Iran’s Nuclear Program: A Chain of Protracted Conflicts and Covert Attacks

Iran has been a thorn in the world’s side, particularly the USA and Israel, since the inception of its nuclear program in the 20th century. Viewed as a potential threat, many covert actions were taken to disrupt Iran’s nuclear progress which would augment America’s diplomatic leverage and constrain Iranian leaders into accepting the limitations and restrictions imposed on the latter’s nuclear activities.

Iran’s nuclear development timeline can be split into two distinct parts. The first part was centralized on the expeditious developments in Iran’s nuclear program, which was initiated in the late 1950s during the time of the Shah, up until Iran’s recent endeavors of the 21st century to enhance the program. The second part was, however, less focused on nuclear incidents but highlighted notorious proclamations surrounding the program, most fervently voiced by the United States and Israel. However, for decades, Iran has been attempting to articulate the nuclear program in a manner that lets it take what it believes is its rightful place in the world.

Two protracted conflicts, initially with Iraq and later with Israel, were the motivating force behind the Iranian leadership to consider nuclear power as a force of deterrence. After the Islamic revolution, friendly relations between Iran and the US turned hostile overnight, exacerbating into a series of unpleasant incidents like the 1979 hostage crisis. Consequently, the deterioration resulted in Iran being added to the terrorism list in 1984 in the wake of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon. During this period from 1980-1989, the U.S.-supported Iraq against Iran, while sustenance extended by the U.S. to Israel was also a concerning matter for Iran. Furthermore, Iran’s growing number of agreements with Pakistan, China, and North Korea for the development of nuclear programs protracted the conflict between it and America. The U.S. froze Iranian assets and imposed harsh economic sanctions which depreciated Iran’s economy for a while.

Adding fuel to the fire, Iran was called a rogue state for not only being engaged in terrorism but also for developing WMDs. After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. alleged that Iran had been sponsoring terrorists in the Middle East and that it had links with Al Qaeda. In 2003, the U.S. intervention in Iraq was initially perceived as advantageous for Iran as it overthrew the latter’s long-term rival Sadam Husain; but it turned out to be negative as the pro-U.S. government still existed in Iraq. So, the continued tussle between the regional actors and Iran, and hostile U.S. policies towards it, were the factors that kept Iran motivated to acquire nuclear power status. Up till now, the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea have been perceived as an immense security threat and danger to the United States; to curb them, various initiatives have been taken, including imposition of sanctions, clandestine attacks and eventual sabotage of the nuclear program.

The covert campaign against the Iranian nuclear program was so cautiously executed that its impact verification and accuracy assessment were difficult to ascertain. The program was projected as posing severe security threats to the United States and its allies in the Middle East. Iran’s quest to attain nuclear weapons so as to deter the security threats from the U.S. and its allies, mainly Israel, resulted in counter-proliferation strategies that curtailed the nuclear power acquisition process.

Israel has been using manslaughter as an instrument of dissuasion against adversaries since 1948. The assassination of Iranian engineers and scientists working on the nuclear program was plausibly the first most notorious constituent of the covert attack campaign. Despite the fear of retaliation, five scientists who were a part of Iran’s nuclear program were killed amid 2007 and 2015 in Tehran. Israel claimed to have the upper hand in the killings; however, the U.S. repudiated its involvement and strongly condemned the killings. These murders adversely impacted the nuclear program, curtailing its progress. They decelerated the process and also caused Iran to disburse more resources and efforts for the prevention of Western intelligence penetration in the region.

The second tactic in the covert attack campaign was terrorizing and sabotaging global supply chains and channels that were used by Iran to acquire many of its nuclear components and facilities. International sanctions, restrictions on imports and a weak industrial base left Iran highly dependent on foreign suppliers and the black market to procure advanced instruments and the necessary equipment. The supply chain was breached and sabotaged by the United States, Israel, and their allies. These networks of procurement were highly susceptible to sabotage, subversion and manipulation. The highlight of the sabotage program was providing defective or manipulated parts to Iran via third parties. In 2006, the Natanz enrichment site explosion in Iran that led to the destruction of 50 centrifuges was due to use of manipulated parts that were imported to Iran from Turkey. Additionally, the U.S. and Israel were accused of initiating a series of explosions in Iran that led to the destruction of the country’s oil facilities, gas pipelines, and military bases.

The third most troubling clandestine attack included the cyber-attacks carried out on Iran’s computer network and nuclear facilities. Neither the U.S. nor Israel, or any other state for that matter, accepted responsibility for launching the attacks. For the first time in history, an attack was made to obliterate a state’s infrastructure through the use of cyber technology. The Stuxnet worm prompted the centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment plant to spin out of control. The accelerated centrifugal speed made the motor crash, causing the entire centrifuge to explode and resulted in approximately 1,000 centrifuges being destroyed. Besides the destruction caused, Stuxnet accumulated a great deal of computer network intelligence information which provided valuable information to the United States concerning Iran’s nuclear program.

All the internal and external costs were imposed on Iran through the covert attack campaign and succeeded in restricting the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. Sabotage and clandestine actions seem to have given the United States enough leverage to negotiate and undertake a strategy of coercive diplomacy. These covert attacks pressured Iran into modifying its conduct and asserting itself more to protect its nuclear resources. It also convinced Iran that the U.S. and Israel had several means, both explicit and stealthy, to influence the Iranian regime.

The world calls states like Iran fundamentalist and rogue, but shows partiality when discussing other countries like Israel and United States which pursue their vested interests under any condition by blanketing them as self-defense or national interest. States like Iran, however, are held in contempt for the same pursuits. This has mainly been due to the U.S. propaganda against Iran and its nuclear program, because the monopoly the US has over the international market and the power it enjoys among nations is well recognized. Moreover, Iran, whenever given the opportunity, has failed to properly express its need for attaining nuclear technology and make the world understand how such developments would be in Iran’s national interest, rather than a threat to other countries.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was perhaps the closest the world has gotten to a diplomatic solution regarding the Iranian nuclear dilemma. While this agreement was initially fulfilled by Iran, the United States did not seem to have the same intentions. In 2017 it came towards the termination of the deal and in 2018 the US officially announced its withdrawal from the JCPOA. This dealt a severe blow to all the diplomatic progress made in the years following the agreement. Iran, which had been abiding by the main terms till 2019, announced that it had breached the limit set on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium and also announced an increase in uranium enrichment. Iran’s Foreign Minister clearly stated that the country would scale back its nuclear program and follow internationally set limitations, only if the signatories to the pact fulfilled their obligations and carried out their end of the bargain.

The United States may have to accept Iran as a threshold or ‘virtual’ nuclear power, as neither sanctions nor deterrence is likely to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapons capability. The only possible solution to Iran’s firm stance on nuclear development, and the world’s reservations and concerns with it, is a diplomatic one. The world nations, most prominently the United States of America, must make sincere efforts to hold talks with Iran and resolve the issue that has gone on for far too long. Iran’s national concerns must be safeguarded and the international sanctions and bans on it should be lifted. In turn, Iran must address and remove any doubts or fear the world has about its nuclear program as a sign of good faith and finally come clean. If such steps are not taken, the world will be pushed further into a state of unrest and political instability.

A Tale of Two Communities

The title of this opinion piece is inspired by Charles Dickens’ 1859 historical novel A Tale of Two Cities, set in London and Paris before and during the French Revolution. The opening lines of the epic novel are: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way…”

Coincidentally, the introductory piece of the novel truly depicts the tale of the two communities, being narrated below. In the past few weeks, we have been exposed to news regarding these two communities residing in Pakistan. Both have impoverished and underprivileged backgrounds, have tremendous potential but ended up on opposite sides of the divide. The two communities happen to be the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, Chitral on the one hand and on the other, the inhabitants of the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), who have now been merged into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province of Pakistan.

Being a crew member of the Air Transport Squadron of Pakistan Air Force, my first exposure to the residents of Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral has been since the early 1970s, when I joined the squadron. Since the territory was deprived of developed roads and proper airfields, most of the supply of logistics used to be through aerial drops. Some of the drop zones were located in narrow valleys and the terrain was so rugged and difficult that if we ended up in the wrong gorge, there was no maneuvering space to turn around. The inclement and rapidly changing weather was also a major deterrent to the aerial delivery missions we carried out. It was only when we started landing there, that we became fully aware of the abject poverty and lack of resources for the residents. Thus, it was a pleasant surprise, when Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral was included in the itinerary of the Royal visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Pakistan in October 2019.

There is every reason to take pride in the miracle that has been accomplished in the territory mentioned above owing to the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP), a private, non-profit company, established by the Aga Khan Foundation in 1982 to help improve the quality of life of the villagers of Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral.

This article is not to promote the AKRSP’s development approach, but it is a demonstration of how an underdeveloped, hungry, uneducated, and penurious community was provided the opportunity to generate confidence in its abilities. The program has been based on the belief that local communities have tremendous potential to plan and manage their own development, once they are organized and provided access to necessary skills and capital.

The rest is history because AKRSP’s efforts over the past three and a half decades, have transformed the locals to secure many notable achievements in social and economic domains. Key achievements include manifold increase in incomes, construction/rehabilitation of more than 4000 small infrastructure projects (bridges, roads, irrigation channels, hydropower units and other small projects), the planting of tens of millions of trees and the development of hundreds of acres of marginal lands, developing a cadre of more than 50,000 community activists, mobilization of nearly $ 5 million village savings, and the establishment of more than 4,993 community organizations. Most importantly, the literacy rate in Gilgit-Baltistan is 73% but in Chitral, it has shot up to 98 percent while women empowerment in this region is the highest as compared to elsewhere in Pakistan.

Let us now examine the other community, the tribals of FATA. When the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman descended upon Islamabad on 31 October 2019, he brought with him a force of followers, who are products of Madrassahs being sponsored by him. The protest rally comprised a group known as Ansar-ul-Islam, who were dressed in khaki uniform and were wielding staffs painted in the colours of the JUI. Most of them hailed from FATA. They were obedient and fiercely loyal to their Ameer. During the sit-in by the JUI, the Ansar-ul-Islam would wander about the streets of Islamabad, armed with their staff. Despite the fact that they behaved responsibly, the locals felt traumatized. When asked why they are part of the protest, their response was that the government of Pakistan has allowed Israel to invade Pakistan, while Kashmir has been compromised and sold to India and Islam is in danger under the present regime, thus their spiritual leader Fazlur Rahman has ordained them to be the saviours.

One cannot help but feel sorry for these youth belonging to FATA, which comprises independently fierce tribesmen, who have noble traditions of warm hospitality. Unfortunately, they are also simple minded and the rugged terrain they reside in has kept them devoid of development, education and employment opportunities. To make matters worse, charlatans have exploited them using religion. In the late 19th Century, Mullah Powindah Maseed, a spiritual leader and freedom fighter in the Pashtun tribe of the Mehsuds, based in Waziristan, led a long-standing guerrilla insurgency against the British forces.  In 1935–36, Mirzali Khan, a tribal leader in Waziristan, who was later given the title of “the Fakir of Ipi” by the British, started a guerrilla warfare declaring it as Jihad against the British forces in Waziristan. In 1947 the Fakir of Ipi demanded a separate state of “Pashtunistan” comprising all Pashtun majority territories of British India, instead of being made to join Pakistan. However, the British Raj refused to comply with his demand. After the creation of Pakistan in August 1947, Mirzali Khan and his followers refused to recognize Pakistan, and launched a campaign against Pakistan, which had to be quelled by force.

For decades, the tribesmen of FATA had their own system of governance based on the tribal system. Their traditions of hospitality welcomed even fugitives from justice. Following 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by US-led NATO forces, most of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban warriors entrenched themselves here and continued to target allied forces through hit and run raids. One cannot forget local commanders like Sufi Nek Muhammad or his son-in-law Mullah Fazlullah, an illiterate chairlift operator aka as “Mullah Radio” because of his clandestine radio transmissions on a roving FM transmitter inciting locals to insurgency. The advent of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) which was wreaking havoc in major urban centers in Pakistan, teamed up with Al-Qaida and Afghan Taliban as well as foreign militants like Chechen, Arab, Uzbek and even Uighurs, who had been given sanctuary by local tribesmen, now became a threat both for Pakistan and foreign forces in Afghanistan.

Swat, which had started to develop rapidly because of its touristic opportunities, unfortunately became a stronghold of the TTP. Nobel Laureate Malala Yousafzai was targeted by the Taliban because she had raised her voice in support of women empowerment and the right of girls to receive education.

Various military operations managed to stem the rot of the young men being exploited in the name of religion to become suicide bombers and hardened militants. Their sense of deprivation had been exploited and their limited religious beliefs had been manipulated with the promise of entering heaven with forty selected friends and relatives. It may be recalled that following the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR in 1979, CIA and Pakistan had used the services of the Madrassahs to train the Afghan Mujahedeen and volunteers from various Muslim countries to wage Jihad against the Red Army. USSR retreated from Afghanistan in 1989, but the Madrassahs, which received huge funding during this decade and produced fierce fighters of the ilk of the Taliban founder Mullah Omar, TTP stalwart Baitullah Mehsud and thousands of others, continue to wield a lot of influence.

The 2014 military operation “Zarb-e-Azb” against terror bases in North Waziristan may have succeeded in curbing terrorism but the root causes have not been addressed, nor serious development plans put in place. Resultantly, in the absence of education centers, employment opportunities and even means of proper sustenance, the religious exploitation continues. Impoverished parents are forced to send their offspring to the Madrassahs which provide free education, boarding and lodging but religious leaders continue to hold sway over the madrassah students.

The community comprising the people of FATA provides a stark contrast to what befell the residents of Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral. The Agha Khan Foundation enabled the latter to build its capacity and change its fortunes. The people of FATA too deserve a guardian angel to visit them and transform them from rags to riches. Swat already has a development plan to optimize its potential of becoming a big tourist attraction in the world, due to its scenic beauty, geographical location, climate and natural resources.  The ski resort of Malam Jabba has been restored to its original splendour after its devastation by the Taliban. Educational institutions, communication infrastructure, are being reconstructed and Swat will regain its glory.

It is the downtrodden people of FATA, who deserve special attention. President George W. Bush had floated the concept of setting up Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in FATA and Afghanistan as an element in the US Government’s counter-terrorism and regional economic integration strategies but it remains a pipe dream. While the government of Pakistan is chalking up development plans for KP, since FATA has now merged with it, there must be allocations for Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) for the tribal agencies in the requisite budget. Cash strapped Pakistan may find itself constrained but it does not need to beg or borrow, nor seek motivation from other countries. Why look far, the live example of Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral is enough incentive. Average Pakistanis are very charitable, and we have seen them in action whenever any calamity has struck their homeland. Their only problem is that they want assurance that their donations are reaching the deserving people and will not be squandered or misappropriated by corrupt officials. The United Nations as well as EU have special funds for projects which are meticulously planned for execution in a transparent manner. The solution is to make a master plan where the tribesmen can maintain their rich traditions, culture, norms and mores but they are assisted in participating in projects which are aimed at education, vocational training and optimum utilization of their resources so that they can help themselves and are not led astray by demagogues to serve as cannon fodder or innocent participants in their heinous plans.  Surely, they deserve a better future like their kith and kin from Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral.

 

Strategic Stability in South Asia

South Asia can be termed as the harbinger of the 2nd Nuclear Age post World War II. With grand strategic designs and desires, India acquired nuclear weapons and induced a security dilemma which forced Pakistan to go for nuclear weapons as well. As of today, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, and aspirant Iran, are states with varying shades of nuclear and strategic weapons which have direct implications on the strategic stability of the region. India and Pakistan are on top of the list, involved in a perpetual strategic competition based on history, culture and grand designs. There is a brief analysis in the succeeding paras to identify the nature of strategic stability existing in South Asia, focusing on India and Pakistan.

As per the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Strategic stability usually refers to a state of affairs in which countries are confident that their adversaries would not be able to undermine their nuclear deterrent capability”. However, with the advent of other weapons and their regimes (Ballistic Missiles, Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles, Anti-Ballistic Missiles, and Tactical Nuclear Weapons), the scope of this concept has been expanded, especially in context of South Asia. Post-World War II and during the Cold War era, nuclear weapons were solely responsible for the concept of strategic stability and seldom the conventional weapon(s) became part of this discussion overtly. However, in context of India and Pakistan, this debate has roots in conventional asymmetry and overt nuclearization.

Some of the factors which have direct bearing on the strategic stability in South Asia are discussed ahead.

One, Indian aspirations and hegemonistic designs based on Chanakiyan thoughts of Akhand Bharat were always the sole driver of its foreign policy which was adopted accordingly. Subsequently Nehruvian thoughts of India as a regional super power and of-late net security provider in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) are important cardinals driving the strategic stability conundrum.

Two, Pakistan is the only nation in the South Asian region opposing the Indian supremacy. 1948, 1965, 1971 and Kargil were clear indications of this rivalry. It is in this backdrop that there is an arms race in conventional weapons. The asymmetry in the conventional capabilities was accentuated with Indian nuclearization which was addressed by Pakistan’s overt nuclearization in 1998. Other realms of foreign policy in interstate relations also exhibit similar rivalries.

Three, the Kashmir issue has been simmering since independence and, to a large extent, has casted shadows on the strategic situation between both the states. Wars between both the states had roots in Kashmir. Even the present stand-off between India and Pakistan is over Kashmir-related differences.

Four, Indian Armed Forces continue to strive to use their conventional superiority in kinetic forces, from the Sunderji Doctrine to the Cold Start Doctrine, the evolution is impacting the strategic equation of the region.

Five, in the evolving geo-political situation, Afghanistan imbroglio, Indo-China power contestation, US-China multi-realm wars, Russian resurgence and ingress, evolving Gulf situation with the interplay of Pakistan and Indian domestic politics, have further mutated the strategic stability equation and a number of variables have started impacting the outcomes. Interestingly the impact of variables is so inconsistent across both sides of the spectrum, that its beyond prediction and comprehension.

Six, the obsolescent unipolar world and the increase in populism is greatly affecting Indo-Pak strategic stability. Modi is completely engrossed in Hindutva – an epitome of populism, and the US and Israel are following the same stride. Hence, Pakistan struggled to offset this imbalance, and this led to the precarious Kashmir situation and Indo-Pak standoff. All these developments impact regional and global stability as well.

Strategic stability is not a fixed proposition and there is always an effort to maintain the equilibrium. There are various factors in the context of South Asia and Indo-Pak affecting strategic stability. One, with the blurring boundaries between various generations and categories of warfare, the concepts of hybrid warfare and grey hybrid have crept in, which are more lethal in their effect and tend to alter stability to a great extent while remaining short of application on direct strategy, where the pull is felt towards conventional or strategic capabilities.

Two, a new debate of multi-domain or cross-domain operations is taking place, which will soon be relevant in context of South Asia. China and the US are already grappling with the idea of multi- or cross-domain operations and deterrence. India, by virtue of its advent in other important domains such as space and artificial intelligence, would soon be joining the club. Three, at times the advent of new weapon systems also becomes the cause of altering the strategic equation. Hyper velocity and multi-entry launch vehicles are a point of concern. Four, the global race for fossil fuels and energy security has taken over all other aspects and is also impacting the strategic stability of the region.  The US, China, Gulf and Middle East are experiencing energy security issues. In Pakistan, energy, food and water security are being threatened by nefarious Indian designs; hence, strategic stability is directly or indirectly impacted. Lately the echoes of the “water manoeuvre”, which may lead to the abrogation of the Indus Water Treaty, would be a greater germination of strategic instability.

Five, the Indian Ocean region, the Pacific, and now Africa, are experiencing the race of global powers to extend their reach and project a global role. The US’ positions in the Indian Ocean region, the Gulf, and the Pacific is gradually being hedged by Chinese bases (termed a String of Pearls). Pakistan is an important player in the China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which is hurting the strategic interests of the US and India. This indirectly affects Pakistan and its position in the global arena. Perpetual positioning of the world power has a latent and overt effect on the strategic calculus of the region, and this is much more pronounced in the context of Indo-Pak. The presence of US forces in Afghanistan, the Indian Ocean region and the Gulf, amidst Indian and Chinese hedging and counter-hedging are matters of concern.

In order to ensure that there is a minimum acceptable degree of strategic stability, deterrence must never fail – no military action should take place between India and Pakistan or India and China for that matter. Relations between India and China are neither good nor bad, but chances of a military confrontation are also predicted by nuclear deterrence. In the case of India and Pakistan, post-Kargil no major military action has taken place and is again based on nuclear deterrence which is very effective. However, at times, certain incidents tend to tilt the balance in this strategic stability, like Uri, Pulwama, and developments thereafter.

Hence, in order to ensure that the static stability in this region is maintained certain steps can be taken. Firstly, although there are arrangements between both the states to ensure strategic stability and obviate any miscalculation from both sides, yet the veracity and sincerity of the communications would be very essential for success of these communications. Secondly, Indian Land Warfare Doctrine 2018 and Indian Nuclear Doctrine 2003 are both very offensive in nature and the paradox of credible – minimum against China and Pakistan threatens strategic stability. On the other hand, Pakistan’s ambiguous nuclear doctrine and its developments in Tactical Nuclear Weapons are all for ensuring national sovereignty and strategic stability. There is a need to carve out policies ensuring stability. Hegemonism and offensive attributes are to be curtailed.

Thirdly, both Pakistan and India should ensure a robust command and control system of strategic weapons. Any loopholes must be addressed to assuage the concerns of either side. A transparent policy would be very advantageous. Unlike the US – Russia model, a model which is suitable for Pakistan and India in line with the geographical realities, historical baggage and evolving global challenges would be of a much advantage. Fourthly, as of now both states have yet to join the global arms control regimes (NPT, CTBT) based on mutual reasoning. In case both become signatories (which appears to be a remote possibility), further de-escalation in conventional asymmetry would help in ensuring the strategic stability.

Further to all this, until both the states do not address the issue from the lens of reality, mutual acceptance and co-existence, strategic stability will appear as a dream. Economy, trade, education and tourism through apt diplomacy may become a source of panacea. Regionalism instead of globalism can further the advantages. India and Pakistan are already members of SAARC and SCO, which could be exploited to accrue the desired stability while taking help from Russia and China besides other Central Asian Republic states.

Strategic stability in current times is not as simple as it was 20 years before or when the likes of Bernard Brodie or Kahn wrote their treatises. It is much more complex and a lot of other variables have entered the equation. The E=MC2 of strategic stability has been replaced with much more complex alphas and betas and gammas which are directly and inversely proportional. Yet the basics to disincentivize the use of nukes are sought for prevention any military conflict between India and Pakistan. This also entails doctrinal development, responsibility of restraint and adherence to regimes, and domestic control mechanisms besides the much-wanted political emancipation.

Future of Global Politics

One of the most pressing questions faced by academics and policymakers alike is what will be the direction of global politics in coming years? The intellectual and political turmoil of the existing global liberal order, the rising power of China, the increasing salience of Asia and the rise to power of populist/anti-status quo politicians in major capitals, have accelerated the urge for answers to complex questions. As world politics is dynamic in nature because of the changing influence of major powers over it, it would be pertinent to assess the direction of these major powers to determine the direction of global politics.

The United States emerged as the sole super power after the demise of the bipolar global order that was centered on U.S.-Soviet Union competition. Its identity is linked to free market ideology and liberal democracy, and it defined the unipolar order post 1989 on these values. Today, however, U.S. power is waning relative to other major powers and America is less enthusiastic in its support for the institutions it helped create to manage post WWII spoils. The U.S. still has a cutting edge military and is also leading several scientific and industrial innovations. But other powers are catching up and affecting the ability of the United States to steer politics in its direction, a challenge unprecedented since 1989. The ‘Trump Sentiment’ in the U.S., though anti-establishment in its domestic outlook, shares common perceptions about external outlook.

Russian policy from the early 1990s till 2005 was aimed at recovering from the shock of the demise of the Soviet Union. When it recovered, it found the U.S. embroiled in the quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan; it used this time to consolidate the gains made under President Putin and rebuild and renovate its energy and defense sectors. The U.S. being consumed in undermining the Arab Spring and sustaining the Sykes-Picot order in the Middle East provided additional breathing space to both China and Russia to expand their influence in their neighborhood and global institutions. All these elements have enabled Russia to cooperate and compete with the U.S. largely on its own terms. The emergence of China as a major global power on the world stage has enhanced Russia’s bargaining position with both the U.S. and China. Thus, its current approach of selective positive engagements and competition with China and the U.S. will continue under Putin.

Europe has played a leading role in the intellectual and political development of the ‘Westphalian State model’ and the ‘Concert of Europe’. The Concert of Europe, the European way of organizing international relations via international conferences and multilateral agreements, has evolved and transformed into the present global institutions, international law and multilateral treatise. It is interesting to note that the principle driving factor (and the challenge) of Europe’s post-Westphalian revolution has always been same: preventing the rise of a single hegemon on the European continent. The European Union is the latest manifestation of such a project since its inception till date. But the political and economic forces underpinning the EU are under stress from both internal and external elements. The danger of a return to major power conflict within the European block is real. BREXIT has undermined European cohesion and the current trajectory of a rising Germany has raised more doubts than assurances for the European question. Thus, with these difficulties, Europe is trying to manage increasing hostility from the U.S., Chinese economic outreach and a resurgent Russian bear to the North.

China is the new entrant in the club of major global powers. With hard earned wealth, it is building political and strategic clout conducive for its development. China is closing the technological gap with the West in both the commercial and military fields. It has taken its time to launch its own economic and financial initiatives to support its growth in the form of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Asian Development and Infrastructure Bank (AIIB). But despite the impressive success story, China faces formidable domestic and external challenges to its rise. Domestically, the contradiction of one communist party managing a market economy remains unresolved. Externally, the U.S. and the West in general enjoy more cultural and political support in other nations as opposed to the “Chinese Model”.

Another important and often overlooked aspect of current global politics is the intellectual vacuum. There is a general resentment against neoliberalism as well as the international institutions sustaining it. The 2008 global financial crisis only amplified this resentment. The “Chinese Model” is as vague as it is unattractive to the majority of nations. The intellectual void, thus, is essentially the lack of new ideas/alternatives for the management of global economy and politics. The current wave of populism against the “status quo” is merely an emotional phenomenon that lacks intellectual depth. The intellectual struggle therefore will also shape the outlook of global politics.

The battle for identities has also staged a comeback in the global arena. The intellectual vacuum at the global level has, in many ways, facilitated the internal conversations of many nations struggling to determine their national direction under competing visions. Europe is struggling between nationalism and a singular identity; India is under the grip of exclusionary Hindutva politics; and the Muslim world is debating the role of Islam in politics away from the current unstable organizing structures of Westphalian origin. Thus, much of global politics will now also be determined by the conclusion of these raging internal debates in nations on the question of identity.

These existing global political trends can lead to the following outcomes:

  1. With further deterioration of major power relations in sight, Europe can be expected to move away from NATO towards its own military structure. The political consensus for such a security arrangement is a work in progress.
  2. A new balance of power emerging from ongoing major powers’ struggle will be more relevant than existing global institutions managed through so called international law. The exact outline of this new balance cannot be drawn but its emergence is inevitable.
  3. Increasing tensions will emerge between the regional players aligned with major power competition, thereby further exacerbating both the nuclear and conventional arms race in regions.
  4. The Russia-China strategic collaboration against the United States will intensify.
  5. The prospects of gold replacing the dollar as the global financial instrument will pose a serious challenge for the neoliberal economy, and unleash further conflict in the political and economic domains.
  6. The increasing salience of identity has the potential to make the emerging balance of power more ideological than Machiavellian.

 

The march towards a new political order is unmistakable. The preservation of territorial integrity has been a key pillar of the existing order, but its crisis is visible where regional maps are either changing or being forced change, as is the case, for example, in Kashmir, the Middle East, Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The old maps represented the consensus of division of influence amongst major global and regional powers. That consensus is waning fast.

Afghan Deadlock

The latest twist in the torturous path to an Afghan peace has been the failure to implement the much anticipated prisoner swap as expected on 15 September, which was announced by the Afghan government a few days earlier. This exchange – 3 Taliban prisoners held by Kabul for an American and an Australian in the Taliban’s custody – was projected as a key US condition for resuming the American-Taliban dialogue, suspended by President Trump in early September. As a result, the Afghan peace process has hit yet another deadlock. Given the complications involved, such a setback will also defeat efforts to put the Afghan peace efforts back on track, thereby continuing the misery of the Afghans who have been at war for over 3 decades. The continuing Afghan conflict will also prolong Pakistan’s problems arising from the instability in Afghanistan.

Despite fighting the longest war in its history, the US has failed to defeat the Taliban for 18 years. During the Obama presidency, the US Special Representative for Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, tried to find a political solution after recognizing that there was no military solution possible. However, these efforts were undermined by the American security establishment, especially the Pentagon, which was determined to pursue the military option. Even President Trump, whose election campaign promise was to extricate the US from “costly foreign wars”, was initially persuaded by his generals to intensify the offensive against the Taliban to secure a military victory. When that proved elusive within a year, Trump changed his approach and in a major departure from past policies, agreed to talk directly to the Taliban.

The ensuing dialogue over about a year led to a potential agreement envisaging a phased US and allied troop withdrawal in return for a Taliban commitment to cut off all links to terrorist groups and ensuring that Afghan soil would not be used to attack the US or its allies. Once this agreement was signed, the Taliban also undertook to accept a ceasefire and engage in an Afghan peace process with all Afghan factions, including the Afghan government, in a departure from their earlier rejection of any dialogue with the “puppet” Kabul regime. Most significantly, given US concerns about “protecting” its “gains” in Afghanistan, the Taliban consented to an initial US withdrawal of 5,400 troops within 135 days and a drawdown of the residual 8,500 troops within 16 months, depending on security conditions. This remains the best possible deal that the US can get under the circumstances.

But, once again, American hardliners in the establishment, Congress, media and think-tanks have scuttled the agreement and Trump, using a Taliban attack in Kabul in which an American soldier was killed, called off the talks, declaring them as “dead” on the eve of signing the agreement. Criticizing Trump for bad faith, the Taliban have maintained that killing of the American soldier was an untenable argument since neither side had agreed to a ceasefire and the US and Afghan forces continued to target Taliban fighters as well.

Apart from American critics of the agreement, this set-back has suited the Afghan government and Afghan opponents of the Taliban such as the Northern Alliance dominated by ethnic Tajiks who do not want the mostly Pashtun Taliban to be in power again. President Ghani’s government had, therefore, insisted on being a party to the US-Taliban talks and when it was kept out at the Taliban’s behest, refused to endorse the dialogue outcome. Ghani also insisted on going ahead with holding the postponed Afghan Presidential elections as the mechanism for an Afghan peace settlement. But the low voter turnout in the elections, opposition to the polling by the Taliban and the contested results of the election, especially between President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah of the Northern Alliance, have all put the election route in jeopardy.

Since another round of polling will be required, this option will almost indefinitely delay start of the Afghan peace process. Meanwhile, other important Afghan leaders like Gulbadeen Hikmatyar and former President Karzai are opposed to this track and are pushing for an intra-Afghan dialogue with the Taliban. In other words, the internal Afghan situation remains murky and complicated to say the least.

For Pakistan and other countries like China and Russia, the best way forward is to resume the US-Taliban dialogue and conclude the agreement that has already been negotiated. Pakistan approached both the Taliban and the Americans to restart their negotiations. Informal meetings between these 2 sides have also taken place. While the Taliban are ready to reengage and conclude the agreement, the US has asked for additional measures by the Taliban, perhaps to give some face saving to Trump. One of these conditions has been the exchange of prisoners that was aborted at virtually the last minute.

Meanwhile, American opponents of the agreement have not relented. They continue to maintain that the potential agreement is flawed and that “no agreement is better than a bad agreement”. Their fundamental objection is that the Taliban cannot be trusted to break their links with Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, with which they claim the Taliban continue to maintain close relations. Accordingly, they advocate a “Plan B” which is to continue maintaining an American troop presence in Afghanistan and supporting the Afghan government – which is actually no alternative plan at all since this is the same old failed policy that the US has pursued over the last 18 years. More of the same will not bring about different results. Moreover, the advocates of this approach ignore the fact, perhaps intentionally, that the most serious terrorist threat confronting the US and Afghanistan today is not from a depleted Al-Qaida but ISIS, whose ranks have been joined by Al-Qaida and Taliban defectors, and is in confrontation with the Taliban. If the US truly wants to win over the Taliban, it should actually cooperate with them against the spreading influence of ISIS. But the Americans have chosen not to do so.

If President Trump survives the campaign currently underway to impeach him and contests the presidential election next year, he will need to fulfill his promise to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan for which there is growing support from his electoral base and is also increasingly endorsed by American war veterans. In the absence of an agreement with the Taliban, on which progress on an Afghan peace process also depends, Trump may decide to withdraw troops unilaterally or at most maintain a reduced presence.

In such an eventuality, the situation in Afghanistan will deteriorate with an intensified civil war in the country. This would be disastrous for Afghans as well as for the region, especially Pakistan. To avert such an outcome, Pakistan needs to continue with its efforts to ensure conclusion of an American-Taliban agreement together with a renewed Afghan peace process. This involves not only convincing the US and the Taliban to move forward but also working with other regional powers like China, Russia and Iran to jointly support a power sharing agreement among the Afghans to end their decades long fratricide. But eventually, it will be up to the Afghans themselves to decide their own fate and come out of the current deadlock.

(The writer is a former Ambassador of Pakistan. The views expressed here are his own).

Climate Change: A Problem for Pakistan’s National Security

Climate change is a severe threat to the prosperity and security of the world. The destabilizing effects of climate change have drawn the concentration of the world with storms, droughts, and floods. At the international level, political, humanitarian, geographical, military and economic catastrophes happen which cause political instability and may weaken the domestic governments. As per the United States Defense Department (USDD), sea levels are rising, and debacles are affecting the underdeveloped nations. Due to climate change, global warming is endangering the weather with intense heat waves. In 2014, United Nations Secretary General (UNSG) Ban Ki-moon stated that “Climate change is an evident security dilemma like an armed force bent for plundering.”

If Climate Change is not sufficiently addressed, there would be ample chances of dire insecurity implications for Pakistan in social, economic, geographic and political sectors. According to the Climate Risk Index (CRI) report of 2016, Pakistan is the 7th most vulnerable country to climate change and global warming. Pakistan has experienced 141 disastrous weather events, including floods, storms, cyclones, heat waves and many others. Two major catastrophic events were the 2005 earthquake and the 2010 super floods which displaced hundreds of families and damaged properties worth billions. Climate change has not been seen a sectoral issue but a multi-dimensional problem. Pakistan is suffering from numerous social, economic, political and geographical problems; those are directly impacting national security of Pakistan. Climate change is like terrorism which cannot be eradicated from its roots but can be downgraded with the passage of time.

Lt. Gen. Tariq Wasim Ghazi, a member of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change (GMACCC) said that we cannot discuss climate change without the military discussion—climate change is a flourishing threat to worldwide peace and security, particularly for Pakistan. Pakistan was at the 10th position in 2014 CRI of vulnerable states list and today lies at the 7th. Ghazi added that 70% of the world’s states, including Pakistan are facing climate change as a national security challenge, today.

Most security studies scholars have addressed the securitization of climate change which may help to amplify public apprehension but the competition between individuals, groups and states poses risks due to their collaboration and clear production avenues. In addition, climate change and global warming are mainstream issues which must be addressed in a deliberated way that comprehends security disruptions.

In the economic sector, climate change presents critical ramifications for Pakistan because of water shortages and less generation of agriculture. Pakistan’s greater part of the populace relies on agriculture; any volumetric harm to this area would be an expostulation for Pakistan’s economy and trade parity would be retrograded. Categorically, the economy is one of the significant pillars for any country’s advancement and stability, yet climate change is in a negative relationship with the economy. In the 2010 super floods, more than 20 million individuals were displaced, and economic losses were worth $10 billion.

Mass migration has been one of the incremental consequences of climate change. It has raised issues like water scarcity, flood, drought or cyclones; migration within the country engenders political brawls and resentment among people. Baluchistan could be seen as an example, where Baloch nationalists feel threatened by the presence of non-local people such as Afghanis and Punjabis.

The Eighteenth Amendment has lessened the element of disagreement among provincial governments, but climatic changes have exaggerated issues among provinces. In particular, water distribution has been a major challenge.

In 2012, the first ever National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) was introduced by the Environmental Ministry of Pakistan and commenced in February 2013 with contributions from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It gave one hundred and twenty recommendations, including improvement in three major sectors: energy, agriculture and transport. Particularly, national policy of environment is aimed at the protection and preservation of the environment and enhancing citizens’ life quality.

As mentioned, climate change is an abrasive threat for Pakistan’s national security. It is worth noting that Islamabad is the 5th country in the world to have adopted legislation for climatic issues, in addition to devising forest and wildlife policies. The Ministry has been arranging seminars and conferences on ‘climate change issue and future threatening prospects’ in the metropolitan cities of Pakistan, as well as attending similar ones at the international level.

Imran Khan’s government has taken the positive step of planting one hundred million trees to make Green Pakistan in his tenure. In 2016, the climate change ministry of Pakistan had taken the support of $37 million from the Global Climate Funding to prevent glacier lakes from bursting in Gilgit Baltistan (GB). Numerous schemes are approved, worth 3144 million rupees, and include the Establishment of Geometric Centre for Climate Change, various Green Pakistan Programmes, Sustainable Land Management Programmes to Combat Desertification, Establishment of WASH Strategic Planning and Coordination Cell and Climate Resilient Urban Human Settlements Unit.

In order to cope with the aforementioned issues, Pakistani policymakers should consider these ways forward:

  • Gather update data and information
  • Enhance systems of early warning and data-based information to improve initial readiness
  • Ensure productive utilization of energy in the day by day life of people and in organizations
  • Make infrastructural changes in industries and household influences to facilitate emissions reduction.
  • Ensure good governance, concise formulation, implementation and credible evaluation for better policy and sharp risk integration management
  • Modernization in the farming area to expand the creation of new seeds and a clear irrigation system
  • Revisions in biodiversity conservation and woodland conductance management
  • Investment of neighborhood networks and common social orders through consolation in the alleviation gauge and hazard decrease of climate change
  • Use the media to raise awareness about climatic changes

Pakistan is confronting huge challenges because of climate change. These are affecting Pakistan’s national security at the momentous levels. Wherein, climate change and global warming are the mainstream issues, the must be addressed in the deliberated way which comprehends the security disruptions.

India-Pakistan Crises and Nuclear Escalation Dynamics

The February 2019 military crisis has once again exposed the fragility of the India-Pakistan deterrence relationship that continues to remain under stress for various internal and external factors. The long history of wars and the propensity of both countries to indulge in military crisis in a nuclearized environment with increasing frequency poses a major challenge to strategic stability in South Asia.

Contextualizing Deterrence Stability.           Deterrence is a coercive strategy used to persuade the adversary that it must not act in a way that could be considered detrimental to own security interests. Deterrence, as a concept predates the advent of nuclear weapons, but in the nuclear age, it is mostly associated with the use, or the threat of use of nuclear weapons, to achieve the desired political objectives.

Nuclear weapons are considered to be ‘political’ weapons and must never be used, unless the very existence of the state is at risk. Nuclear deterrence nevertheless faces inherent dilemma – nuclear weapons deter by the very fact that they remain useable, and if a nuclear possessor state continues to insist that it will never use these weapons, it will no longer be able to perform their primary function of deterring the adversary.

Nuclear deterrence can be divided into two main categories: deterrence by punishment and deterrence by denial. Former promises punitive retaliation to discourage and prevent the adversary from pursuing an undesired path, while the latter aims to complicate the cost-benefit calculus of the adversary and reducing the incentive for pursuing an undesired path that is viewed detrimental to own security interests. There is yet another form of deterrence known as the ‘compellence’ strategy, which aims to coerce the adversary to adopt a certain course of action under the fear of nuclear retribution.

Due to the complexities involved in deterrence by the punishment model, most nuclear states prefer to opt for deterrence by the denial model by building their conventional capabilities and raising the nuclear threshold. Conventional deterrence, nevertheless, has its own inherent limitations and could be challenged by the adversary. This does not necessarily mean that the contestable nature of conventional deterrence makes it less credible, or the incontestable nature of nuclear threat would always be more credible.

Nuclear Deterrence and India-Pakistan Nuclear Crises.      Pakistan and India have fought three wars since their independence (1948, 1965 and 1971). After the nuclearization of the region, there has been no major war between the two countries, however, both countries have engaged in a series of military crises, which included 1986-87 (Exercise Brasstacks); 1999 (Kargil Conflict); 2001-02 military stand-off (Twin Peak crisis); 2008 (Mumbai Crisis); and the most recent one of February 2019 (Balakot Strikes).

The increasing frequency of crises has been attributed to a phenomenon known as ‘stability-instability paradox’ – if there is stability at the strategic level, adversaries would have greater incentive to engage at a lower spectrum of conflict with each other. There is however no conclusive evidence to corroborate whether the past crises were a result of stability-instability paradox or an outcome of different perceptions of each other’s capabilities and intent.

Despite experiencing several military crises both countries were deterred from engaging in a major military conflict mainly due to the presence of nuclear weapons. During the two major crises of 1986-87 and 2001-02 where India had threatened to launch a major military offensive, Pakistan resorted to ‘deterrence by punishment’ model; whereas in the rest of crises (1999, 2008, 2019), ‘deterrence by the denial’ model seems to have prevented both sides from climbing up the escalation ladder.

During the recent military crisis, the Indian leadership did threaten the use of nuclear weapons, but these statements were seen mainly intended to appease the domestic audience and to build BJP’s nationalist credentials. Such rhetoric could however influence Pakistan’s strategic thinking and could be destabilizing for the region.

Challenged Assumptions.      The Balakot crisis has also challenged some of the prevailing assumptions about the nuclear South Asia. It was generally assumed that after the introduction of the Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD) posture by Pakistan, there is no space for ‘any’ military conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. On the contrary, India not only claimed to have launched a land-based surgical strike in 2016, but also carried out an aerial surgical strike in February 2019. Pakistan did not respond to the 2016 surgical strike and negated India’s claim, but opted to provide a matching response after the 2019 aerial surgical strike, which led to the shooting down of two of the Indian Air Force aircraft. This aerial battle may help strengthen the prevalent Indian perception that space for a limited conventional military conflict does exist between the two nuclear armed adversaries.

Another commonly held assumption was that in response to India’s military aggression, including a limited conventional strike, Pakistan would be forced to use its nuclear weapons. Instead, Pakistan not only opted to respond proportionally with a counter surgical strike, but also demonstrated visible restraint in its nuclear signalling. This not only helped re-establish the credibility of conventional deterrence between the two countries with asymmetric conventional potential but may have helped reinforce Pakistan’s FSD posture.

There was also a belief that in case of a military conflict between the two countries, India would be willing to escalate conventionally and launch its much-trumpeted Cold Start Doctrine (CSD), while avoiding Pakistan’s perceived nuclear redlines. But after suffering military humiliation during the 2019 Balakot crisis, India seemed to have deterred from further escalation and did not attempt to widen the conflict across the international border.

Lessons for the Future.    Some of the lessons from the Balakot crisis that may be useful to predict the trajectory of future crisis: One, existence of nuclear weapons would continue to remain a major determinant in deterring a major war between the two nuclear possessor states, but the perceived instability at the lower spectrum of conflict could lead to uncontrolled escalation and miscalculation in an emotionally charged political environment. Two, non-state actors have the potential to precipitate a military crisis, especially if the political environment in the Indian Occupied Kashmir continue to remain unstable for longer periods. Three, the growing influence of extremist Hindu ideology in India’s decision-making process could lead to miscalculation and unintended escalation that may be difficult to manage.

Conclusion.     India and Pakistan have managed to avoid a major war since the nuclearization of the region, mainly due to the presence of nuclear weapons and the role played by the international community during the past crises. Growing distrust between the two countries; India’s drift towards extremism; and the reluctance by the major powers to intervene in a future India-Pakistan crisis have heightened the risks of uncontrolled escalation between the two regional adversaries. It is therefore important for the leadership on both the sides to help reverse the current negative trajectory that could unnecessarily end up into a serious military crisis with consequences for regional as well as global security.

Opening of Kartarpur Corridor: A Gesture of Peace

The Kartarpur corridor was opened for Sikh pilgrims living in India and across the globe on 9th November 2019, the eve of the 550th birth anniversary of Baba Guru Nanak. It is a historic development for regional peace and intercultural exchange in South Asia. More than 5,000 Indian pilgrims will arrive in Pakistan through the visa-free Kartarpur corridor to visit Gurdwara Kartarpur Sahib, which is four kilometres from the Pakistan-India international border in the Central Punjab region of Pakistan. Gurdwara Kartarpur Sahib is a religiously sacred place of the Sikh community but was closed since 1947.

The Indian Sikh community and the Sikh diaspora living across the world had repeatedly requested Pakistan for opening this religious site for them to come and worship. This peace corridor was announced by Pakistan’s Prime minister and the COAS during last year’s oath taking ceremony of the PM as a gesture of peace toward India. The Indian civil society and the Sikh community have positively reciprocated it but Indian state authorities, especially premier Modi and the military establishment, have tried to scuttle it from its onset due to their Hindutva conformist ideology.

The Indian Sikh community’s response has been overwhelming. They have raised banners in the Indian city of Amritsar, and across Punjab and Haryana, with PM Imran Khan’s picture and with notes of thanks for opening this corridor and religious place. Pakistan has issued special tickets for this occasion.

The corridor is an important initiative, but a real challenge for Pakistan is to build on it as a soft power tool keeping in focus the sensitivities of the Sikh religion. Kartarpur is a diplomatic master stoke of Pakistan which has improved its international image as a peace-loving nation.

The 140 million strong Sikh community has reciprocated this peace gesture of Pakistan, which is a great source to further build on Pakistan’s image in India and across the globe. 86% of this Sikh community lives in India. This situation has compelled India PM Modi to thank Pakistan and PM IK for this peace overture. A challenge for Pakistan and India is to sustain this intercultural exchange.

However, the Indian national print and electronic media is propagating an extremist narrative on this development, following guidelines of Hindutva by giving negative media coverage to the opening of Kartarpur as a security risk, and projecting it as a stage managed propaganda tool of Pakistan to support Sikh centric Khalistan separatist movement. PM Imran Khan has offered peace to India through dialogue in order to settle issues through negotiations, including on Kashmir, but the Indian approach is topsy-turvy. PM IK has rightly highlighted the Kashmir issue during address at the opening of Kartarpur corridor.

It is an exaggerated narrative that the Sikh separatist Khalistan movement will get strength through opening of the Kartarpur corridor. The Khalistan movement as an ideology and social movement survives outside India, but as a political movement it has weakened inside India due to the repressive actions of India during 1980’s and 1990’s in Indian Punjab and Haryana which were once its strong support bases.

But Pakistan and India need to negotiate on hard issues in order to sustain the impact of such soft exchanges. Modi’s domestic political compulsion of getting support from the extremist Hindu vote bank in the elections do not allow him to normalize relations with Pakistan. Therefore, he will maintain tensions with Pakistan by creating false claims and stage-managed political dramas like surgical strikes and the February 2019 limited aerial combat against Pakistan.

The Indian SC decision in the Babri mosque case has vindicated the two-nation theory. India has legally settled the case, but it will flare communal violence and riots because it is not religiously and politically resolved. Those Indians who claimed a Mandar at the Babri mosque site have also claimed Mandars on the sites of many other mosques in different cities of India. The Indian SC decision as a precedent will guide verdicts of other decisions of similar cases, which will eacerbate the law and order situation in India and discredit the justice system. The timing of the SC decision in the Babri mosque case is significant. This is the decision like an Afzal Guru decision given by SC based on sentiments and conviction of a particular belief system instead of facts.

The improvement of bilateral ties depends on Indian behaviour in IOJK. The Indian role there is shameful as gruesome violations of human rights continue since the imposition of a curfew in the region after 5th August 2019. Pakistan has expressed pluralism for all other minorities while India has locked Jamia Masjid in Srinagar and does not allow Muslims to offer Friday prayers; this is a blatant violation of the right to worship which is a basic human right. The Indian SC announced the Ayodhya verdict on the historic day of the opening of Kartarpur corridor to divert attention from this event of religious tolerance and intercultural exchange. This is a manifestation of domination of majoritarianism in India under the currents of Hindutva ideology.

The Indian SC decision will lead to internal escalation. All minorities felt unprotected but there was hope in the form of Indian secular constitution and secular political party Congress which guaranteed to protect their rights; but now a state of despair is visible for minorities in India. The Indian Army works in liaison with the political agenda of BJP government, including its narrative on Kashmir and the treatment of minorities.  In such a scenario, the SC’s decision has further disappointed them. The Indian SC and judiciary, which was last hope for minorities of India, has joined Modi to give message to Muslims, Sikhs and other minorities. Such actions in India vindicate the two-nation theory and the Muslim leadership’s urge to create Pakistan.

To the Moon and Beyond

Space has traditionally been the domain of great powers, as the costs attached to space technology preclude smaller states from pursuits in this domain that are independent of major states. However, this is changing rapidly now due to dependence on outer space and technological know-how.  A transformed global focus on space has led to the development of new technologies and a major shift in the way states think about their space programs.

The Apollo 11 moon landing was a catalyst for the progress made since 1969. Almost fifty years ago, the world was amazed at the idea of human footprints on the moon. It was more than a moment of national pride for the U.S. than technological advancement. However, today we are in an era where the world is moving beyond the “flags and footprints” and looking for lunar resources. An important point which needs serious attention at the global level is of spacefaring nations developing the skill to exploit space resources: are we prepared with the right legal framework for ownership issues?

In the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, as well as other parties agreed that the moon is to be considered a “global commons”. The treaty also states that “Earth nations can use the moon and other celestial bodies only for peaceful purposes, forbidding the creation of military bases on those entities and the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.” It was accepted by all and did not receive any further resistance or challenge, thus leaving many issues unaddressed. The aforementioned treaty failed to address the commercial exploitation of natural resources on the moon and other celestial bodies. Since 1972 no human being has returned to the moon, but for some years now, debate and efforts have been made by various nations to go back to the moon for exploration of resources. Issues of governance in outer space, however, still remain ambiguous. This is a major debate currently going on in the international community, with no explicitly accepted solution in sight. The rapid advancement towards moon exploration is demanding pre-emptive measures with regards to outer space law.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump promised to lay prime emphasis on human space exploration beyond the Low Earth Orbit (LEO). It was aimed at focusing on human exploration of the entire solar system within a century. Vice President Mike Pence, shocked the space community by setting the goal of establishing a permanent human presence on the moon by 2024. Moving further, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced on 25th October 2019 that the agency would send a robotic rover to the moon in 2022 to look for water ice. The Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) would fly to the moon on a commercial lander through the agency’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. The $250 million VIPER mission would launch in late 2022 and operate at the south pole of the moon for 100 days.

Following this example, China’s Chang’e 4 demonstrated the first ever human landing on the far side of the Moon this January. Its rover Yutu 2 has survived eight lunar nights and is conducting experiments on a side of the Moon not well known. During lunar day eight, which started on July 25, Yutu 2 discovered an unusual gel-like substance near small impact lunar craters. The Beijing Aerospace Control Center has conducted a closer inspection with Yutu 2’s Visible and Near-Infrared Spectrometer (VNIS) since then, but has not announced any findings so far. Yutu 2 is also carrying a radar that is penetrating the lunar surface to assess the resources there. Chang’e 4 has a radio-telescope as well, placed on the quietest region of the Moon, listening to noises of the universe lost on the lunar near side due to earth-originated noises.

Furthermore, according to Wu Weiren, chief designer of China’s lunar exploration program, “China plans to launch the Chang’e-5 probe in 2020 to bring moon samples back to Earth. The Long March-5 carrier rocket, China’s largest launch vehicle to date, will be used to send the probe into space. The Chang’e-5 probe includes a lander, an orbiter, an ascender and a returner.” The main objective of the mission will be lunar sample collection, take-off from the moon, rendezvous and stopping in the lunar orbit and high-speed re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere. The first two phases have been accomplished, and the next step is to launch the Chang’e-5 probe to collect 2 kg of moon samples and bring them back to the earth. In the fourth phase of the program, China will conduct scientific detection in the South Polar Region of the moon mainly by using high intelligence robots, and understand long-term exploration in the complicated lunar environment.

The spill-over effect has continued. On 7th September 2019, India’s Chandrayaan 2 Lunar mission’s robotic lander Vikram came close to landing near the South Pole of the moon. However, in the final part, when the lander was meant to hover before landing on the lunar surface, all communications were lost between the lander and the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). India is still working on it. Along with that, India and another space faring Asian nation, Japan, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on space cooperation. As part of that cooperation, Japan will be a partner in India’s Chandrayaan 3 lunar mission for purposes of resource prospecting and lunar sample return by 2022-2024, a timeline similar to that of China and Russia.

Likewise, earlier this year, a private Israeli space company, SpaceIL, attempted to soft land its lander Beresheet on the moon, but failed in the last few minutes with a crash landing on the lunar surface.  Russia’s Luna-28 mission to deliver samples of the moon soil to the Earth is tentatively scheduled for launch in 2026-2027. Luna-28 will bring lunar soil. Similarly, the UK’s first ever moon rover will head to the lunar surface in 2021.

A lot is going on in outer space. However, questions persist: Who will define the rules and regulations? Who will keep a check on all? What will be the consequences of any accident or violation? How to deal with the issue of space debris? Such questions are spurring debate on the international level about whether it is time to enact new treaties or international regulatory regimes for space activity.

Those who argue for new treaties or an international regulatory regime say existing frameworks are not strong enough to prevent inappropriate behaviour and dangerous exploitation of space by private firms or even national governments. But a large group of space officials, lawyers and analysts oppose renewing the OST or trying to come up with new alternatives. They say the 1967 treaty and three subsequent international compacts provide a solid frame for commercial and non-commercial activity beyond Earth. Moreover, trying to amend the 1967 treaty is less likely to be successful during the presidency of Trump, who disregards existing international agreements.

Coming to the moon treaty, it holds that “the moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of humanity.” It forbids the use of these resources except through an international regulatory body, and it suggests that developing nations should be given a share of the resources found. Several countries without space programs signed up to it because they worried that in the long run, they will be exploited by more powerful nations with access to space resources. But the three largest space powers, the U.S., China and Russia, have refused to sign the Moon Treaty, viewing it as far too restrictive. Another important aspect is Article 11, para-7(d) which states the need for “an equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived from those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the moon, shall be given special consideration.”

To conclude, there is a lack of space governance at the international level. Treaties and arrangements to use space only for peaceful purposes are not as effective as they should be. Lack of governance is leading to an alarming situation, and efforts to address it should be made before it is too late.

India Attempting to Appease China on Kashmir

The recent meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to as the 2nd India-China Informal Summit was held in Chennai between 11-12th October 2019. This summit has considerable significance in view of the evolving landscape of the South Asian region, especially since India’s unilateral revocation of the special constitutional status of the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) region. China has openly supported Pakistan’s stance at various multilateral forums such as the UNSC and has criticized the annexation of the region by the Modi led BJP government. On the other hand, greater cooperation with India, specifically in terms of trade, forms a cornerstone of China’s stated policy of maintaining friendly ties with all its neighbours in favour of promoting regional stability.  Based on these dynamics, analysts around the world remain highly curious about the politico-diplomatic outcomes of the summit, especially considering the informal and closed-door manner in which it was conducted, lacking even a joint statement.

The summit has nevertheless created considerable hype in local and international media. India claims it as a diplomatic success against the backdrop of ongoing politico-military tensions between India and Pakistan. It was widely perceived that Premier Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi would likely discuss some specific economic and political issues. These included enhancing bilateral trade with prospects of breaking a deadlock over a proposed free trade agreement and better linkages through the provision of the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) economic corridor.

At the politico-security front, there was also widespread speculation that the summit would afford the opportunity to discuss efforts to resolve borders disputes and strengthen defence cooperation to avoid border skirmishes in the future like the 2017 Doklam standoff. Moreover, according to various analysts, the Kashmir issue and India’s recent move to change the administration of the disputed region whose Aksai Chin area is also claimed by China was speculated to be a crucial agenda item for the summit. As such, it was perceived that India would be keen to resolve its outstanding dispute with China as it would not only lessen the disputed nature of the J&K region as a whole but would also further isolate and weaken Pakistan’s stance over the disputed territory. Especially since many analysts have opined that the bifurcation of Ladakh was to allow India to settle its disputed borders with Pakistan and China separately, such a move would help India eliminate the prospects of a potential ‘two-front’ war that may be centred more on its disputed North-Western borders.

It is worth noting here that China’s territorial dispute with India goes back to 1962 in which India was reportedly humiliated by China in the first-ever and only major confrontation between the two. Moreover, China has facilitated Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir issue at the United Security Council against the backdrop of India’s recent move to abrogate Kashmir’s autonomy. Subsequently, at the UNGA session this year, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated the Chinese position on Kashmir and called for a peaceful resolution of the dispute based on the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions. As per the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, and its aim of dividing the Kashmir region into two ‘Union Territories’ i.e. Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, China still officially considers such a step as undermining its territorial sovereignty and being in violation of its own bilateral agreements with India on maintaining peace and stability in the border areas.

Another significant point to be considered in this regard is that the Xi Jinping- Modi summit was held right after Prime Minister Imran Khan’s two-day official visit to China in which President Xi Jinping reassured Chinese support to Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir. This was also emphasized in the joint press release issued after which made a direct reference to their position that the Kashmir issue was to be solved under the UN Charter, relevant UN Security Council resolutions and bilateral agreements.

As evident by its rapid and incredible industrialization, China has emerged as the global driver for global economic and strategic realignment over the past decade. President Xi Jinping’s government is working efficiently to expand its global footprint based on strong political and economic grounds. In this regard, China has undertaken the visionary Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) under which China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is one of its ongoing flagship projects with an estimated worth of US Dollars 62 Billion. Both China and Pakistan are cooperating with each other to materialize this project and it seems that the CPEC would likely be completed in the proposed time frame. The project once fully functional would obviously provide a boost to Pakistan’s economy and ultimately become a game-changer for the country.

Hence at the present, Pakistan fully acknowledges China’s vision of economic integration with the rest of the world including India. In the same vein, China has emerged as the only all-out support for Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir against the backdrop of India’s recent constitutional revocation of its special status. Still, the fact remains that Pakistan-China bilateral relations have no doubt proved to be a unique and all-weather strategic partnership that is unlikely to falter amidst any of the changing international and regional politico-economic dynamics. In the current landscape of South Asia, China, based on its strong political and economic standing can further influence India to resolve the long-standing Kashmir issue with Pakistan. By doing so, China would likely facilitate the prospects of long-desired peace and stability in the region which it has consistently espoused as being one of its primary goals as a major regional power.