korea’s military and weapons program. This may have limited impact. Oil could affect its military preparedness; however, priority would remain with the nuclear and missile development program.

There is wide belief that North Korea has the backing and support of China and that China does possess influence over the nation. In reality, this may not be entirely true. North Korea has always believed that China has done just the bare minimum to keep the country afloat. While China remains a major trading partner, handling almost 90% of its produce, it has little control over the state. Most of North Korea’s trade is with Chinese enterprises, which is difficult to monitor.

To further substantiate Chinese-North Korean relationship, there have been no major visits nor any joint exercises between the two countries anywhere in the recent past. Thus, while China has little hold and desire to support North Korea, it would never permit the regime to collapse. Russia too has little to do with North Korea, but like China, is unwilling to let the regime collapse.

The west, led by the US has been insisting that North Korea caps its nuclear and missile program in return for financial and economic aid. However, with a rising South Korea on its border, a reluctant China on the other end, it has limited options. Kim Jong Un is unwilling to become another Saddam Hussein nor a Gaddafi, overthrown because they did not toe the line of the US while surrendering their weapons program. It is also aware, that Pakistan, irrespective of the support it provides to terror groups remains secure because it possesses nuclear weapons. Hence, this approach may not work.

Secure in the knowledge that nuclear weapons and possession of missiles would ensure continuity of his regime and fear of a pro US government as an alternative on Chinese and Russian borders, China and Russia would ensure his survival, Kim Jong Un, continues with provocations. The act is neither suicidal nor seeking a war nor further sanctions nor destruction of either Japan or South Korea, but recognition, an action the west seeks to avoid.

The regime needs to be assured by the west that it would not seek a regime change, it would accept the state is a nuclear power and interact with it in a mature manner, providing it economic support. The west should understand that North Korea would be unwilling on capping of its program, till it has reached a desired level of nuclear power, which will guarantee its security.

The entire North Korean leadership would support Kim Jong Un, solely because if the regime is overthrown, they would lose their power and privileges. Studies on impact on the nation, in case Kim Jong Un is removed have been conducted. Most remain inconclusive as options vary from the leadership nominating another family member as his replacement to engaging Seoul with firepower to capitulation. It is this doubt which has prevented the west from considering the military option. While being pressurized by the west, there are reports of back channel diplomacy in progress in Canada.

India had been training North Korean officers at its Army Education Corps language training school in Panchmari (MP) since 2008. The present government also stopped their training in 2016. Based on UN demands, India stopped supply of any items that would add to North Korea’s military’s operational capabilities with the exception of food or medicine.

India had in the past also trained about thirty North Koreans at the Centre for Space, Science and Technology Education in Asia and the Pacific located in Dehra Doon. Hong Yong Il who is one of those trained in Dehra Doon is presently the first secretary in the embassy in Delhi and Paek Chang-Ho rose to become the head of the agency involved with their satellite launch in 2012.

India has had diplomatic relations with the country since the seventies, though India has been one of the staunchest opponents of its nuclear weapon development program. Unlike most others whom North Korea distrusts, including China, India has a reputation for being non-aligned with an independent foreign policy. While it has criticized the regime for its nuclear and missile tests, it has continued to engage with the country. India is also not under any form of threat from the regime.

Thus, India is in a position to seek the nation’s views, demands and desires, employing its embassy in the country. It could then be a conduit seeking to convince the west to change its insistence and reduce its pressure on the nation. Even the US has hinted about India’s ability to be a broker in the crises.

While India may not be directly involved in the negotiations, it could play the role of a pathfinder, seeking common ground and enhancing trust and understanding between opposing parties. Such an action would enhance India’s standing and reputation within the comity of nations, especially as India now seeks a permanent membership of the UNSC.

Will anything really change post-BRICS? The Statesman 12 Sep 17

There were immense expectations from the BRICS summit, especially since this was likely to result in the first meeting between Modi and Xi Jinping, post the stand down at Doklam. The summit statement was, as claimed by many, a win for Indian diplomacy as it contained direct reference to terror groups operating from Pakistan’s soil, though it did not name Pakistan. The meeting between the Modi and Xi was also upto expectations. It was termed as ‘forward looking’ implying moving ahead, leaving Doklam in the past.

The summit joint statement quoting terror groups operating from Pakistan did come as a pleasant surprise, as the same BRICS leaders refused to include them in the last summit in Goa, however, its impact remains in doubt. The statement mentioned Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, Haqqani network, LeT and JeM, all which operate from Pakistani soil and are supported by their deep state. It also mentioned the TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir, which operate from Afghanistan and target Pakistan alongside groups operating in Xinjiang and Uzbekistan.

Pak, as expected, reacted immediately and rejected the BRICS statement. In the same breath, it welcomed the mention of the TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir, as it targets them. Interestingly, their contradictions in comments, indicated their own divided house and launched an internal debate. They stated that no anti-Afghan terror groups operate on their soil, but are based in Afghanistan with only remnants in Pakistan.

There was no immediate statement about the LeT and JeM, which was proof enough that they do exist on Pak soil. Subsequently, their defence minister did state that Pak should do more to restrict their activities. An irony of the times for Pak is that the nations which signed the declaration include Russia and China, the two priority nations in the agenda of visits by their foreign minister as he seeks to counter US pressures. He did visit China and the joint statement made no reference to terror groups, but supported Pak’s fight on terror, a typical diplomatic statement, implying nothing.

Pak is already in US cross hairs and the BRICS statement further dilutes its position. Pak also would have wondered as to how could its supporters, China and Russia, agree to Indian demands and tag it as a terror supporting state. Possibly, China was seeking a successful summit and under pressure from majority members was compelled to agree.

The declaration is in no way binding on other nations, however conveys a message. It is unknown whether China would pressurize Pak to reduce support to terror groups post this statement, though India would be hoping. LeT and JeM are already internationally designated terror groups by the United Nations, hence adding them in the BRICS statement may not be anything new nor surprising.

Similarly, China changing its stance on Masood Azar, when the case up again in end Oct, for being nominated a global terrorist by the UN security council is unlikely. The two cases are entirely different, though Indians would clamour, if China extends the technical ban, that this displays Chinese double standards, but in international relations, it is national interests first. Hence, we should never have high hopes in this regard.

More important for India was the meeting between PM Modi and Xi Jinping. It pushed Doklam to the backburner and a decision to move forward, cooperating in other fields came to the forefront. There was no discussion on India’s membership into the NSG. A decision to enhance military to military interaction and cooperation was suggested, as the means to avoid future standoffs.

Positive statements, no doubt, but would it prevent further clashes, standoffs and intrusions, is unlikely. There are varying perceptions of claims between the two nations, which talks have failed to remove, for decades. Neither nation is willing to surrender its claims nor ignore any offensive movement of the other.

Despite tall claims and diplomatic statements, the situation on the ground is unlikely to change. Troops from both sides would continue seeking to dominate regions they consider their own, hence standoffs are very likely to be a part of the routine, however may be less damaging than Doklam. This was also stated by the army chief in a seminar recently, when he mentioned Chinese salami slicing would continue, which drew criticism from China.

Most important is to enlarge the levels of interaction between the two militaries by establishing hotlines at different levels. China has offset this by stating it needs notice before activating its side of the hotline, defeating its very purpose, as also indicating its intentions of not seeking immediate resolutions to any crises in the future too.

Another important aspect is enhanced military to military deliberations to find methods to eliminate physical contact as it occurred in Doklam and Pangong lake in Ladakh. Jostling may have happened earlier, but use of stones and sticks and posting the same on social media is a new trend which needs to be curbed. Further, physical violence could escalate faster, which neither desires. Hence, the importance of hotlines to immediately bring the situation under control.

India achieved more than it expected in Xiamen. It managed to push Pakistan onto the backfoot, compelling China to accept the fact that it is a terror supporting nation. It reduced the impact which Pak hoped to gain by seeking support against US threats, from Russia and China. More importantly, India and China pushed the Doklam standoff into the backburner and decided to take the relationship forward in other fields including economic.

The joint decision to enhance military to military cooperation would go a long way in reducing border tensions and standoffs, if correctly implemented, which is unlikely. Border incidents would continue as China seeks to be proactive on its claim lines. Expecting China to lift its technical ban on Masood Azar or support Indian entry into the NSG or even ask Pak to control terror groups in the near term, is unlikely. Despite normalizing relations with India, China would first consider its own national interests, which is supporting Pak. Hence, status quo would possibly continue.

Modi-Trump meet: New US strategy in Afghanistan will involve India 25 Jun 17 Daily O

Recent press reports indicate that the US is preparing a new strategy for dealing with Afghanistan which would shortly be presented to President Trump. Inputs indicate a changed perception towards Pak including reduction of financial aid, more drone strikes and removing Pak from the status of non-NATO ally, an action already initiated in the senate, in addition to a surge in troops between three to five thousand in Afghanistan. Earlier reports also indicated that under pressure from the senate, the US government has ordered an inter-agency review of America’s support to Pakistan, which could curtail US funding.

To further add insult to injury, the ambassadors of Pak and Afghanistan clashed at an event organized by a Washington based think tank, Indus. The Afghan ambassador stated that ‘only fish in the Indian Ocean do not complain of Pak interfering in their internal matters, all else do’. The Pak ambassador defended his nation by claiming that it cannot be blamed for all ills in Afghanistan, as terrorist attacks originate within the nation itself. To rub salt to wounds, the US national security advisor, General McMaster told Pak officials that the US could attack targets within Pak, if American hostages held by the Haqqani network were killed.

This policy change comes when the US appears to be moving into a security isolation, with its NATO allies hesitant to contribute to a planned surge of troops in Afghanistan, which is on the cards. Therefore, this reduces options for the US in handling the growing crises in Afghanistan, where Afghan casualties mount by the day, without seeking cooperation from nations, which though not part of NATO and unlikely to provide troops, but could contribute in other ways. The US is compelled to shift tack because Afghanistan is unlikely to stabilize in the foreseeable future.

A few recent statements by the Pentagon seem to suggest their desperation in involving India, which could contribute in multiple ways. The first statement that ‘India is Afghanistan’s most reliable partner’, was mentioned in the latest Afghan report of the Pentagon, issued last week. The second statement made in the same report reads, ‘Afghan-oriented militant groups, including the Taliban and Haqqani network, retain freedom of action inside Pak territory and benefit from support from elements of the Pak government’. Criticizing Pak’s selective anti-terror operations, the report continues to state, ‘Although Pak military operations have disrupted some militant sanctuaries, certain extremist groups, such as the Taliban and Haqqani network, were able to relocate and continue to operate in and from Pakistan’. They were echoing India’s words of good and bad terror groups being employed as a part of state policy by Pak.

These statements, as also releasing the sale of twenty-two Guardian drones to India, prior to the visit of Modi to the US, is an indicator of the US seeking to woo India, specifically for its anti-terror campaign. Prime Minister Modi may not be expecting much from the US, other than ensuring that earlier relations continue and possibly develop, however, recent statements from the US as also a strong reference to terror emanating from Pak as part of the joint statement, indicates that the US desires that India becomes a partner in its anti-terror campaign.

While being aware that India is unwilling to contribute boots on the ground, however, there are many more areas for India to be involved. These areas include provision of spares for Russian origin equipment, enhancing supply of military equipment, financial assistance in developmental projects and training support for the Afghan military. Training of the Afghan army has immense value in the long term and should be enhanced to the levels possible. The major benefit is, those who train in India, carry Indian ethos, culture and outlook, when they return. They would always be Indian supporters, hence unlikely to be swayed by Pak supported militant sentiments. They would value freedom more than imposition of Sharia law.

For Pakistan, the pressures are only likely to increase. Removing Pak from a non- NATO ally status would be akin to a slap on its face. Increasing drone strikes within Pakistan has more relevance, as it would severely impact the hallowed power of the army and the standing and stature of the government, especially as elections are around the corner. The latest drone strike, resulted in the death of a commander of the Haqqani network and led to the Pak opposition questioning its army chief on ensuring sovereignty of the nation. Regular drone strikes would anger militant groups, with breakaway factions within them changing tack to target Pakistan, adding to woes.

For the US, the ground reality is that talks with the Taliban is the only possible solution, but these must be conducted from a position of strength. Therefore, the Taliban and Haqqani leadership, operating from within Pakistan must either be eliminated or forced into the mountains of Afghanistan, for subsequent engagement by US missile and air power. It is only by degrading the leadership can they expect to negotiate. Hence, the US appears to be slowly losing patience with Pakistan, therefore now seeks a new strategy aiming to deal with it.

The US still has to bank on the Karachi port and the land route emanating from there for move of its stores and supplies to Afghanistan. With a surge in troop strength, this dependency would only increase. Thus, any hard and determined action against Pak would be weighed within this limitation.

Pak knows that it is being pushed into the corner. It is being compelled to walk a tight rope. It cannot let loose its ‘dogs of war’ across either India or Afghanistan as one wrong strike could blow back on its face. It would continue to bank on Chinese support, as they are their only allies left. Pak army’s options on supporting terror groups are slowly narrowing and may only make things more difficult for them in the months ahead.

Can UN sanctions contain North Korea? Daily O 16 Aug 17

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has issued its latest sanctions against North Korea. It has compelled the nation to cut down its exports to two billion dollars a year from the current three. These have impacted export of coal, iron and iron ore, as also restricted the number of workers it can send abroad to work each year, which provide it with desperate foreign exchange. China, the only nation which still backs the country has supported the sanctions and even agreed to implement it. Trump in a tweet thanked Russia and China, which could have utilized their veto, but refrained from doing so.

The message goes out clear, North Korea developing nuclear weapons is unacceptable to the world. Even China, for once is frustrated with the regime on its behaviour. China has always feared an influx of refugees, if the situation in North Korea gets critical or war breaks out, hence supports the regime. North Korea obtained its nuclear technology from Pakistan and China. Further, Chinese support enabled it to develop its nuclear weapons and delivery means, unmindful of international criticism.

China has recently been attempting to get North Korea to curtail its nuclear testing, but to no avail. Its ambassador kept requesting for a meeting with Kim Jong Un, the North Korean supreme leader, but was snubbed, forcing China to change its stance. The UNSC is determined that this time they would strictly enforce sanctions and even monitor Chinese implementation of the same. Simultaneously China is worried that if the North Korean regime is replaced, then a unified Korea, allied to the US would be a thorn on its borders. However, a debate still rages if whether sanctions would ultimately restrict the North Koreans.

The North Korean regime is paranoid on its security and survivability. It has no concern for its people, who continue to starve, while its leaders live a lavish life. Military parades on special occasions are great shows of pomp, military power and splendour, while the population lacks even basic food and medical care. The brainwashing of its population ensures there is almost none who would oppose the regime. With regular purges of those who matter in the country, there is perpetual fear even amongst the top hierarchy.

It has the requisite technology for nuclear weapons, as it has regularly displayed in its tests, doubts remain on its ability to mount warheads on its missiles and the accuracy of its delivery means. The fact that an impoverished state is spending most of its GDP on nuclear and ballistic technology, in other words, ensuring its security, without a care for its people, is a sign of paranoia. Hence, since sanctions largely affect the populace, it alone possibly may not be the answer.

The impression which North Korea has garnered from other nuclear states like Pakistan, is that possession of nuclear weapons and the technology to deliver it, would ensure that no world power would ever attempt to topple the regime, irrespective of how brutal it remains or even if it recognized to be a state sponsor of terror. It has also learnt from the Gulf that being a dictator is not enough, if you do not possess nuclear power. Both Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were toppled, despite being powerful figures, for not possessing weapons, strong enough to deter the West. Hence, Kim Jong Un would never be willing to place his own regime at risk, irrespective of cost.

For US, South Korea and Japan, the threat emanates from the unpredictability of Kim Jong Un. He had anyone who even showed slightest disrespect, killed by brutal means, irrespective of his appointment, only to send a message to the rest, hence ensures complete loyalty. North Korea has threatened no other nation, but these three. It has refused numerous overtures for talks including curtailing of military exercises between the US and South Korea. With a nuclear arsenal in hand, other military options appear to be ruled out.

The US has repeatedly resorted to show of force, but the same has been taken as a bluff. Its bombers conducting flying missions, ships in the vicinity, nothing appears to have worked or even impacted North Korea. The deployment of THAAD anti-missile system, has been objected to by China, but North Korea has shown no fear. Even threats by Trump appear to be hitting a wall. The belief that its nuclear weapons would deter any adversary has given Kim Jong Un a feeling of invincibility. His strong control over the masses ensures that they would never rise in revolt, thus he is internally secure. His zero concern of the well-being of the masses, makes sanctions meaningless.

Hence sanctions clearly will not be the answer. A close study of the regime would indicate a one-man decision-making nation, with others solely to applaud when asked to. His ability to be ruthless was evident when he used his team to assassinate his own half-brother as far down as Malaysia, irrespective of international norms or when he murdered his uncle, who was his mentor, by tying him to the barrel of a gun. Thus, only by removing the leader would there ever be a possibility of peace.

A conventional military operation is not feasible, as a nuclear threat would remain. It thus would need to be a missile strike with accuracy and correctly timed, striking the leader directly. Delaying such a decision may allow this rogue state to develop nuclear and missile technology enabling enmeshing the two to ensure a formidable nuclear deterrent.

It is known that the leader is always present on ceremonial events, hence, accepting collateral damage, a strike should be executed. In case successful, there will not be any retaliatory response as others would prefer seeking peace overtures rather than risking survivability of the state. Sanctions in any case, would be meaningless and to prove this point, Kim Jong Un has already threatened about targeting Guam and would soon resort to another missile launch.

India and an isolated US The Statesman 20 Jun 17

PM Modi is scheduled to meet President Trump over the weekend. The proximity which Modi had with Obama appears missing, hence expectations from this visit are low. However, for the US, India would be a key player as the US heads into a security isolation, solely due to Trump’s own policy of ‘America First’.

Since his ascendency as the President of the US, Donald Trump has surprised many with his flip-flopping. Never has any head of state, jumped from one opinion to the other in a flash of a moment, leaving all guessing on what his intentions are. His policy decisions appear to be based solely on ‘creating jobs’. The world which once looked upon the US as the guardian of democracy seeks alternative security groupings, ignoring the US.

His criticism of China during his election speeches, changed as soon as China offered to invest, though he sweet-coated it by stating that China was cooperating in reigning in North Korea. His criticism of Saudi Arabia, vanished when he visited them. He had condemned them for treating women as slaves, killing gays and maintaining ties with 9/11 hijackers. His visit was a remarkable reversal, when he stated, ‘we are not here to lecture, we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be’. The arms deal signed with Saudi Arabia was to create a thousand jobs, which was one of his aims.

His relations with the western world is anything but frosty. His address to NATO allies, asking them to spend more was silently ignored. His pulling out of the Paris accord, almost isolated the US from Europe. Leaders in Europe have begun making increasing comments on the lack of reliability on the US for defence and military cooperation. They have instead stated that they need to be closer linked and cooperate more internally to ensure their own security. The EU has enhanced its own defence fund, different from NATO. The EU President Jean Juncker remarked, ‘The US is no longer interested in guaranteeing Europe’s security.’

Other close allies like Australia, Japan and Singapore are seeking closer collaboration and cooperation with India, basically because they have lost faith in the US, since Trump cannot be trusted on continuing existing alliances. His refusal to honour the immigration deal which Obama committed to Australia made relations frosty. Trump’s obsession with North Korea due to its ability to target the US mainland, is possibly the only reason why the US may be compelled to continue maintaining its bases in South Korea. His reliance on China to reel in the North Korean regime would enhance its influence and threaten its traditional foes including Japan and India.

Even Canada, closely allied and working in tandem with the US, jointly operating NORAD (North American Aerospace Command), is seeking other options. Chrystia Freeland, the Canadian foreign minister stated, ‘The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course.’ Canada’s defence budget is on the rise. Her words portray the feelings deep within the western world and traditional US allies.

The US is increasing its involvement in West Asia and Afghanistan, where it has limited options, as it battles growing Russian and Iranian influence. Trump’s enmity to Iran is well known. He has continuously attempted to forage groupings against it. His visit to Saudi Arabia was aimed at this. The Qatar crises, post his visit, has been aptly summed up as ‘Trumpification’ of relations in the region by the German Foreign Minister, Sigmar Gabriel. His relations with Russia show no signs of mending, mainly due to internal pressures on his illegal contacts with Russia, during his campaign.

NATO allies presently supporting and participating in operations in West Asia and Afghanistan are hesitant to expand their deployment. German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, stated that she does not believe that Germany is ‘first in line’ to send additional troops. The British opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, stated ‘Britain should turn down NATO’s demand for additional troops in Afghanistan’. A coalition government in Britain would have to toe a careful line.

Internally Trump faces increasing hostility. His Presidential orders are being overruled by courts and internal policies blocked by a doubting senate. Pressures have compelled him to frequently change his own advisors. Investigations into his Russian contacts during elections would preclude his seeking closer cooperation in resolving West Asia and Afghanistan. To reconsider the nuclear deal with Iran, he would need Russian backing, which is unlikely, hence he creates anti-Iran alliances.

Racism is raising its ugly head in the US. There is a marked increase in hate crimes and a noticeable divide within the population. His immigration policies have drastically reduced the number of foreign students in US universities. There is uncertainty all around.

Trump’s changing perceptions have created doubts within the US’s traditional support base across the globe. Possibly the only nation in tow with the US presently, is Israel. The US is heading for a security isolation, which irrespective of the power of a nation, is irrational in the present environment. It is time his advisors be more frank with him, before he pushes the US into a dark security corner, exiting from which would be difficult, sans his high ego.

Hence, Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with Trump is unlikely to result in any worthwhile statement or success. It is a low-key visit as compared to his previous ones. In the present context, the US needs India more than the other way around. Simultaneously, India’s growing military and economic power would involve it in increased security groupings, side-lining the US, making it a key international player. As the US moves into isolation, India rises to become a global player of repute alongside China, which is happily filling the US void. The visit may end up with US seeking Indian cooperation in troubled spots, rather than the other way around.

Both Pakistan and North Korea are rogue nations Daily O 10 May 17

Historically no nation can choose its neighbours. It is determined by geography. Geopolitics, on the other hand, determines relative importance of nations in the strategic sphere. No nation can prosper in isolation. It needs trade and development to prosper. For this, nations need to maintain cordial relations with neighbours. A nation at discord with all those in its proximity would only engulf its population in misery and poverty, irrespective of its military might. Germany in the second world war and North Korea today are prime examples. Hence nations need to evolve policies of maintaining peaceful relations in their neighbourhood.

Europe changed after two world wars. It learnt its lessons the hard way. Germany is and would never become a threat. The EU now revolves around German economy. Even nations belonging to the erstwhile Soviet Union have managed to re-discover themselves and their strategic space, despite pressures from Russia, Ukraine being a prime example. This lesson has reduced threats in most regions, however Pakistan still lives in a delusionary world, in the belief, that being a nuclear state it can control its own strategic sphere.

In recent days, it has enhanced border tensions with all its major neighbours, India, Afghanistan and Iran. It has had military confrontations with India and Afghanistan. It is heading towards one with Iran. While relations with India have been strained due to historical baggage, religion, ideological differences and failure in every war, relations with the others is only due to its own faulty approach and failed policies. The fact that it is attacked even by a less powerful neighbour, Afghanistan, should have sent a message to the powers that be in the country, that it needs to recalibrate its policies, however, it is unlikely to change.

Diplomacy, mainly concerning neighbouring countries, left in the hands of power seeking military generals, who believe in supporting terror organizations, can put any nation at risk. The political leadership, with more experience in handling international relations in Pakistan, is pushed to the background, either intentionally or by creating artificial obstacles in its path. The deep state, comprising the army and the ISI, appears to believe that, it alone, is the saviour of the nation. Thus, it has alienated almost all surrounding it, opening doors for its strategic encirclement by countries inimical to it.

India and Pakistan have been traditional enemies. Kashmir has been a flashpoint, with militants, trained and supported by Pakistan operating, along with financial support to the Hurriyat. The present Indian government has taken a strong stand, irrespective of domestic and international suggestions. It refuses to even contemplate talks with Pakistan. India anyway has limited choices. It refuses to talk to the deep state, while their polity has no control over Indo-Pak relations. Hence, status quo would remain. A lesson which Pakistan has failed to learn is that though India and China have a border dispute, it remains controlled and is being diplomatically addressed. The fact that there has been no firing for decades speaks volumes of political engagement between two strong and internationally competing adversaries.

Pakistan has always considered Afghanistan as its strategic backyard, hence seeks a favourable government. Its continued support to the Taliban has been with the hope that when talks do take place, it is likely to become a part of the government. The US has made its intentions clear. It seeks a longer engagement in the country and is unwilling to cooperate with Russia and China on talking to the Taliban. The US will have a face-off with Pakistan in some timeframe, once patience runs thin.

Pak knows what happens when terror groups turn inwards, it has enough experience with the Pakistan Taliban, hence cannot change its present policies in a hurry. Border skirmishes with Afghanistan and the refusal of President Ghani to visit Islamabad shows how their policy has failed. This destructive policy opens doors for Indian entry into the country, thus opening a new front for Pakistan to handle.

Iran and Pak did maintain cordial ties. It never had any border issues with Iran. The international border however, divides the Baluch community, which reside on either side. Iran blames Pakistan for supporting groups seeking to destabilize the Sistan- Baluchestan region of the country. Pak on the other hand blames Iran for interfering in Baluchistan and Southern Afghanistan.

Anti-Iran terror group, Jaish al Adl, based in Pak has regularly struck Iranian border guards. In 2014, after five of its border guards were kidnapped, Iran threatened to move in troops, but were dissuaded. The situation was resolved by a local cleric, four guards were returned, but one was killed. In end Oct 14, a Pakistan Frontier Corps soldier was killed by Iranian Border Guards, rekindling tensions. Recently ten Iranian border guards were killed in a terrorist raid from Pak side of the border. This time Iran has openly warned Pakistan on launching a surgical strike aka India. The diplomatic situation is also tense since the ex-army chief of Pakistan, Raheel Sharif, took over the Saudi led alliance. Iran and Saudi are natural enemies.

Pak had border disputes with both, India and Afghanistan, since its independence. In either case, its deep state prevented the political leadership from taking a lead to resolve issues, seeking to succeed by employing terror groups. The policy has only increased tensions, added to its own problems, as it is regularly targeted by remnants of the same groups, it created. The fact that most of the western world have begun ignoring its pleas and cries against India or Indian involvement in Afghanistan, indicates its own international standing.

There is no other nation in the world, in the state which Pakistan is, surrounded by three major neighbours, all of whom seek its downfall, with only China to support it. In fact, Pakistan and North Korea seem to be almost on the same rung of the ladder, both nuclear powers, surrounded by enemies, with only Chinese backing and support. It is thus a rogue nation, akin to North Korea, and necessitates similar international treatment.

Don’t make an Iraq or Libya out of Syria The Statesman 18 Apr 17

The launching of fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles against the Syrian regime by the US has again brought the region into focus. While the world deplores the use of chemical weapons, there is always a lingering doubt, on who is correct, the US, which blames Syria for the strike or the Russians, who claim it was done by the rebels to malign the government. The Russians and the Iranians strongly back Assad and refuse to discuss any future of Syria without him. The US and its allies are clear and seek a Syria without Assad, hence, openly support rebels seeking to oust him. In this confusion, there is no mention of who could replace Assad, possibly creating another Iraq or Libya, where Islamist groups have re-emerged.

For over seven years, Syria has been the epicentre of a proxy war fuelled by a civil strife between opposing superpowers. Weapons under production are tested on its soil, new military bases created, cities destroyed, population displaced and innocent civilians killed. All this to enable one man to be overthrown or supported to continue in power. Crudely put, Assad is a male version of ‘Helen of Troy’, launching a million bombs or missiles. The Syrian scenario has multitude of groups operating almost independently, with latent support from powerful nations or neighbours. This has enabled the ISIS to flourish, draw in cadre, launch assaults in neighbouring countries and regions far from the battle zone, resulting in the greatest humanitarian crisis and migration, since the second world war.

The missile strikes by the US and its oft repeated claim that Assad must go, brings back haunting memories of similar claims in earlier days and subsequent fallouts.

The US walked into Iraq, claiming it had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Many theories are abound on the true reasons for its intervention. The most logical is that post his defeat in Kuwait, Saddam was contemplating shifting to any other currency for sale of oil, in lieu of the dollar. This would have harmed the US economy, as the dollar being an international currency, enables it to continue with its fiscal policy of deficits and still control world economy. Hence, Saddam had to go and the WMDs were only an excuse. The US waded in, destroyed his regime and installed a unity government. It disintegrated Iraq’s military and attempted to re-create it anew.

The result was chaos, breakdown of law and order, opening doors for the ISIS to rise from the ashes. The US withdrew without ensuring stabilization. It failed to comprehend the geopolitical requirements of the region, implying a strong divide between communities, requiring a strong government and powerful military to control the region. The US is back, battling the ISIS.

Gaddafi in Libya handed over designs of a nuclear weapon, obtained clandestinely from Pakistan and North Korea to the US, seeking peace. When the Arab Spring commenced in Libya, the US supported the uprising. For once, Barack Obama admitted, it was his gravest mistake. In Feb 11, at the commencement of the uprising, led by the al Qaeda, the US launched over one hundred and thirty Tomahawk missiles on the Libyan military and eliminated its ability to restore order. The result was overthrow of Gaddafi and re-emergence of the al Qaeda, which the US has re-commenced engaging. Libya remains unstable, with different factions controlling different parts of the country.

While Syria, Iraq and Libya are oil producers, North Korea is not. Hence the country has only been threatened but never acted against. For a nation like the US, with technology and precision missiles at its beck and call, monitoring the movement and location of any North Korean leader (present or past) was never impossible, nor was eliminating him. There would always be an element of risk, which sometime back could have been accepted. Presently with a vast collection of missiles and nuclear devices, it is a missed opportunity.

The US intervention in Afghanistan was hurried, seeking revenge and retribution to 9/11. The operations were swift and body bags were accepted back home, after all, they were avenging American lives. The elimination of Osama Bin Laden was the turning point. Aim was achieved, America’s most wanted was brought to justice, now why should it remain. Thus, Barack Obama began implementing his plans for withdrawal, even without stabilizing nor annihilating the Taliban. The US was seeking an exit strategy, but there was no answer in sight. Presently, Afghanistan remains a mess, solely because the US played soft to Pakistan which did and still continues to support the Taliban. Ignoring the US, other nations in the neighbourhood have jumped in, attempting to resolve the Afghanistan tangle. It could end with another regime change with the Taliban to joining the government or controlling part of the country.

The missile strike on Syria has resulted in the US and Russia drifting further apart and cooperation, if any, on the future of Syria is all but over. For any nation, irrespective how powerful it is, attempting a regime change in another nation, unless there is a locally acceptable alternative, especially where sect, tribal and ethnic differences exist, would be a failure. It would open doors for radical Islamic groups to re-emerge destabilizing a larger region. Recent history has proved this on numerous occasions, but its lessons have been ignored.

Maintaining forces to ensure stabilization, post a regime change, is an expensive effort for any power, hence compels them to pull out before completion of their mission, solely on economic grounds. Before world powers take any decision on Assad’s future, the region should be stabilized and an alternative acceptable to all parties must exist. Accountability to prevent a recurrence of Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan should be laid down. The world community must unite against superpower games, seeking enhanced control over regions and resources, killing innocent humans and impacting nations, including those far removed from the conflict, solely for personal interest and power.