As Prime Minister Imran Khan prepares for his first address to the UN General Assembly next Friday, he does so against the backdrop of heightened geo-political tensions between both India and Pakistan. These include an unprecedented mix of issues comprising the recent upheaval in Indian administered Kashmir, the recent aerial engagement following the Balakot incident, as well as increasing poverty across the region that is already being exacerbated by climate change. As is, Mr. Khan most definitely has his work cut out for him when garnering international support and interest for such a broad range of issues. However, while all the above represent long entrenched matters that have already been highlighted in some form or another, there also lies the often underrated, yet looming potential of nuclear conflict between both India and Pakistan.
Rooted in the age-old politics of the Kashmir dispute and its all-pervading potential as a nuclear flashpoint, the threat of nuclear war presents a very cogent and ominous reality that has often been taken for granted by outside observers, especially over the last few years. As a result, this threat has often been conveniently brushed aside as mere politicking or saber rattling as part of the many absurdities that characterize international politics in this day and age. Its as if the very sanctity and destructive power of nuclear weapons have all but lost their relevance in times where quick limited wars under the ‘hybrid’ or ‘5th Generation’ mantras have given way to the more conventional campaigns of the past. Gone are the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which lost with the memories of a past generation, remain as historical stubs. Encapsulated in a few grainy black and white images from a bygone era.
Yet, even though the prevailing nuclear deterrence framework following the end of the Cold War may have ruled out the possibility of a globally devastating nuclear conflict between the world’s major powers, the case of South Asia has remained wholly different for several reasons. Pakistan and India, as two de-facto and declared Nuclear Weapons’ States have for the last two decades come perilously close to the brink of all out nuclear war at least 3-4 times. The 1999 Kargil Conflict, the military standoff following the 2001 Indian Parliament attacks, the 2008 Mumbai attacks and the 2016 Uri attacks all involved the potential of irrevocably altering life on earth, as a direct result of both countries’ nuclear weapons capabilities. The attack on an Indian convoy in Pulwama earlier this year represented the latest iteration of this threat when both countries engaged in an unprecedented aerial engagement. This led to a dramatic escalation in tensions as evident in the large-scale deployment of forces to border areas, as well as consistent nuclear signaling and posturing in the form of carefully targeted statements as well as several ballistic missile tests, aimed at communicating the nuclear threat. Even though third-party mediators have since brought about a considerable de-escalation in tensions (as they have done in all the above-mentioned crises) there has still existed a pervasive sense of unease and uncertainty throughout the region.
This uncertainty has since been greatly exacerbated by the Indian Parliament’s unilateral decision to repeal the Jammu and Kashmir region’s special constitutional status last month. As a result, the nuclear dimension is again being forcefully played out in the political rhetoric coming out of both countries, especially from India. However, while the risks of a nuclear conflict have remained unabated within any conflagration between India and Pakistan, what’s extremely worrying is that this aspect has become increasingly normalized with each passing crisis. That despite the grave danger and urgency which such rhetoric should evoke amongst policymakers on both sides, the allusions to the threat of nuclear war have become routine, almost to the point of being irrelevant. As both countries have found space for conducting military operations below the nuclear threshold, this apparent depreciation of the risks of a potential nuclear exchange presents an alarming insight into the strategic calculus being employed by both countries.
More recently however, this lack of appreciation of the risks of nuclear war appears to have reached new lows within the Indian policy framework relative to Pakistan’s stance on the issue. This is because while Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence framework is directly premised on the threat of all out nuclear war, India has in the recent past increasingly resorted to a policy of nuclear brinkmanship by toying with the notion of a ‘winnable’ nuclear war. Buoyed by its conventional and economic superiority, India’s strategy has been to systematically discredit Pakistan’s willingness to resort to the nuclear option in what Indian policymakers have often mockingly referred to as ‘calling Pakistan’s nuclear bluff’. All while making incendiary statements referring to the all-out destruction and annihilation of Pakistan, in the same vein Iran used to once make against Israel, or North Korea has done against the US and its East Asian allies.
Hence, with India’s leaders playing the role of the aggressive and unpredictable madmen in charge of nuclear weapons, the onus is now increasingly on Pakistan to highlight the dangers of Indian weapons of mass destruction as currently being in the hands of some of the world’s most fervent extremists. Whether Prime Minister Imran Khan will be able to successfully make such a case at the UNGA is unclear at this point. However, it is unlikely that the irony of the situation will be lost on his audience comprising the rest of the 191 delegations in attendance at the UN, at yet another historic gathering.
Is this the end of NATO-era?
is a very powerful tool, which can easily ruin relations. Different views on
money spending can ruin even good relations between countries in such huge and
powerful organization as NATO. It should be noted that European defence spending will
surpass $300 billion a year by 2021, according to new research from Jane’s by
Defense expenditure is a highly sensitive topic in the region. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO member countries in Europe for not respecting a rule that says 2% of GDP should be spent on defence.
At a NATO summit in 2017, Trump ramped up that pressure by noting the U.S. had allocated more cash to defense than all the other NATO countries combined.
The U.S., as the leader of the Alliance, keeps close eye on those of them who try to oppose the need to rapid increase on defence spending.
In particular, this month Germany displeased the U.S. by a conflict that erupted between Finance Minister Olaf Scholz of the Social Democrats (SPD) and Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, chair of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU).
The finance minister insisted that an increase in the defense budget to 2 percent of gross domestic product, as NATO member states have pledged to do, not be anchored in the coalition government’s midterm assessment. The discord between the two apparently grew so heated that the Chancellery had to step in. President of France also shocked the NATO supporters when said about “the death of NATO brains”.
Judging by opinion polls, many residents of the European countries, including the Baltic States, consider military expenditures of this size unnecessary and dangerous.
The authorities of the Baltic States, in contrary, strive to increase defence spending. But the reason why the Baltic States support US requirements is their active cooperation with the U.S. The dependence on the U.S. is so high that they simply can not oppose U.S. initiatives. Though even 2 percent of gross domestic product on defence is a heavy burden for the Baltics’ economy.
Within the EU, the Baltic States and Poland are considered close U.S. partners and are doing everything to really benefit the United States, no matter how the EU looks at it. These are the main reasons why the Baltic countries support a requirement that they themselves are not able to fulfill.
Latvian journalist Māris Krautmanis in his article in Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze discussing the adoption of the budget for next year, writes that there is no money for the promised salary increase for doctors and teachers. Krautmanis finds an explanation for why this is happening. “The tremendous sums from the state budget eat up defence spending so that NATO generals do not reproach that Latvia spends little. This is a taboo topic at all, it is not even discussed,” the author writes.
Another Latvian journalist Juris Lorencs writes in Latvijas Avīze about disturbing trends in world politics for Latvia and about what position should be taken in Latvia.
He writes about slogans which sound louder and louder: “Our home, our country comes first!” He thought they weaken both NATO and the EU. He also calls the U.S. unpredictable in its political behaviour.
Misunderstanding of the role and amount of financing could lead to the NATO destruction on the inside. At least there are two reasons for the collapse of the NATO: the U.S. can stop its financing or European member states such as Germany and France will decide to quit the organization themselves in favor to strengthening defence in the framework of European Union. Let’s see…
As Kashmir simmers the IOR too stands as a potential Nuclear Flashpoint
This year has seen tensions between Nuclear armed Pakistan and India reach unprecedented levels with both countries flirting with a dangerous escalation spiral. February’s aerial engagement between the two countries’ air forces, sustained exchanges of small arms and artillery fire over the LOC, as well as the ongoing curfew and communications blackout (now in its 100th day) have all left many to contemplate the long-term consequences of these altercations on the stability and overall security of the entire South Asian region.
These include consequences leading to as far as the Indian Ocean Region, which despite being more than 1300kms away from the LOC remains witness to a series of dangerous developments, especially within context of the current scenario. For instance, India’s recently planned test of its K4 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) represents a key part of India’s long-held desires of developing a robust second-strike capability. While the test itself is meant to signal a major tipping point within the overall strategic balance of the region, the worsening situation in Kashmir carries the risk of unnecessarily heightening tensions at a time when the regional situation is already quite complex. This is largely because the K4 with its purported range of 3500 kms is capable of targeting most of mainland China in addition to Pakistan from the relatively safer distance of India’s coastal waters. Its value as a strategic deterrent is evident from its planned deployment on India’s nascent fleet of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). These include the INS Arihant and the recently commissioned INS Arighant for which the K4 has been designed to spec. With the Indian navy planning to induct even more SSBNS over the next decade, there are soon likely to be dozens of K4 missiles deployed on these subs, which themselves are likely to remain scattered across the IOR.
While the planned deployment of these missiles was to supposedly herald India’s coming of age as a major global power, the current context in which these actions are being taken presents a troubling scenario. Particularly keeping in mind the apparent shifts in India’s nuclear doctrinal and policy framework, the very thought of such nuclear weapons being readily deployed across the Indian Ocean represents a major cause for concern the world over. Unlike India’s land-based nuclear arsenal where its nuclear warheads are largely demated from the several delivery systems available to its military, India’s sea based nuclear arsenal is likely to be deployed at a much more heightened state of alert. As a result, it is also likely to be subject to an altered or more sophisticated command and control structure which in itself requires seamless communications not only between the Indian state and military but also within the many arms of the Indian military itself. Such integration is further conditional on India acquiring highly robust intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities that leave absolutely no margin for error considering the immense risks at stake in one of the world’s most volatile regions. Add to that the Indian government’s now institutionalized approach to nuclear brinkmanship and its steady revocation of its ‘No First Use’ policy, there exists a highly dangerous mix of hubris and recklessness where the entire human race risks being annihilated from even the smallest of missteps.
While some may argue that India is still quite a few years away from deploying a notable fleet of SSBNs armed with its K4 SLBMs, the nuclear weapons already deployed by the Indian Navy already pose quite serious challenges to regional stability. In addition to the K4 which is still under testing, India has equipped several of its surface and sub-surface platforms with a number of other nuclear capable missiles such as the Dhanush and the K-15 Sagarika SLMBs. Considering their relatively short ranges (the Dhanush has a target range of 350kms, while the K-15’s range is around 750-800 kms) these weapons are unlikely to be able provide an adequate second-strike deterrent. However, being mostly Pakistan specific, they still contribute immensely to converting the entire Indian Ocean Region to a nuclear flashpoint in addition to the LOC.
In fact, considering the direction in which India’s military thinking has evolved over the last decade, the IOR’s potential as a nuclear flashpoint is arguably even greater than that of the LOC. The sea’s vastness, lack of terrestrial boundaries and potential lack of collateral damage makes a nuclear detonation in the IOR all the more likely. This can range from a non-targeted nuclear detonation as a mere show of force to a tactical nuclear strike on a specific naval platform and its crew in a bid to achieve escalation dominance early on in a conflict. As has often been the case with Indian military thinking, such a scenario can arise from a gross overestimation of its capabilities. Derived from its conventional military superiority(which is already more manifest at sea), such conditions make for an attractive option for India to conduct a limited war against Pakistan at sea.
However, considering how both the Indian and Pakistani navies have opted to commingle conventional and nuclear weapons across a large section of their naval platforms, the risks of any conventional engagement escalating to the use of nuclear weapons remain unacceptably high. As such, even thinking that escalation from a small engagement or skirmish at sea can be managed by either side is downright illusory at best. Yet, based on the Indian state’s most recent actions and statements, whether the hubris coming out of India’s leaders extends to the manic delusions of a winnable nuclear war is unnervingly open to question.
One hopes that the world never has to contemplate, let alone face, the consequences of such an appalling possibility.
Macron is wrong, NATO is not brain-dead
Right before the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall this weekend, French President Macron decided to make another staggering statement in a series of gaffes over the past weeks. “NATO is brain-dead”, he said in an interview for the Economist yesterday and everyone gasped. Europeans more than anyone need the alliance alive and well.
Macron also said that he didn’t know if he still believed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty – the part on collective defense which says that an attack on one is an attack on all. The French President was worried about whether the US was still committed to the alliance.
This is not the first time that NATO has been kicked. The alliance has been scorned over the years, many doubting its reason d’etre. The transatlantic alliance has proven to be a resilient one over the decades, however. It is a mathematical constant, if you wish.
If the transatlantic alliance didn’t break on the rocks of the Iraq war, it surely can survive Trump.
Macron’s concern is that historical forces are pulling the transatlantic allies apart but that perception is a product of Trump’s rhetoric, nothing more – it is not indicative of the pattern of transatlantic relations over the decades. Transatlantic relations are not Trump.
President Trump is facing an impeachment and elections, all within the next months to a year. The assessment of transatlantic relations cannot be based on the rhetoric of a person who might be gone soon. No one in the Washington community believes that Trump would withdraw from NATO, even after all the tough rhetoric. NATO is here to stay, and that is the belief among virtually all US officials and diplomats. Transatlantic relations will soon normalize after President Trump is out of office because that is the pattern. The transatlantic partnership is deeply ingrained in the American political psyche. There is no need for apocalyptic statements that rock the boat.
The US has guaranteed Europe’s security since the end of the Second World War. Europe cannot do it on its own. What is true is that Europe needs to start contributing more to its own defense.
For a third of NATO’s European member states in proximity to Russia, NATO is anything but obsolete. From the Baltic States, through Poland, Slovakia, Romania, down to Bulgaria, NATO’s enhanced military presence since the Crimea war has been felt as a counter-measure to Russian ambitions. That of course is far away from France, but European NATO is not France. Macron doesn’t speak for all the NATO European states most of who cannot imagine political life and even survival without NATO.
What is apparent is that French President Macron is rolling out a gaffe after gaffe this week. He caused a diplomatic scandal with the Bulgarian and Ukrainian governments, by saying in a far-right magazine that he preferred legal African migrants to Bulgarian and Ukrainian criminal gangs. The week before that, he blocked Albania and North Macedonia from starting accession talks for EU membership, which drew a lot of criticism from all corners of Europe. Yesterday, Macron called Bosnia a jihadists ticking bomb, of course ignoring that France is a jihadist force itself. Macron’s “brain death” comment angered Angela Merkel who warned him to cut down on the drastic remarks.
So Macron, not Trump, is the one with the divisive, anti-European role, judging by the past weeks. Macron, not Trump, is turning into the European anti-hero.
The claim that the French President’s series of inflammatory statements is a strategy to position France as the alternative leader of the European Union could be as true at the hypothesis that all this is a part of Macron pandering to the French far-right.
The truth is that NATO is alive and kicking. Its very existence serves as deterrence against a potential attack on a NATO member, so that Article 5 does not even have to be tested. NATO should not be taken for granted; only when something no longer exists will one get to appreciate all the invisible deterrence benefits.
If the history of Article 5 shows us one thing, is that it was used for the first time by the Americans in the aftermath of September 11th. This is a common reminder, anytime someone in the US questions the value of NATO.
So, Macron is wrong on NATO. It will be good if he toned down the lunatic rhetoric of the past weeks, to show that he himself is not brain-dead. If Macron’s intention was to make waves, he is succeeding. If his intention was to be vying for the European Union top leadership spot, he is failing.
Poll Shows Trump’s Israel Policy Is Opposed Even by Republicans
On Monday, November 18th, Reuters headlined “U.S. backs Israel on settlements, angering Palestinians and clouding peace process” and reported that,...
The Geopolitics of natural resources of Western Sahara
In the post-bipolar international legal literature, the right to self-determination is part of the broader concept of human rights, and...
Doing Business Report 2020: Soaring Changes with Soaring Doubts
As Narendra Modi brands his government of making new leaps; similarly, the World Bank’s annually published report, “Doing Business” has...
The Art of Travelling Alone: How to Make the Best of Your Solo Trip
We are currently celebrating Singles’ Day — now one of the biggest shopping holidays of the year — which encourages...
Is this the end of NATO-era?
Money is a very powerful tool, which can easily ruin relations. Different views on money spending can ruin even good...
Venice Is Flooded: A Look at Our Coastal Future
Authors: Arshad M. Khan and Meena Miriam Yust If humans have been lucky, basking in the comforting warmth of an...
ADB Program to Help Improve Education and Health in Armenia
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has approved a $10 million policy-based loan (in euro equivalent) to assist the Government of...
Europe3 days ago
Why German car giant Volkswagen should drop Turkey
Energy3 days ago
What would it take to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C?
Middle East3 days ago
Iran’s next parliamentary election hinges on economic problems, US sanctions effective
Africa2 days ago
China’s ties with Africa go beyond the “debt trap”
East Asia2 days ago
The Korean Peninsula needs more peace talks rather than game drills
South Asia2 days ago
India’s Continuing Arrogance in Kashmir
African Renaissance3 days ago
The way out of apartheid South Africa
Defense1 day ago
As Kashmir simmers the IOR too stands as a potential Nuclear Flashpoint