Connect with us
gwadar cpec pakistan gwadar cpec pakistan

South Asia

Pakistan: In the boxing ring among two global heavyweights

Published

on

Recent criticism of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project by the United States, has understandably drawn attention within Pakistan, as well as outside the region. US,for long has been critical of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in general, and some of the BRI projects in South Asia – especially the CPEC project. A report by the Centre for Global Development (CGD, Washington DC) published in 2018 argued, that the BRI project will lead to a situation where borrowings, by countries which have signed up for the project, will build up to a degree where debts become unsustainable (this situation has been dubbed as ‘debt trap’). Pakistan was identified as one of the 8 countries, which may land up in a  ‘debt trap’ (the only other South Asian country was Maldives). Beijing and Islamabad have on more than one occasion, reacted strongly to criticism of the project and rubbished claims that Pakistan’s debts are unsunstainable.

Apart from the US, India too has been critical of the CPEC project. The main objection of India, to the CPEC project has been the fact, that it passes through the disputed territory of Gilgit and Baltistan.

US skepticism with regard to CPEC.

If one were to look at recent US criticism of CPEC, Alice Wells Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, first criticized the project for the clear lack of transparency, as well as not being economically sustainable in November 2019, during the course of an interaction at the Woodrow Wilson Centre, Washington DC. Wells, reiterated her criticism of CPEC, during her visit to Pakistan in January 2020. The Senior State Department Official, also made the point, that a number of firms, which had been blacklisted by the World Bank, had been awarded contracts through CPEC.

The Pakistan PM, Imran Khan and other senior politicians, reacted strongly to  Wells criticism arguing, that the project would play a crucial role in the country’s economic progress. It would be pertinent to point out, that there are a number of lobbies in Pakistan, which while being critical of the US, have for long being questioning the long term implications of the Pakistan-China economic relationship in general, and the lack of transparency with regard to the CPEC project in particular. This includes, both strategic commentators, and sections of the business community and even a section of the political class.  The main criticisms of the project are; doubts with regard to the economic sustainability of the project, and the fact that certain provinces are reaping the benefits of the project, while others such as Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) have been left out . It would be pertinent to point out, that Imran Khan when in opposition, had himself put forward his misgivings with regard to the project. Even senior members of his Cabinet had spoken about the need for renegotiating the terms and conditions of CPEC. Beijing did not take kindly to such remarks and since then Imran Khan and his colleagues have been cautious and gone the extra mile in defending the CPEC project.

Alice Wells recent criticism has once again brought to the fore important issues with regard to CPEC.An article in Dawn titled ‘Alice’s mis (adventures)’begins by questioning Washington’s dealings with Pakistan, and it’s patronage of military regimes. The article also makes the point, that if US aid has not been utilized properly, America is to be blamed for following a myopic and transactional approach towards Pakistan, where the interests of the Pakistani people have been ignored. It then examines in detail, the lack of transparency of the CPEC Project, and how the structure, terms and conditions of Chinese loans could prove to be a challenge in the long run.

Most significantly, Wells’ remarks have once again raised the question of how Pakistan needs to approach its outside relations with Great Powers, especially US and China and how it can balance ties. The article in Dawn states:

‘Islamabad must realise, that it doesn’t belong in the boxing ring among two global heavyweights and should refrain from reacting irresponsibly’.

This is important, because in recent years after Washington-Islamabad ties have gone downhill, many in Pakistan, especially the establishment, have virtually put all Pakistan’s eggs in the Chinese basket. As mentioned earlier, this has not gone down well with members of Pakistan’s intelligentsia as well as polity who believe that the country needs to have an independent foreign policy.

Finally, while no one has really sought to look at CPEC as a facilitator of regional connectivity in South Asia. A number of analysts and commentators have spoken on more than one occasion about the need for getting South Asian neighbors on board. The Imran Khan government too has been seeking to bring neighbors, including Iran on board the CPEC project (it has dubbed the arrangement as CPEC+1), but there has been no real discussion with regard to India being part of the project (oblique references have been made to India joining the project, though New Delhi has flatly refused such proposals). Interestingly, even on the Indian side, it has been argued that Indian participation in CPEC, which could give a boost to trilateral cooperation. This has been dismissed, and may seem unlikely in the short run given the tensions between both countries (While New Delhi officially has on more than one occasion, put forth its objections to CPEC, and unequivocally stated, that it will not join the project, there are those who believe that over a longer term this may be possible)

Conclusion

While Alice Wells views with regard to Pakistan-China economic ties or the CPEC project maybe one sided, her skepticism with regard to the long term implications of the project have once again generated an interesting debate, not just with regard to the project itself, but Pakistan’s foreign policy, as well as the strategic and economic dimensions of CPEC in the context of South Asia. It remains to be seen, whether Pakistani policy makers understand the need for greater transparency with regard to the project and to address misgivings of domestic stakeholders. It is also important for strategic commentators and economists, not just in Pakistan, but all those interested in South Asia, to examine the possibility of CPEC as a tool for economic cooperation and connectivity, and not as a source of conflict. This may seem impossible in the nearer term, but with the changing geo-political and economic dynamics in the region, it can not be ruled out over the long term.

Tridivesh Singh Maini is a New Delhi based Policy Analyst associated with The Jindal School of International Affairs, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Afghanistan: the US and NATO withdrawal and future prospects

Published

on

On April 14, the United States of America announced that it would withdraw all its troops stationed in Afghanistan from May 1 to September 11, 2021. On the same day, NATO also said it would coordinate with the White House military to initiate the withdrawal.

The year 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the outbreak of war in Afghanistan, a conflict that has actually been going on since the Soviet invasion of that unfortunate country on December 24, 1979.

What are the plans of NATO and the United States? How will the situation in Afghanistan change in the future?

Regarding the US announcement of the deadline for troop withdrawal, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has said that the Afghan government respects the US government’s decision to withdraw its troops by the agreed date.

According to the Associated Press, there were 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan before May 1, far below the peak of over 110,000 in 2011.

According to the websites of the Financial Times and theDeutsche Welle, some ten thousand soldiers from the 36 NATO Member States and other US allies are currently stationed in Afghanistan, including as many as 895 Italian soldiers, as well as 1,300 Germans, 750 Brits, 619 Romanians, 600 Turks, etc.

President Trump’s previous Administration signed a peace agreement with the Taliban in Afghanistan in February 2020, setting May 1, 2021 as the deadline for NATO to begin withdrawing from that country. The Washington Post reported that after the current US government issued the withdrawal statement, the Taliban immediately said that if the United States violated the peace agreement and did not withdraw its troops in Afghanistan, the situation would get worse and one of the parties to the agreement would take responsibility for it.

This year is the twentieth since the United States started the war in Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The war in Afghanistan is the United States’ longest overseas war, and has killed over 2,300 US soldiers and wounded some 20,000 people, at a cost of over 1 trillion US dollars.

Although the United States and its allies attacked the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the situation in Afghanistan has been turbulent for a long time, with over a hundred thousand Afghan civilian casualties in the fighting.

According to The New York Times, both Parties’ members of the US Congress have differing views on the consequences of withdrawal. According to the newspaper, Republicans and some Democrats believe that the troop withdrawal will encourage the Taliban insurgency, while others believe it is necessary to put an end to this indefinite war.

But what considerations can be made for the US and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan?

It is well known that the purpose of the United States in taking the war to Afghanistan was a very heavy measure of retaliation against al-Qaeda, which had organised the terrorist attacks of September 11, and against the Taliban regime that protected the top leaders of that terrorist organisation. Although al-Qaeda has not been destroyed, it is unlikely to create similar problems. The United States has achieved its strategic goals and is no longer involved in East Asia’s tactics and strategy.

The interests of NATO (considering its individual Member States) in Afghanistan are fewer than those of the United States. As a military alliance with the United States, the achievement of US strategic goals means that NATO’s equal strategic goals have also been achieved. Hence, rather than continuing to run the risk of confronting the Taliban and al-Qaeda after US military withdrawals, NATO is more willing to remove the “political burden” as soon as possible.

While announcing the terms of the withdrawal, the White House has stated that the threat of extremist organisations such as Somalia’s al-Shabaab and ISIS is spreading globally and it is therefore meaningless to concentrate forces in Afghanistan, with a steady expansion of its military cycle. At the same time, however, the White House has stated that after withdrawal, diplomatic and counter-terrorism mechanisms will be reorganised in Afghanistan to face security challenges. Hence, from the US perspective, there is currently a greater terrorist threat than al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The prospectsfor advancing the Indo-Pacific regional strategy to oppose China also means that it would be counterproductive for the United States to remain in Afghanistan any longer. Even after the troop withdrawal, there will be insecurity in Afghanistan. That being the case, however, the United States will still find ways and means to support the Afghan regime and the armed forces of the Kabul government.

The Washington Post has also reported statements by a Pentagon official who has stressed that Afghanistan is a landlocked country: consequently, once US and NATO forces withdraw, one of the biggest challenges will be how to effectively monitor and combat extremist organisations and resist threats to US security: at that distance it will be even more difficult without sea landings.

According to Reuters, the CIA predicts that the possibility of a further US-Afghan peace deal is little and has warned that once the United States and its allies withdraw, it will be difficult to stop the Taliban.

The Afghan government forces currently control Kabul and other large cities, but the Taliban are present in more than half of the country’s territory and rural areas. In the future, the possibility of a Taliban counter-offensive cannot be ruled out.

Great Britain’s The Guardian has commented that the years of war have generally made Afghans feel a strong sense of insecurity and the withdrawal of troops will not bring much comfort to the local population. According to the London-based newspaper, for the United States this is yet another war that cannot be won.

According to experts, there are two extreme possibilities in the future situation in Afghanistan. The excellent situation is the one in which the less extremist wing of the Taliban mediates so that, once the United States withdraws, the Taliban can gradually move from being an extremist organisation to being an internal administrative one and then negotiate with the legitimate government supported by the United Nations: this would mean a long-term peace after forty-two years of war.

Under extremely unfavourable circumstances, instead, the Afghan government forces would overestimate their military strength and intend to continue the war alone against their traditional opponents, at which point peace negotiations between the two sides would break down.

This would mean falling again into a prolonged civil war and into eternal war.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Bhashan Char Relocation: Bangladesh’s Effort Appreciated by UN

Published

on

Bhashan Char. Image source: dhakatribune.com

Bhashan Char, situated in the district of Noakhali, is one of the 75 islands of Bangladesh. To ease the pressure on the digested camps in Cox’s Bazar and to maintain law and order, Bangladesh has relocated about 18,500 Rohingya refugees from the overcrowded camps to the island since December last year. The Rohingya relocation plan to Bhashan Char aligns with the Bangladesh government’s all-encompassing efforts towards repatriation. The initial plan was to relocate 100,000 of the more than a million refugees from the clogged camps to the island. From the onset of the relocation process, the UN and some other human rights organizations criticized the decision pointing to remoteness and sustainability. UNHCR showed their concern over the island’s susceptibility to seasonal storm and flood. They proposed for a “technical assessment” of the Bhashan Char facilities.

An 18-member UN delegation visited Bhashan Char Island on March 17 this year to have a first-hand assessment of the housing facility for the Rohingya forcibly displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMNs). Shortly after the UN’s visit, a team with 10 diplomats including heads of missions of embassies and delegations from Turkey, the EU, US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands also went to the island on April 3 to appraise the facilities. All the members of the technical team opined that they are ‘satisfied’ with the facilities in Bhashan Char. The experts of the UN told, they will hand over a 10-page report of their annotations and they have already submitted a two-page abridgment. On April 16, they released the two-page synopsis after a month of the visit.  After the three-day study of Bhashan Char by the UN delegates, they recommended the Bangladesh government to continue the relocation process to the island in a ‘phased manner’. The team twigged three points – education for Rohingya children, increasing heights of the embankments and better communication system. The Foreign Minister of Bangladesh A. K. Abdul Momen concerted to take the necessary measures to create a safe and secure environment for the Rohingya refugees until the repatriation takes place. The relocation is not the solution of the Rohingya crisis rather the over emphasis of the relocation and facilities inside Bangladesh is protracting the crisis and distracting the attention from the broader emphasis on the repatriation to Myanmar.

The UNHCR and other concerned parties should plan for a long run repatriation process. Repatriation is the only durable solution, not the relocation of the Rohingya refugees. For the time being, resettlement under the Asrayan-3 project is an ease for the FDMNs but in the long run the Rohingya crisis is going to turn as a tremendous threat for regional peace and stability. Besides, resentment in the host community in Bangladesh due to the scarce resources may emerge as a critical security and socio-economic concern for Bangladesh.  It is not new that the Rohingyas are repatriated in Myanmar during the Military rule. Around 20,000 Rohingya refugees were repatriated to Myanmar in the 2000s. The focus of the world community should be creating favourable conditions for the Rohingyas to return safely regardless who is in the power seat of Myanmar-civilian or military government. The UN should largely focus on repatriating the Rohingya refugees in a “phased manner”, let alone deciding their concern in the camps and the Bhashan Char. After the praiseworthy relocation plan, they should now concentrate on implementing speedy and durable repatriation. Proactive initiatives are essential from all walks for a safe and dignified return of the FDMNs. To be specific, the relocation is a part of the repatriation, not the solution of the problem. 

Continue Reading

South Asia

Afghan peace options

Published

on

President Biden’s decision to withdraw unconditionally all foreign forces from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021 will leave behind an uncertain and genuine security concerns that ramifications will be born by Afghanistan as well as the region.

The Taliban seems least interested in peace talks with the Afghan government and appear determined to take control of the entire afghan government territory by force during post-withdrawal of American forces. Short of the total surrender, Afghan government has no possible influence to force the Taliban to prefer talks over violence. Resultantly, the apprehensions that Afghanistan could plunge into another civil war runs very high.

The consequences of yet another civil war will be deadly for Afghanistan and the whole region as well. Among the neighboring countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan will bear the severe burnt of an escalation of violence in particular. A civil war or possible Taliban takeover will surely upsurge and reinvigorate the Islamic militancy in Pakistan, thus threatening to lose the hard won gains made against militancy over the past decade.

The afghan and Pakistani Taliban, nevertheless, are the two sides of the same coin. Coming back to power of the Taliban in Afghanistan is surely emboldened and revives Pakistani Taliban and other militant outfits. Moreover, spread of violence not only reduce all chances of repatriation of refugees but possibly increase the inflow of refugees from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Furthermore, worsening of the security situation in Afghanistan will jeopardize the prospects of  trade, foreign investment and economic development initiatives such as china-Pakistan economic corridor. The chances of Gawadar and Karachi port to become a transit trade route for the region and link the energy rich region of central asia will become bleak until a sustainable peace and stability is achieved in Afghanistan.

It is against this background that the successful end of the intra-afghan talk is highly required for Pakistan, for its own sake.  Officially, Islamabad stated policy is to ensure the afghan-led and afghan-owned peace solution of the afghan conflict. It helped in bringing the Taliban on the negotiation table, which finally resulted in the signing of the Doha deal between US and Taliban. Further, Pakistan has time and again pressurized the Taliban to resume the dialogue. Moreover, Islamabad holds that, unlike in the past when it wanted a friendly regime in Kabul, it aims to develop a friendly and diplomatic relation whoever is on the power in Kabul.

Notwithstanding the stated policy and position of the Islamabad, the afghan government and the many in the US remains dubious of Pakistan’s commitment. Against these concerns, Islamabad categorically stated that it does not have complete control over the Taliban.

The success of the peace process will require coordination and cooperation among the all regional actors and the US and afghan government. Pakistan’s role is of an immense significance because of its past relation with the Taliban. There is no denying of the fact that Pakistan has not complete control over the Taliban. Despite, it has more leverage than the other actors in the region.

The Islamabad’s willingness to use its influence over the Taliban is her real test in the achievement of peace process. However, Pakistan has successfully used its leverage and brought the Taliban on negotiations table. Although, history is the testimony of the fact that mere cajoling won’t dissuade the Taliban from unleashing violence.

The prospects of intra-afghan talks will develop in success when the cajoling strategy is backed up by with credible threats of crackdown which may involve denial of safe heaven to militant leaders and their families, stopping medical treatment, and disruption of finance etc. on the other hand, strong arm tactics fail to bring the Taliban to the table, then Pakistan should make sure that its territory is not used to carry out attacks in Afghanistan.

The afghan peace process has an opportunity for Pakistan to bury its hatchets with Afghanistan and start its diplomatic journey with a new vigor. While Kabul every time attach its failure with the Pakistan and shun away from its responsibility of providing peace to people of Afghanistan, it has a fair point about our pro Taliban afghan policy. Now that the US is leaving Afghanistan, it is high time that Pakistan bring forth a shift in its Afghanistan policy. Sustainable peace in Pakistan, especially Balochistan and ex-fata region is unlikely to achieve without Pakistan contributing to peace in Afghanistan.    

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending