Connect with us

South Asia

South Asian Geopolitics: Saudi Arabia: 1 Iran: 0?

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

It may be reading tea leaves but analysis of the walk-up to Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit and his sojourn in Islamabad suggests that Pakistan may be about to fight battles on two fronts rather than just the Indian one in the wake of this month’s attacks in Kashmir.

Prince Mohammed’s expressions of unconditional support for Pakistan coupled with his promise of US$20 billion in investments in addition to US$6 billion in desperately needed financial aid raise the spectre of a shift in Pakistani efforts in recent years to walk a fine line in the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

That fine line included a 2015 Pakistani refusal to send troops to the kingdom in support of the Saudi military intervention in Yemen.

Speaking to the Arab News this week, Major General Asif Ghafoor, head of the Pakistan army’s media wing, suggested that Pakistan’s commitment to Saudi Arabia was equally unconditional. “Pakistan is committed to standing by its Saudi brethren,” Maj. Gen. Ghafoor said.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi seemed to fine tune the officer’s statement by not mentioning Yemen in his remarks to the Saudi paper and limiting Pakistan’s commitment to the kingdom itself. “If anyone would create chaos in or attack the Kingdom, Pakistan would stand by its brethren Saudi Arabia,” Mr. Qureishi said.

The stakes for Pakistan that borders on Iran and is home to the world’s largest minority Shiite Muslim community could not be higher.

Concerned that Pakistan’s position may be shifting, Iran this week dialled up the rhetoric by warning that Pakistan would “pay a high price” for last week’s attack in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchistan that killed 27 Revolutionary Guards.

Like with India in the case of Kashmir, Iran asserted that the perpetrators, Jaish-al-Adl, were operating from Pakistani territory with at least the tacit knowledge of Pakistani authorities. In an unusual disclosure, Iran said three of the six perpetrators of last week’s attack, including the suicide bomber, were Pakistani nationals.

In the past, Iran has by and large said that militants who had launched attacks were Iranian nationals rather than Pakistanis.

The tone of Revolutionary Guards chief Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari’s statement holding Pakistan, alongside the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel, responsible for the recent attack reflected Iranian concern with what may flow from Prince Mohammed’s visit.

Why do Pakistan’s army and security body … give refuge to these anti-revolutionary groups? Pakistan will no doubt pay a high price. Just in the past year, six or seven suicide attacks were neutralized but they were able to carry out this one,”,” Maj. Gen. Jafari said in remarks live on state television.

Initially, Iran had limited itself to blaming external powers rather than Pakistan for the attack.

Indications suggesting that Prince Mohammed’s visit to Pakistan may have been about more than economic cooperation were severalfold and involved gestures that despite Pakistani denials would not have come without a price tag.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan expressed in a little noticed declaration in their joint statement at the end of the crown prince’s visit “the need to avoid politicization of the United Nations listing system.”

The statement  was implicitly referring to Indian efforts to get the UN Security Council to designate Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. Mr. Azhar is the head of Jaish-e-Mohammed, the group that has claimed responsibility for the Kashmir attack.

China, which at Pakistan’s behest has blocked Mr. Azhar’s designation in recent years, this week rejected an Indian request that it lift its veto. China asserts that Indian evidence fails to meet UN standards.

The reference to UN listing in the Saudi-Pakistani statement seemingly failed to resonate in New Delhi where Prince Mohammed stopped after visiting Islamabad.

In another tantalizing incident, Mr. Qureshi, the Pakistani foreign minister, did nothing to distance his country from a statement in his presence by Saudi State Minister for Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir accusing Iran of being the “world’s chief sponsor of terrorism

Similarly, in preparation of Prince Mohammed’s talks, retired General Raheel Sharif, the Pakistani commander of the Saudi-based, 40-nation Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC), flew from Riyadh to Islamabad for talks with prime minister Imran Khan and Pakistani chief of staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa.

Pakistan agreed to General Sharif’s appointment as commander despite its refusal to join the coalition in the belief that the 2017 Saudi request that he be seconded put the South Asian nation between a rock and hard place.

Pakistani military officials argued at the time that while the appointment would irritate Iran, refusal of the Saudi request would expose Pakistan to criticism from many more in the Islamic world.

Neither the Pakistani government nor the IMCTC gave details of General Sharif’s discussions. The IMCTC, however, said in a tweet that “salient contours of IMCTC’s domains and initiatives in the fight against #terrorism were discussed.”

The tone and gestures during Prince Mohammed’s visit contrasted starkly with positions adopted by Mr. Khan during his election campaign and immediately after he took office last year.

In his first post-election televised speech Mr. Khan made a point of discussing his country’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

“We want to improve ties with Iran. Saudi Arabia is a friend who has always stood by us in difficult times. Our aim will be that whatever we can do for conciliation in the Middle East, we want to play that role. Those tensions, that fight, between neighbours, we will try to bring them together,” Mr. Khan said.

The geopolitical fallout, if any, of what for now amounts to symbolism will likely only be evident in the weeks and months to come.

Beyond Iran’s toughening stance towards Pakistan in the wake of the attack on its Revolutionary Guards, tell-tale signs would be a closer Pakistani alignment with the Saud-led anti-terrorism coalition and the degree to which Pakistan-based militant launch attacks inside Iran.

Middle East scholar Michael Stephens, who heads the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) operation in Qatar suggested that reading the tea leaves may best be done with a grain of salt.

“Geography is what it is, and Pakistan will always have to maintain a relationship with Iran (economic and security) regardless of how much cash it gets from Riyadh… Pakistan will do what’s best for Pakistan, and not Riyadh, the US or Tehran. Telling everyone what they want to hear is kinda how this all works,” Mr. Stephens said.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario and three forthcoming books, Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africaas well as Creating Frankenstein: The Saudi Export of Ultra-conservatism and China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Secularism in India: Disparity in theory and practice

Published

on

Authors: Areeja Syed and Kinza Shaheen*

Secularism is adopted by most of the contemporary states. The three intrinsic principles of secularism are  freedom of belief, that every person living in that particular state has his own belief system and he can believe and worship any God, second is the institutional separation and third is the ‘no discrimination’ on the basis of religion. The largest democracy of the world, India claims to be a secular state. There were various reasons to declare a state as a secular, in which one was domestic reasons and other was global. If we talk about the internal reason, we know that most of the people in India follow the religion of Hinduism, but apart from Hinduism there are many religions such as the Islam, Sikhism and Buddhism etc. The state of India declares itself as a secular to get the support of the heterogeneous population. As far as the global reason is concerned, India proclaims itself as a secular state to portray a positive image in the world.

Secular means equality, so in western states it depicts a positive image that these particular states have equality for every individual. For that reason, India following the notion of the western states declared itself as a secular state. However, the record of India in religious bigotry is quite disappointing. Minorities are not enjoying equal rights as enjoyed by the Hindus in India. It is adopting the policies of ‘Hindutva’ which shows the dominance of Hindus in every walk of life. On one hand it portrays a secular image to the world and on the other hand minorities like Muslims are beaten and even killed to eat the beef.  Beef is one of the favourite hilal meals of Muslims. Moreover, most of the Muslims have businesses that are directly and indirectly related to the livestock. They slaughter the cows and make a living. Ironically, Muslims are being beaten by the Hindus either on the slaughter of cow and eating of beef.  A lot of beef shops had been burned by the radical Hindus. They generate limitations on the Muslims to slaughter cows. How India could claims to be a secular state if a minority individual could not practice his own religion. The Indian media also added fuel to the fire by just giving biased and one sided stories in favour of extremist Hindus.

The ruling government of BJP is also silent over that biasness for the cause that there is Hindu majority in India and if they do anything to protect the rights of minorities, it will make Hindu fanatics discontented and they will lose their vote banks, they think rational too in terms of political gains. Francis Schaeffer says that just showcasing secularism is a more dangerous than the clear-cut discrimination. There are exceptionally stumpy numbers of political representations of Muslims in the politics.

Question arises that being the 2nd highest population of India, why much Muslims are not representing the Indian government? Kashmir is one of the major examples of human rights violation. Each day Muslims have been targeted by the radical Hindus. Indian military is killing the Kashmiri youth on daily basis. Most of the time, Kashmiris have to live under the curfew. However, curfew is the element of a dictator and an authoritative regime. The democratic and secular states view curfew as a violation of human rights. Since 1947, India remained unsuccessful to establish it writ over the Jammu & Kashmir. And so, India is adopting barbaric tactics to get hold of Jammu &Kashmir. Indian forces are making use of Pallet guns against the civilians. Incidents of braid chopping and rape of Muslim girls by the extremist Hindus and Indian forces are rising up. But the world has closed its eyes over the human rights violation in Jammu & Kashmir because India is emerging as an economic giant in the international forum. The International community is quiet interested in India due to its growing economy, its geopolitical location and a number of other elements. That is why; states are silent over the atrocities of India in Jammu & Kashmir.

The human rights violation in Kashmir gives an incentive to the freedom fighters to take up weapons to defend their rights. One can analyze this from two dissimilar perceptions. One is the discriminative behaviour of the state with that individual (who became freedom fighter later) which compel him to be a freedom fighter and fight for himself and his family, and second refers to the historical background of that individual, from how much sufferings he sees in his childhood on him n his family, that psychologically disturbed him and he had that thinking from his childhood that he will take the revenge when he grew up. In both of situations, India is solely accountable and responsible for creating Freedom Fighters in the Region.

Dissatisfied with the curfew and killing India is taking the territory of Jammu and Kashmir under the legal pretext to maintain its image as a democratic and secular state. On August 5, the President of India Ram Nath Kovind issued a presidential order to make applicable the provision of the constitution in the Jammu & Kashmir. The presidential order was approved by the parliament in a resolution. On August 6, 2019 the president nullify the article 370 of the Indian constitution that provides special status to the Jammu& Kashmir territory. With the nullification of the article 370, non-Kashmiris will be allowed to purchase land in the disputed territory which is likely to change the demographic of the Jammu Kashmir. India is targeting the minorities through such kinds of tactics to serve the interests of the Hindus.  Democracy and Secularism gives equal rights to the citizens without creating discrimination on the basis of religion, colour and creed. If India continued the policies of persecution against the minorities than it will create further security problems for it. More and more people will take up weapons against the state when they see that state is backing the atrocities.  It will lead India at the brink of collapse. If India treat everyone equally then it will also diminish the anger of freedom fighter and there will be no reason for unequally treated people to struggle against government. Hence Indian government need to look into this state of affairs in a quiet serious method or else in the Indian government will be responsible for the disputes and which will deteriorate their international image too.

*Kinza Shaheenhas done M.phil in International Relations from Comsats University Islamabad.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Chandrayaan-2 was really a failure, but for whom?

Published

on

Before leaving Pakistan I had written an article “India’s Space Diplomacy in 2017: Where Pakistan Is Standing?” published in Weekly Technology Times. In that article I highlighted the fundamental shift in how nations manage their international relations beyond the classic diplomacy and the attitude of Indian government/ISRO for technological capabilities in outer space as an effective tool of foreign policy. Additionally, I also compared the SUPARCO (subcontinent’s oldest space agency) with ISRO in term of satellite launching and producing technology and how the focus of SUPARCO became countering India, rather than explore and investigation, research and development. That attempt was not only to draw attention towards the use of space dexterity to expand diplomatic influence to achieve Pakistan Space Vision 2040, but also soft power projection. Surprisingly, I received mixed comments from fellows and readers in the context of “patriotism”.

The core motive to pen-down this article is to highlight the quote of Prof. Dr. Abdus Salam “Scientific thought and its creation is the common and shared heritage of mankind”. Let’s have a look on Chandrayaan-2 – Chandrayaan-2 was an Indian lunar mission that was supposed to go where no country has ever gone before (the Moon’s South Polar Region). According to ISRO official credentials, “this mission will help us gain a better understanding of the origin and evolution of the Moon by conducting detailed topographical studies, comprehensive mineralogical analyses, and host of other experiments on the lunar surface. While there, we will also explore discoveries made by Chandrayaan-1, such as the presence of water molecules on the Moon and new rock types with unique chemical composition. Through this mission, we aim to: (1) expand India’s foot print in space; (2) inspire a future generation of scientists, engineers, and explorers; (3) surpass international aspirations”.

Launched on 22 July 2019 from Satish Dhawan Space Center on Sriharikota Island on an ISRO Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) Mark III. The lander-orbiter pair went into an initial elliptical, earth parking orbit, followed by a translunar injection on 14th August. The pair entered lunar polar orbit on 20th August. Subsequently, the lander and orbiter separated on the 2nd September. The orbiter evolved into a circular polar orbit and the Vikram lander maneuvered into orbit with a plan to land on the surface in the high latitude areas near the South Pole. On 7th September contact was lost during the descent at an altitude of approximately 2 KM. The ISRO officials said that the spacecraft stopped communicating with Earth when it was within 1.3 miles of the lunar surface. Though contact with the Vikram lander was lost, the orbiter going around the moon and will carry out experiments over the next year.

On the eve of 7th September, several scientist, technologist and general public were eagerly waiting for the Vikram lander to land on the Moon’s South Polar Region. Even though, the communication between the orbiter and lander was lost, ISRO, Indian scientists and engineers received appreciation and support for their efforts around the globe. Gauhar Raza, an Indian scientist, Urdu poet and social activist said, “The objective of the Chandrayaan-2 will be solved by Chandrayaan-3. A lot of lessons has been learnt this time and we will definitely master the technology of the lander in the coming future”.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Future of Afghan Peace

Published

on

Unfortunate! Very Unfortunate! Afghan Peace Process suffered a set-back. Trump-Administration has announced a halt to a peace deal and canceled all engagements with the Taliban. Although the draft of the peace-agreement was finalized and was almost going to be signed very soon. The peace talks were initiated by the Trump-Administration and wanted to reach the deal before launching his campaign for Presidential Elections to be held next year. President Trump’s eagerness for the peace deal was very much obvious as it will have an impact on his elections.

As a peace deal, the Afghan Taliban will provide protection to the Stroop’s withdrawal and facilitate a safe and honorable exit. In return, the Taliban will get American political and diplomatic support to form a Government. The whole world was happy with the expected deal, as it will ensure a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. Some of the nations were keeping eyes on the reconstruction of war-torn Afghan as a big business opportunity and others were happy as stable Afghanistan may facilitate trade routes among the neighboring countries and generate new avenues of economic activities. The whole region was dreaming about prosperity and peace.

Roots of cancelation of the peace process go back to many aspects. First of all, it was President Trump’s personal initiative, aimed to gain scores for Elections, however, military leadership was not on board completely. There were many different voices on this issue within the US-Administration. Even, Special representative ZalmayKhalilzad and Secretary of state Pompeo were not on the same page.

On the domestic front inside Afghanistan, there were also some issues such as the current Government of Ashraf Ghani and previous Hamid Karzai were not sincere for peace talks with the Taliban, as they see no future for themselves in the Taliban Led future government in Afghanistan. Northern Alliance was also not accepting Taliban supremacy and was resisting Peace Talks.

There were also few international players too against the peace in Afghanistan. Israel and India were exploiting instability in Afghan in their favor and were afraid, once there is a peace and stability in Afghanistan, they may not be able to exploit Afghan Territory against any mischievous purpose.

I believe cancelation of the peace process is a temporary phase only, it is just reaction or over-reaction to the bombing which killed American soldier recently. Once, the US-Administration will think rationally, they might compare, the trillion-dollar spent in Afghanistan and sacrificed precious lives in 18 years long war in Afghanistan, versus the net gains on the ground, will change their minds. I think a small price for peace, which saves huge money and big disasters, is worth consideration. I hope, a new comprehensive initiative may be launched soon, which should incorporate all factors offering resistance to Afghan peace. The way forward is only reconciliation and peace. War was not a solution and will be not a solution in the future.

Afghanistan was not conquered by the British, when the British Empire was at peak of its powers and has colonialized almost half of the world “Sun never sets in British Empire”. Former USSR, could not sustain its occupation in the 1980s and finally have to withdraw its troops. The US after fighting 18 years, using all lethal weapons, latest technologies, best-trained troops and all possible resources from its allies too. Spending trillion dollars, sacrificing precious lives and still could not gain any obvious victory on the ground. It was the Taliban, who controls major part of Afghanistan. The actual pillar of the power in Afghanistan was the Taliban. The puppet government of President Ashraf Ghani or Hamid Karzai were having no say inside Afghanistan and were irrelevant.

There is an international consensus for peace in Afghanistan, the regional powers were extending full support to Peace in Afghanistan, It is the right time to achieve Peace in Afghanistan, If missed this opportunity, may harm Afghanistan, and the region as well as other stakeholders too.

I believe, it is time to think wisely and move smartly, the way forward is negotiation, diplomacy and political solution only. A stable and peaceful Afghanistan is in every body’s interest. Reaction or over-reaction may serve the objectives for enemies of Peace and enemies of Afghanistan only.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy