Connect with us

Defense

The Security Complex of the Persian Gulf

Published

on

Authors: Mohammad Ghaderi & Javad Heiran-Nia

In accord with Barry Buzan’s understanding of Regional Security Complex, the Persian Gulf region is itself a security complex made up of friendship and enmity between nation states, communities, and individuals. The friendships and enmity range from deeply historical to current economic, social, cultural, religious, and even personal matters. The role of Iran among Arabs, for example, exhibits such complexity, and is not analyzable simply in terms of the distribution of power. Iran-Arab relations includes border disputes, attachments of persons with a same or similar tribal identity or ideological attitudes, positive or negative communications between Arab and non-Arab or Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

In fact, there is a kind of mutual dependency in the security complex of the Persian Gulf like other regions. But security competition is negative in the Iran – Iraq and Saudi Arabia triangle. In such a complex, the small states like Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Bahrain have very limited influence on the structure of this complex. Their security almost depends on the bigger regional power’s pattern and could be defined as a threat against a great power under conditions when alliances are formed with the greater powers.

The security pattern of the Persian Gulf has been worsened in its present condition because of presence of the foreign powers. The security pattern of any region is affected by the security pattern of powers. Competition between the great powers tends to increase the existing regional competitions in the security pattern of the Persian Gulf.

Some experts of the Persian Gulf affairs including Kenneth Polak believe that Arab states of the Persian Gulf have passed significant steps in order to develop some of their capabilities during the last decade. For example, they have extended their relations with the USA and the other western militaristic powers to create their armies.

But the existence of a sum – zero game and the adoption of political realism approach has created the mind set that empowerment of any one these states will create potential threat against others in this security complex. This issue has created some kind of security dilemma in the region.

Even we can say that the dominant realist logic among Persian Gulf states is a kind of offensive realism in which the states are following their purpose of achieving to maximum power to fulfil their maximum security. It means, even defensive realist logic in which states don’t adopt offensive approach and react in condition of feeling threat, this reaction also usually is in the level of balance and preventing the source of threat and is not dominant on the behavior of the Persian Gulf states.

Now, the level of security has been decreased because of the increase in militaristic power the Persian Gulf States. In such condition, there is the probability of war between Iran with Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia against UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt. So, how could we design a kind of security framework which could prevent war in short term and will lead to establish regional coordination in the region for long term? In fact, dialogue between the states of the region and passing into some level that fulfils the security of the region by the Persian Gulf states and non-intervention. Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs declared Iran’s will to end the current crisis and challenges of the region on June 13 during his news conference in Oslo. He emphasized on significance of having dialogue and finding needed solutions to resolve the current regional challenges and issues. Zarif emphasized on having a comprehensive sustainable mechanism for consultation, negotiation and resolving challenges as the maximum significant issue in the region and declared this fact that idea of just negotiating on the current issue between the neighbors is not enough. The Iranian FM pointed to Helsinki Agreement (1975) as an instance for such sustainable agreement. According to Zarif, Helsinki Agreement was succeed to decrease amount of existing challenges and disagreement between the sides on the era of cold war.

In fact, he talked about a security framework that could be able to ensure the regional security for long-term. But how could such mechanism be created? To answers this question, it is necessary to take a look at the existing security mechanisms in the region. Many of these mechanisms like GCC which was created following Iran – Iraq war on 1981 were not successful in long term. Because it could not perform a militaristic alliance by ink of a common defensive treaty between the members. We can point to the current challenges between Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar and the disability of GCC and its manifest to resolve the happened challenges between the members.

ASEAN is another pattern for coordination between the Persian Gulf states. But we have to consider this fact that the mentioned treaty has not been successful in achievement of development in security issues. One of the reasons on this issues backs to existing demographic heterogeneity among the members of this union. In the other hand, this organization has focused on economic issue since 1976 and Bali conference.

OSCE is another recommended pattern to use in Persian Gulf region. We have to mind that the focus of this pattern also is on state security and the external threat against it.

In the other hand this model is inattentive to internal changes and human security or political changes while according to the Arab Sprit issues and consequences, the Arab states just could talk about a comprehensive security framework if they focus on the issue of Human Security.

One of the other patterns for security framework of the Persian Gulf is CESE. This model is a useful and suitable one for security coordination between the Persian Gulf states.

In fact, the Helsinki Treaty (1975) led to establish of CESE and then, OSCE in its next stage. Helsinki Treaty was the beginner for a process of gathering NATO and Warsaw member states beside of non-aligned European states in one place in order to talk about their worries without any precondition.

OSCE which was created on the base of respect to sovereignty, non-use of force, respect to the political borders and territorial integrity, peaceful resolving challenges and non-intervention in each other internal affairs prepared this ability for the member states to seat around a table and talk about their security concerns to each other.

We have to mention that the idea of hegemonic security by a power (domestic or foreign) under the goal of having control and ordering a region has been proposed since the era of colonialism in the region and also the modern idea of collective security between the independent states of the region is a new subject which has been appeared in the political literature of the region.

The Persian Gulf region needs architecture of a comprehensive and extensive order by non-participation of the infra-regional powers in such order. Also the security structure of such security order has to be based on the cooperation of all member states of the region.

That’s why decision making in mega scale in security coordination has to be attended. If we supposed to take the pattern of CSCE, it is necessary to hold some meetings with security agenda and all sides can declare their security, threat concerns and recommend their solutions to decrease such threats. All the sides could create special committees to negotiate with each other on the probable solutions. Finally, some actions have to be performed by one side or all, to build confidence symmetric or non-symmetric. The member states could use these committees to resolve their differences and decrease of challenges or crisis. In the final stage, when they could achieve mutual confidences between the members, then could ink memorandums relating arm control. This helps security and settlement in the region fundamentally.

The consequence of this action could ends to creation of a temporary or permanent organization which puts clear or by case agendas in their program.

In this framework, members have to achieve this concept that no issue or problem is resolvable by war, and nobody is allowed to interfere in the other one’s domestic affairs. The mentioned security framework has to be based on Barry Buzan’s “security complex” model and its concerns has to be focused on the security issues of the Persian Gulf and the members are not allowed to use this mechanism for the non-related security issues to the Persian Gulf.

The mentioned framework has to be inclusive consisting Iran, Iraq and the GCC member states. It is clear that any other framework which separate one or some of these states has not been successful. The experience of Damascus Declaration (6+2 Treaty) and GCC have demonstrated this fact that achievement of a comprehensive security framework in the Persian Gulf is just possible if all the member states in this region accept it. It is very idealistic view that we ask all US regional allies in the region to stop their security and militaristic relations with Washington. This issue will be right just building confidence is enough and there has to be no regional threat.

Having a similar pattern like CSCE in the Persian Gulf is not a threat but such designation will be a great way for having a safe Persian gulf if all the sides accept it.

This order has to call war illegitimate – like Karl Deutsch’s “Pluralistic Security Community” theory which contains various state with ruling governments but no one use war in its relations and there is no place even for probable war in their relations.

There is some hope that dialogue between the states in the region will develop to a level that fulfils the security of the region by the Persian Gulf states and secures the non-intervention of foreign powers. In his news conference on June 13 in Oslo, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs declared Iran’s will to end the current crisis and challenge the region. He emphasized  the significance of having dialogue and finding needed solutions to resolve the current regional challenges and issues. Zarif emphasized that having a comprehensive sustainable mechanism for consultation, negotiation and resolving challenges as the maximum significant issue in the region and declared this fact that idea of just negotiating on the current issue between the neighbors is not enough. The Iranian FM pointed to the Helsinki Agreement (1975) as an instance for such sustainable agreement. According to Zarif, the Helsinki Agreement has succeeded to decrease amount of existing challenges and disagreement between the sides on the era of cold war.

* Mohammad Ghaderi, Editor-in-Chief of Tehran Times newspaper

Ph.D Student of International relations in Islamic Azad niversity،Science and Research Branch (Iran) Visiting Fellow of the Persian Gulf Department in the Center for Middle East Studies

Defense

India – The US Promote National Defense – Security Cooperation

Published

on

US and Indian foreign ministers and defense ministers at a press conference after 2+2 Dialogue on 27/10 (Source: IANS)

In recent years, the India-US bilateral relationship has been more closely bonded, especially defense-security cooperation in various fields including nuclear technology, maritime defense and security, anti-terrorism in the region and in the world … has been continuously promoted, contributing to the development of an intensive bilateral relationship. This results from the demand for security strategy, economic, security and political interests of the two parties. The United States wants India to become its ally in the Indo-Pacific region, counterbalancing China’s growing influence, ensuring U.S. maritime security interests and a huge commercial arm market for the US. To India: a good relationship with the US will help India highten its position in the region; India also wants to rely on US power to increase its military strength, to watch out China and create pressure on Pakistan. In addition, India’s comprehensive diplomacy and the US’s regional strategy carried out simultaneously without overlapping, is conducive to strengthening the bilateral security cooperation for both countries.

It is evitable that in recent years, defense-security cooperation between India and the US has made remarkable progresses. After removing the Sanctions on India for nuclear testing in May 2018, the US and India announced the Joint Declaration on Civil Energy Cooperation between the two countries. Accordingly, the US will provide nuclear fuel and technology support for India to develop civil nuclear energy. This has opened the door for India to develop their nuclear weapons and improve military strength. The two countries also cooperate in many defense activities including ballistic missile defense, joint military training, expanding arms sales, strengthening military staff exchanges and intelligence, as well as loosening two-way technology exports.

To be specific: In January 1995, the two countries signed the “US-India Defense Relations Agreement”, stipulating that in addition to conducting cooperation on research and production of military weapons, the two countries also conduct exchanges between military and non-military personnel. In May 2001, the Indian government announced its support for the US to develop a ballistic missile defense system, and proposed to purchase the “Patriot 1 (PAC-3)” air defense missile system. In March 2005, during the Conference on Cooperation in Ballistic Missile Defense, the US, India and Japan agreed to set up a joint working group, to implement close cooperation on ballistic missile defense. In June 2005, the United States and India signed a 10-year military cooperation agreement, which not only required increased exchanges between the two countries’ armies, but also proposed to strengthen military cooperation regarding weapons production, and trading as well as ballistic missile defense. In July 2009, the two countries signed a “Comprehensive customer surveillance treaty” on defense, the US sold advanced defense technology to India. This treaty allowed India to obtain a “permission card” to buy the US’s advanced weaponry. In addition, the two countries also cooperate in counter-terrorism in the region and around the world, maritime security, and joint military exercises …

One of the activities promoting bilateral relations between India and the US was the “2 + 2 Dialogue” taking place on October 27, 2020 in New Delhi. Within the framework of this dialogue, India and the United States had shared exchanges of a free and open Indo-Pacific vision, embracing peace and prosperity, a rules-based order with  the central role of ASEAN, resolving disputes, ensuring the economic and security interests of all related parties with legitimate interests in this region … The focus on defense-security cooperation in this “2+2 Dialogue” is the signing of the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA). The agreement allowed India to access accurate data, topographic images, maps, maritime and aviation data and satellite data on a real-time basis from US military satellites. Thereby, this will assist the provision of better accuracy for such weapons as cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones of India, and support the rescue operations during natural disasters and security strategy. The BECA is one of the four basic agreements a country needs to sign to become a major defense partner of the US. The other three agreements that India had previously signed with the United States are the General Security Of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA),  the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) and theCommunications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) . These are “cornerstone” agreements allowing the armies of the two countries to fight together in the event of a conflict. Accelerating the signing of the BECA was just one of various ways India reacted to China threats, especially after the border clashes in Doklam (2017) and Ladakh (5/2020-now). India, the US, Japan and Australia were more active in the Quartet Meeting on October 6 in Tokyo. India also invited Australia to join the Malabar naval exercises with the US and Japan in November.

The signing of BECA was a further institutionalization of the Indo-US strategic relationship to promote the two countries’ intensive cooperate on strategy and military, without pressure to become an official ally yet have benefits. Washington received interests in selling weapons to New Delhi, especially when conflict starts. New Delhi has attached more importance to US military equipment because of its transparent pricing, simple operation and maintenance, thereby reducing reliance on Russia for weapons. Currently, the total value of Indian weapons purchased from the US is more than 15 billion USD and is expected to double in the coming time. The US-India military cooperation, therefore, will be closer in the future.

Also at this dialogue, the two countries agreed to cooperate in dealing with the Covid pandemic, considering this a priority for bilateral cooperation in this period. Accordingly, the US and India will cooperate in RDto produce a series of vaccines, to expand access to vaccines, and ensure high-quality, safe, effective and affordable medical treatment between the two countries and on a global scale.

Currently, India-US defense-security cooperation is at its heyday in the history and is likely to develop further. This relationship has profound effects on the regional security environment, especially direct effects on China. As military forces grow, India will probably implement their military strategy “taking the Indian Ocean in the South, expanding power to the East Sea in the East, attacking Pakistan in the West, watching out for China in the North”, plus nuclear deterrence. This will worsen the fierce arms race in such regions as the South Asia and the Indian Ocean, leading to an imbalance of forces and add up a number of unstability factors in these regions.

In short, India-US defense-security cooperation is making remarkable progresses and has created impact on regional security, especially China and other countries with common interests in this region, including Vietnam. Therefore, the China-American-Indian triangle relationship is currently in an unstable state. In this scenario, it is suggested that countries actively identify issues relating to the this three military powers relationship and devise appropriate diplomatic strategies, balancing bilateral relations with major powers with disagreements to ensure national security and stability in the region.

Continue Reading

Defense

India-Pakistan LOC peace

Published

on

India and Pakistan have both announced to “strictly observe” the truce along the Line of Control and all other sectors “in the interest of achieving mutually beneficial and sustainable peace along the borders”. Such an announcement could not have emerged without Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s imprimatur.  A hunch is that the move is an upshot of a nudge from the US president. This impression is fortified by several events that are accentuated by India-Pakistan entente (so called surgical strikes, 5000 ceasefire violations, hype about 2008 Mumbai attack and the one at Pathankot  airbase, so on). From Pakistan’s angle, India believed in might is right. And while it was open to compromises with China, it displayed a fist to Pakistan.

Need for a dialogue

In the past, peace at the LOC proved ephemeral as it was not backed up by sufficient follow-up. A dialogue is needed for the hour. It is a good omen that Pakistan is open to talks despite chagrin at abolition of the occupied state’s statehood.

Misconception about the sanctity of the India-Pakistan LOC vis-a-vis the Sino-Indian LAC

A common misperception is that the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is more sacrosanct than the LoC. For instance, India’s prestigious Indian Express explained: ‘The LoC emerged from the 1948 ceasefire line negotiated by the UN after the Kashmir war. It was designated as the LoC in 1972, following the Simla Agreement. It is delineated on a map signed by Director General Military Operations of both armies and has the international sanctity of a legal agreement. The LAC, in contrast, is only a concept –it is not agreed upon by the two countries, neither delineated on a map nor demarcated on the ground’.

To understand Sino-Indian differences, one needs to peek into the Indian mind through books such as Shivshankar Menon’s Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy, Shyam Saran’s How India Sees the World, and A G Noorani’s India-China Boundary Problem 1846-1947.

The afore-quoted newspaper poses the question: “What was India’s response to China’s designation of the LAC?” It then explains India rejected the concept of LAC in both 1959 and 1962. Even during the war, Nehru was unequivocal: “There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw twenty kilometres from what they call ‘line of actual control…” In July 1954, Nehru had issued a directive that “all our old maps dealing with this frontier should be carefully examined and, where necessary, withdrawn. New maps should be printed showing our Northern and North Eastern frontier without any reference to any ‘line’. The new maps should also be sent to our embassies abroad and should be introduced to the public generally and be used in our schools, colleges, etc”. It is this map that was officially used that formed the basis of dealings with China, eventually leading to the 1962 War’ (Indian Express, June 6, 2020, Line of Actual Control: Where it is located and where India and China differ).

India considers the LAC to be 3,488 km long, while the Chinese consider it to be only around 2,000km.

The LAC was discussed during Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng’s 1991 visit to India, where Indian PM P. V. Narasimha Rao and Premier Li reached an understanding to maintain peace and tranquility at the LAC. India formally accepted the concept of the LAC when Rao paid a return visit to Beijing in 1993.

The reference to the LAC was unqualified to make it clear that it was not referring to the LAC of 1959 or 1962 but to the LAC at the time when the agreement was signed.

India’s disdain of the LOC

India’s mindset on the LOC should change. The problem is Nehru never cared a fig for the disputed state’s constituent assembly, Indian parliament or the UN. This truth is interspersed in Avtar Singh Bhasin’s 10-volume documentary study (2012) of India-Pakistan Relations 1947-2007. It contains 3,649 official documents which gave new perspectives to Nehru’s state of mind.

In his 2018 book (published after six years of his earlier work), India, Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds (Bloomsbury India, New Delhi, 2018), Bhasin discusses Nehru’s perfidy on Kashmir.

LoC peace should lead to Kashmir solution

The tentative solutions include (a) status quo (division of Kashmir along the present Line of Control with or without some local adjustments to facilitate the local population, (b) complete or partial independence (creation of independent Muslim-majority tehsils of Rajauri, Poonch and Uri, with Hindu-majority areas merged in India), (c) a plebiscite to be held in five to 10 years after putting Kashmir under UN trusteeship (Trieste-like solution), (d) joint control, (e) an Indus-basin-related solution, (f) an Andorra island (g) Aland island-like solution and (h) permutations and combinations of the aforementioned options.

Another option is for Pakistan and India to grant independence to disputed areas under their control and let Kashmir emerge as a neutral country. An independent Kashmir, as a neutral country, was the favourite choice of Sheikh Abdullah. From the early 1950s “Sheikh Abdullah supported ‘safeguarding of autonomy’ to the fullest possible extent” (Report of the State Autonomy Committee, Jammu, p. 41).

Abdullah irked Nehru so much that he had to put him behind the bars. Bhabani Sen Gupta and Prem Shankar Jha assert that “if New Delhi sincerely wishes to break the deadlock in Kashmir, it has no other alternative except to accept and implement what is being termed as an ‘Autonomy Plus, Independence Minus’ formula, or to grant autonomy to the state to the point where it is indistinguishable from independence”. (Shri Prakash and Ghulam Mohammad Shah (ed.), Towards understanding the Kashmir crisis, p.226).

Sans sincerity and the will to implement, the only Kashmir solution is divine intervention or the unthinkable, nuclear Armageddon.

Continue Reading

Defense

New Wars

Published

on

Twentieth century was a century of great events and developments in every part of human life. The century is marked by the deadliest wars, deadliest weapons and unprecedented interconnectedness. The destructive power of A-bombs and the interconnectedness that transformed world into a global village infused traditional wisdom of conflict resolution with great confusions. New conflicts demanded new solutions. Globalization transformed the traditional theatre of conflict; war.

 War in twenty first century has acquired a whole new character. State which was once the almighty Leviathan has lost its monopoly over violence, its erosion of monopoly over violence from globalization transformed the character of war. Wars of today are not fought between states rather there is network of state and non-state actors which includes mercenaries, private security companies, hired thugs etc. Globalization has unleashed a plethora of problems by undermining state sovereignty. Globalization which was supposed to encourage cosmopolitan politics and cooperation ended up creating more divisions.

Mary Kaldore, professor at London School of Economics, is among the scholars who have acknowledged the impact of globalization on the character of war. In her book, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, she highlights this change in character of war.  Highlighting the difference she wrote that new wars are different from old wars because of who fight these wars, for what reason these wars are fought, how these wars are financed and the way these wars are fought. Old wars were fought by states, financed by states, were waged for ideological purposes and battles were the defining character. However, in new wars; actors are networks of state and non-state actors, which are to a greater extent privately financed and direct confrontation between opposite forces is rare. Kaldor is of the view that this change in character of war is caused by globalization. Kaldor is of the view that this transformation is a consequence of globalization and disintegration of state.

 Along with globalization, clash of symmetrical opponents can destroy the world. Advent of nuclear weapons has changed the traditional military logic. In fact, any war according to old military logic is simply not beneficial anymore. War between nuclear powers will leave neither party at benefit. Since the costs of such victory cancel the benefits it holds. Avoiding direct war serves the political interest better than waging one. This change in military logic is evident from the change in tactics of wars of today. Today’s wars are fought through Guerilla and counter insurgency tactics are the tactics. Majority of the conflicts involves one state and one or more than one non-state actor. These are battles between wolves and shepherds where wolves attack the flock while shepherds try to save the sheep.

However, it is not the change in military logic and innovation of new types of weapons that have transformed the character of war. Rather transformation in politics is the defining element of this change. Politics of ‘new wars’ is Identity politics which is very different from politics of old wars.  Old wars were largely driven by ideological politics whereas new wars are driven entirely by identity politics. In words of Professor Kaldor, “identity politics is about right to power in the name of a specific group whereas ideological politics is about winning power in order to carry out a particular ideological programme”. Globalization prompted groups to securitize their identity. War for these actors is either a mean for keeping their identity or claiming in lands in the name of that identity.

 Another dimension of problems caused by globalization for the concept of war is proliferation of capitalism. The ideas of capitalism and free market motivated such actors who saw potential for profit in war. These actors established private security firms and were up for grab for the highest bidder. Companies like Titan and Blackwater are profit-maximizing companies whose only motivation is the accumulation of wealth. These institutions induced the concept of war with further complexities and legitimacy of violence further degenerated. These developments underline the need for a new conceptualization of war. To address these complexities and set the basis for future exploration, Kaldor defines war as a “mutual enterprise” rather than a “contest of wills”. The reason illustrated by Kaldor is that the latter makes the elimination of enemy the ultimate objective of war whereas former suggests that both sides are interested “in the enterprise of war rather than winning and losing for both political and economic ends”. Although it is very difficult to discern what means one employs for what ends, the protracted conflicts all around the world and the industry which these wars fuel paints a different picture a picture very close to the concept of war as mutual enterprise rather than a contest of wills.

War in nuclear age, where symmetry in capabilities will, eventually, lead to MAD, cannot have the same character it once had. Mankind frightened by the destructiveness of these weapons and compelled by their natural instinct to clash is trying to fight the new wars with new weapons according to old principles. This is commendable but not practical as this undermines the capabilities of new weapons by considering them just another weapon of war. Concepts of limited war show the appreciation of this reality. There political, technological and economical developments highlight the need for evaluation of old ideas and encourage the need for new ideas. As the aphorism goes “modern problems require modern solutions”, wars of today are modern and they require modern solutions as the traditional ones are not adequate enough.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Americas29 mins ago

Charting an American Return to Reason: Nuclear Policy Goals on North Korea

“All our dignity consists in thought….It is upon this that we must depend…Let us labor then to think well: this...

Tourism1 hour ago

Harnessing the Power of Culture and Creativity in Tourism Recovery

The shared values and close ties between tourism and culture stakeholders means both sectors can work together to ensure inclusive...

Central Asia2 hours ago

In Tajikistan, a Digital Future as an Alternative to Unemployment or Migration

The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified development challenges and sharpened the view on opportunities to overcome them. Evidently, policymakers were confronted...

South Asia4 hours ago

Cease-Fire Review: A ray of hope

Pre-Negotiations are very much crucial to achieve the state of “Negociation Continuelle” (continuous negotiations) the only way due to which...

Defense6 hours ago

India – The US Promote National Defense – Security Cooperation

In recent years, the India-US bilateral relationship has been more closely bonded, especially defense-security cooperation in various fields including nuclear...

Environment9 hours ago

After steep drop in 2020, global carbon dioxide emissions have rebounded strongly

The Covid-19 crisis in 2020 triggered the largest annual drop in global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions since the Second World...

EU Politics10 hours ago

EU and Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement enters into force

On 1 March 2021, the European Union-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) will enter into force. It has now...

Trending