Connect with us

Intelligence

After Coronavirus: “Nuda Vita” and the “Extraordinary Power” of the Modern State

Published

on

“Sovereignty is the refusal to accept limits … I have refused to submit, therefore, I am.”- Georges Bataille, The Accursed Share [1]

Over the past 20 years, the world and the system of international relations have been steadily moving towards a “state of emergency.” The “authority to do whatever was advisable to keep the state safe” that Carl Schmitt saw as the main sign of “extraordinary power” has long been the norm all over the world. And the evidence to support this is overwhelming. Instruments such as “humanitarian intervention,” the exclusion of rogue states from international engagement, the destruction of undesirable political leaders and the change of regimes through “revolutions,” and the introduction of political and economic sanctions are all used to restrict the sovereignty of states that are seen as a threat to international security or the security of specific states. The world is already used to the fact that the exclusion of some comes with the necessary assertion of the sovereignty of others. The intense demolition of the legal basis that underpins the outgoing world order and the withdrawal of individual states from international agreements that we have witnessed in recent years prove better than anything else that relations between states are now built upon this “state of emergency” and upon “extraordinary power.”

That being said, it is extremely rare that a “state of emergency” appears inside a country: relations between the state and society have typically been built on the basis of established legislation and the basic law. However, with the outbreak of coronavirus (COVID-19) in early 2020, the very notion of a “state of emergency” has become a “viral” phenomenon as well, and it is Western liberal democracies that are primarily responsible for spreading it. The concept of “norms” and “normality” no longer apply to international relations. Moreover, they are not typical of relations between state and society inside countries. The “extraordinary power” that the state resorts to during pandemics penetrates deep into all spheres of life, depriving us of our basic rights and changing the very structure of the way we live from day to day. Numerous biopower practices are put into action — from controlling people’s movement, rationing their consumption and restricting interactions with loved ones to compulsory health monitoring. The power of the sovereign has increased exponentially, while the sovereignty of the individual is crumbling before our very eyes. How will this period of increased “extraordinary power” affect relations between the state and the individual in the long term? How deeply will the trust of citizens in the state and its institutions be shaken if the latter cannot pass the litmus test in terms of guaranteeing security? When will we be able to return to “normal” life, if at all? If we will not, then what will the new “normal” be? And which of the “emergency” practices that are now in place will remain for a long time to come?

“Extraordinary power”: The Thin Line Between Legitimacy and Structural Violence

Back in 1995, the famous Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben published Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life [2], in which he demonstrated rather convincingly that every country, including liberal democracies, has a so-called “state of exception” where the individual is deprived of almost all rights and freedoms and exists in a state of “bare life” (nuda vita), living in the biological sense of the word only. Agamben used an analysis of the evolution of various political communities to demonstrate the “vitality” of this phenomenon in modern times — from the Nazi concentration camps to Guantanamo Bay and the refugee camps of today. By setting up areas like these, the modern state effectively isolates individuals who, as far as powers that be and society, in general, are concerned, pose or may pose a threat to “security.” The ability to create these kinds of areas and declare states of exception is a key sign of sovereignty. The largest and most obvious illustration of a “state of exception” in recent times concerns migration in Europe, where EU countries fiercely tried to defend their sovereignty and the right to independently determine the parameters of “including” or “excluding” migrants from society.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that these zones and “states of exception” still exist to some degree, even in liberal democracies, the scale of this phenomenon has been limited up until now, with governments attempting to “fit in” into what is considered the “norm.” There is a tacit understanding in society that “states of exception” are needed and potentially dangerous elements need to be isolated from the population at large. It is kind of an unwritten contract between the state and the individual, and more or less everyone agrees with the conditions for placing someone in the exclusion zone. For example, the Patriot Act passed by the United States after 9/11 served as a way to justify the restrictions on the fundamental rights and freedoms of U.S. citizens. We have come to terms with the security services using tracking technologies as a way to identify terrorists, with governments monitoring our social media content in order to fight extremism, with CCTV cameras everywhere to ensure that we follow the road safety rules, with biometric passports for tracking illegal border crossings, and so on.

However, it turns out that the concept of the state as a “night watchman” hired to protect our human rights and interfere in our private lives with the sole aim of ensuring our safety and to an extent proportional to the threat, is only useful during “normal” times, when the type and scale of threat is known and is sporadic or local in nature.

The coronavirus pandemic, which politicians are increasingly comparing to an enemy in a war, requires a completely different kind of intervention in the everyday lives of citizens. State sovereignty has ballooned to almost unlimited proportions, at the expense of the sovereignty of the individual. Emergency directives passed, without parliamentary discussion, on the basis of nothing more than the “insight” of decision-makers who are supposedly able to assess the magnitude of the threat and take “adequate” measures, are used to restrict the basic rights of citizens. This includes freedom of movement, health protection, social interaction, education, etc. However, the problem is that in most Western countries there is no broad consensus on how big the threat actually is, which means that there can be no agreement on the degree to which government intervention is acceptable and which “extraordinary powers” may be appropriate. This much is evident from the sheer number of fines that have been handed out for violating the lockdowns. For example, over 72,000 violations were recorded in Italy over the period from March 11 to March 20. In Austria, people seem undeterred by the fines, which have been set at several thousand euros, as they continue to go out for walks and happily stop for a chat in the fresh air. But how is this lack of consensus dangerous when it comes to understanding security threats and evaluating the measures taken? Does this mean that the state has lost its ability to “mobilize” the population and is no longer able to demonstrate true “emergency” power? Why was China able to implement emergency measures to far greater effect than European countries? It would seem that the explanation is in the specifics of the functioning of “extraordinary power,” or, more specifically, in the fine line between legitimacy and structural violence. Let us elaborate on this fine line.

The almost universal introduction of a “state of emergency” brings to mind the classics of political thought, who devoted far more attention to matters of state and society. The key arguments put forward by Carl Schmitt in his Dictatorship [3], where he provides a detailed discussion on the exercise of “extraordinary power,” are particularly pertinent. Schmitt made a distinction between “what was legally regulated — that is, a limited exercise of the sovereignty,” and the “substance, always remaining hidden but at hand, and in principle unlimited, of the omnipotence of the state,” whose “self-commitment through ordinary legislation only held for situations considered to be normal.” And in abnormal situations, or what Schmitt would call a “state of siege,” sovereignty is manifested as “an authority, in principle unlimited, in order to do whatever was advisable to keep the state safe.” However, such broad powers require an extremely high level of trust in the authorities on the part of citizens. It is clear that liberal democracies that are used to the state acting as a “night watchman” are affected more by the transformation towards an authority that is “in principle unlimited.” Hence the need for a high level of trust: when the laws that make the interaction between state and society “normal” no longer work, trust remains the only mechanism that informs the legitimacy of the actions taken by the authorities in an emergency situation. Extraordinary power creates a new “normality,” and its normalizing force (according to Michel Foucault) increases many times over. Similarly, in the absence of trust, people see emergency measures as a form of structural violence. That is, Johan Galtung [4] and his followers point out, it is seen as an unlawful incursion into the private affairs of the individual. The consequences of such an “unsanctioned” incursion may end up costing the country’s political leadership what is left of its power, as well as the ability to exercise a “normalizing power.” This is why the sequence of measures taken in a crisis situation and the discourse used by the country’s leadership to legitimize their actions and gain the trust of citizens are so important.

If we look at how emergency measures were implemented in Europe from this point of view — and in Italy in particular, which has been affected the most by the pandemic — we see that trust is indeed a key condition when it comes to determining the effectiveness of emergency measures. Italy was the first hotspot of the pandemic in Europe. It quickly moved into second place in the world in terms of the number of infected, behind China, and soon after surpassed that country in the number of deaths. Little was known about the pandemic in February 2020, and even less about how China — a country that the West has a hard time trusting — was dealing with it. Hence the extreme caution and indecision of the Italian leadership and the resulting outbreak and deaths. With all the will in the world, the Italian government simply did not have enough information about the nature of the threat. Consequently, it was unable to form a narrative that would have allowed society to move quickly and accept the restrictions. Cynical as it may sound given the circumstances, other European countries were in a better situation to deal with the impending crisis, as they had learnt from how both China and Italy had responded to the threat and had a much clearer picture of exactly what they were facing. The price of freedom for each individual depreciated in proportion to his or her understanding of the seriousness of the threat. As fear grew, so too did the demands for the state to provide security guarantees, which in turn reduced the likelihood that the measures introduced would be seen as structural violence. This allowed several European countries to rush strict measures through — measures that most people saw as legitimate and justified. This is why control over information is so important in times of “extraordinary power” — many countries have already started monitoring fake news about coronavirus, as they understand that this is the most important factor when it comes to building trust. However, even the strict information control, the endless references to the authority of specialists, the “war” discourse that is increasingly being used by politicians in reference to coronavirus and the tragic reports coming from Italy are not always convincing enough. “Sovereignty is the refusal to accept limits… I have refused to submit, therefore, I am,” wrote Georges Bataille in The Accursed Share. As the current situation has shown, ordinary citizens of European countries with liberal democracies are not ready to give up their sovereignty and start to fully trust the state without a fight.

What about Russia? Russia has had even more time than other European countries to prepare its citizens for decisive measures. However, despite the fact that by mid-April 2020 the coronavirus had claimed more than 20,000 Italian lives and the number of infected in Russia had exceeded that figure, the Kremlin had not declared a state of emergency, the country was still not in full lockdown (a not-so-strict form of “self-isolation” is in place), and mixed signals were being sent about the possibility of more stringent measures being introduced. The government is developing a large-scale electronic system for tracking the movement of its citizens whereby drivers would need to obtain a QR code in order to move around Moscow and Moscow Region, but it has not been implemented yet. Movement between regions has not been suspended. It would seem that the country’s leadership can sense the fine line between legitimate measures and structural violence and is afraid to take more radical action, clearly waiting for the population to unequivocally ask for harsher measures. In other words, the government is waiting for a clear demonstration of trust on the part of its citizens. The trap, however, is that inconstant and one-sided measures can bring about a crisis of confidence far quicker than suddenly restricting the rights and freedoms of citizens in order to ensure security.

Business is also in a state of uncertainty, as it is still unclear who can and cannot work from home, how remote working will be implemented from a technical standpoint, what monitoring practices will be put in place to catch businesses that continue their operations and try to get their employees to continue to work, and what the authorities plan to do next in terms of saving Russian business. Most Russians saw the non-working week from March 30 to April 5 as extra vacation, an opportunity to head out to the park and wind down. Many businesses resumed operations on April 6, a fact that could lead to a sharp increase in the number of infections in the coming weeks. The move to tax those with over 1 million roubles in bank savings was not received well, as people saw it as the government taking the opportunity to pick the pockets of the burgeoning middle class (we use the term rather loosely here, as the Russian middle class is hardly comparable to the European middle class, for example), which had only just managed to accumulate such a safety net, instead of trying to rally the population by taxing large companies and monopolies. Most people see decisions such as these as rather shady. What is more, the process of deferring loan, mortgage and tax payments will require a lot of paperwork and procedural expenses, which will, in turn, reduce the public’s confidence in the state acting as a guarantor and insurer of the costs incurred. Business has little confidence in the government as it is, and this will only hit it harder. But the hardest hit of all will be those who operate in the “grey” and “black” areas of the economy — those had no trust in the state even before the crisis began — as there is no hope of them receiving any kind of financial support. And what will happen to the people they employ — the thousands of illegal immigrants who often work “off the books” with no labour rights or means of livelihood in a foreign country? Will they voluntarily self-isolate? Or will they go to any extreme in order to provide for themselves and for their families? Will the state be able to mobilize the necessary resources to prevent rampant crime in the most disintegrated part of society?

The State as the Sole Subject of “Extraordinary Power”

Despite the fact that the West has been talking about the need for a common response to global security challenges for decades now, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that we are still woefully unprepared to deliver such a response. And this, despite the fact that the pandemic is neither a political nor an ideological challenge. The touchstone of supranational integration, the European Union, is on the verge of taking away one of its four freedoms — the freedom of movement for EU citizens. The Schengen Area has been temporarily closed. All migration inside and outside the European Union has been suspended, and its countries are making sovereign decisions based on assessments of the appropriateness of restrictive measures. Meanwhile, these measures touch on the very essence of the sovereignty of the individual in a democratic society, namely, the right to freedom of movement, the right to work and the right to the protection of one’s health and safety. In the three months since the pandemic began, the World Health Organization, G7 and G20 have not made a single binding decision, and the UN Security Council has remained silent. The European Union is trying to agree on economic support measures for its member countries, and while the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) has been suspended and countries have been allowed to violate fiscal and budgetary discipline, the idea of introducing so-called “coronabonds” (Euro obligations that would allow European Stability Mechanism funds to be spent on measures to overcome to consequences of the crisis) supported by Italy, Spain and Portugal, but not so much by Germany and the Netherlands, has split Northern and Southern Europe once again. Italy, which has been hit the hardest by the virus, is perhaps most acutely aware of the consequences of “losing a part of its sovereignty” to supranational European institutions: the reduction of hospital beds and medical staff was a direct result of the “austerity” measures put in place by Brussels in the early 2010s. Obviously, the discussion on the need to return sovereignty to the national level developed by the Italian side, specifically by Lega Nord, is quickly gathering steam. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has received parliamentary approval to extend the state of emergency for as long necessary and to adopt “emergency” decrees, while the European Union stands back and points fingers, thus underscoring its helplessness in the face of yet another triumph for national sovereignty.

We can confidently state today that the nation-state remains the only subject of “extraordinary power” — a sovereign capable of defining the boundaries of the new “norm” and the subject of biopower in the territory that is subject to control. As the experience of combatting the pandemic in the European Union has demonstrated, it is the state alone that possesses the necessary resources to exercise control, guarantee security and reallocate resources in an emergency. National governments are still in control, among numerous other functions, of the police, the emergency services, the tracking of their citizens’ movements, information control technologies, the management of the labour market and industrial production and the redistribution and mobilization of resources within their respective countries, and the crisis has highlighted how quickly parts of these functions that have been delegated to supranational structures can be returned to the purview of national governments. The pandemic has also demonstrated that citizens invariably turn to the state and their national governments for protection.

For many states, the pandemic will likely be a way to test the boundaries and limits of “extraordinary power.” And every day it becomes increasingly obvious that these limits are linked to sociocultural considerations, which also respect national borders. For example. The freedom-loving French and Italians are now (finally) prepared to sit at home in order to save the older generation; the Chinese have spent their last savings on the production of masks and medicines; and the Japanese, who were already quite used to and accepting of social distancing and wearing masks, have taken the new demands in their stride; the Russians, upon learning that they would have to give the state a percentage of their savings during the crisis, rushed to their banks to withdraw money; while the people of Turkmenistan have been forbidden from saying the word “coronavirus” and wearing masks and may be sent to prison for ignoring the rules — in short, there is no such thing as coronavirus in Turkmenistan, and everyone agrees. All this “blooming complexity” in just a few months has laid bare the level of trust between citizens and the state, with each individual case demonstrating how far the state is prepared to go and how much society is prepared to tolerate. Many governments have started to seriously tighten information control against the backdrop of the fight against the pandemic. For example, a number of countries have introduced fines for spreading false information, and it is, of course, the government that decides which information is false, and it does not matter that much of the “knowledge” about this little-studied threat, even if it comes from respected scientists, can be refuted and become fake news in as little as a week. But information can be an incredibly powerful resource in times of “extraordinary power,” something that the government simply cannot fail to privatize, as information is the foundation of trust.

The Consequences of “Extraordinary Power”: A Large-Scale Crisis of Confidence

Trust becomes a strategic resource when institutions stop working. “Extraordinary power,” which has become the norm following the introduction (official or otherwise) of a state of emergency essentially means that governments are functioning on an ad hoc basis. Some states have long abandoned this practice and are finding it increasingly difficult to return to the “will of the sovereign” from institutionalized formal processes. For those who are used to living in the “manual control” regime, where institutional trust is typically low due to the fact that institutions have always been a “bonus” that the sovereign can use at its discretion, “extraordinary power” is, if not the norm, always tacitly understood as the scenario that is most likely to unfold in any given situation. Whatever the case may be, we are witnessing a deep crisis of confidence brought about by the fact that neither the institutions that seemed stable and effective, nor the forethought or farsightedness of the “wise leader” were able to prevent matters from taking a turn for the worse.

As we know from the works of Albert Hirschman [5], there are three basic types of attitude towards the state an individual can possibly adopt: exit, voice and loyalty. “Loyalty” is only possible when there is a high level of trust. “Voice” is an open protest that requires people to be ready to take social action, something that is unlikely given the current rules regarding social distancing and the fines for breaking them. “Exit” is the most realistic strategy when there is a lack of trust and the price of protest is too high. The “extraordinary powers” that are being implemented all over the planet today offer us a glimpse of just how high: the mobilization of the police, army and other guard forces; the experimentation with all manner of digital and physical control; and the introduction of various sanctions (financial, administrative and custodial). It thus follows that all the talk about globalization, the blurring of borders, the freedom of movement, and so on, is only possible as long as national governments allow it, all the while retaining the right to nix all these developments and implement their own instruments of control.

The choice of response strategy will, of course, be geared towards the interests of the nation, primarily due to national sociocultural specifics. However, even now, looking at how different societies have reacted to the measures that have been introduced and the level of trust that has been formed in response to these measures, we can assume that the most common strategy will likely be “exit.” This is due, first of all, to the fact that states — even Western liberal democracies that have more reason than most to count on the loyalty of their citizens — cannot guarantee the security of the population or even comply with the conditions of the social contract that EU taxpayer money has been paying for over the past several decades. The pandemic has opened the eyes of those in the most economically developed and liberal democracies to the fact that they have been living in a world of lies — from what they believed to be the most advanced medicine to Industry 4.0, which, as it turns out, was not able to manufacture enough medical masks. When the pandemic is over, “exit” for some will mean emigrating to a country with a more effective healthcare system, better social protection, superior business insurance, etc. For others, “exit” will mean the gradual transition to the “grey” or “black” areas of the economy. This will happen in countries where institutional trust was low before the crisis and continued to fall even further as a result of the ineffective steps taken by the state, or due to the unwillingness of the ruling class and big business to demonstrate social solidarity and share the hardships of rebuilding the economy with the middle class and SMEs. Still, others will see “exit” as an incentive for pursuing maximum autonomy in their lives: from switching to working from home and distance learning to subsistence farming. Others may experience “exit” as social marginalization. But one thing is already clear — in most states, the coronavirus will test the public’s confidence in their respective governments. This means that sovereign states today need a balanced, well-thought-out and consistent strategy in order to gain the trust of their citizens and be able to carry out their “normalizing” role into the future, when the time comes to rebuild and recreate institutions and practices and after our fear of death has given way to the fear that there will be no future at all.

[1] Bataille, Georges. 2006. The Accursed Share. Мoscow.

[2] Agamben G. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford.

[3] Schmitt, Carl. 2005. Dictatorship. St. Petersburg.

[4] Galtung J. Violence, Peace, and Peace Research // Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 6. No. 3 (1969), pp. 167–191.

[5] Hirschman A. 1970. Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge, Mass.

From our partner RIAC

PhD in Political Science, RIAC Program Manager, Research Fellow at Centre for Global Problems Studies, MGIMO-University

Continue Reading
Comments

Intelligence

Israel-Bhutan peace agreement and its affect on China’s influence

Published

on

First: The relationship between (political normalization agreements between Israel and the Emirates and the State of Bhutan or the Kingdom of Happiness) between India and China with the UAE appointment of a “Minister of Emirati Happiness”

Second: Is Israel’s extensive study of the importance, danger and location of (the State of Bhutan or the Kingdom of Happiness) directly between India and China, the only motive for signing a peace agreement with it?, and then persuading the UAE side to bring the idea of ​​“the Minister of Happiness from the State of Bhutan to the Emirates and then later to the countries of the region”?, I am calling it, as: “The theory of Israel’s employment of political psychology functionally” in the Emirates and the region

Third: An analysis of (the content of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s statement to establish a peace agreement with the State of Bhutan) to balance relations between the Indian and Chinese sides in favor of Washington, and its relationship to political normalization and Israeli peace agreements in the Arab Gulf and the Middle East

Fourth: An analysis of the geographical, regional maps and border areas surrounding the state of Bhutan in practice, and an analysis of the danger of its location for Israel to play a role on (the borders facing Afghanistan) to monitor the movements of the Taliban movement, and in (the dividing line between India and China) to reveal the most important movements of China on its borders in China’s Tibet Province for the United States of America

Fifth: Analyzing the dangerous relationship between Israel’s signing of the peace agreement and political normalization with the small Buddhist state of “Bhutan” directly adjacent to the Chinese territory of Tibet in December 2020, and (Washington’s appointment only two months prior to the US special coordinator for human rights in the Chinese Buddhist region of Tibet in October 2020)

    Since Israel signed full diplomatic relations with the state of “Bhutan” between India and China on Saturday, December 12, 2020, it has called it – according to the Israeli Foreign Ministry statement published on their official website – “political normalization” – in the presence of the Israeli ambassador to India “Ron Malka” with his Bhutanese counterpart ambassador in India, “Fitsub Nagimil”, in a ceremony during which the (the alliance between the Israeli and Bhutan sides was confirmed with Indian mediation), to become the “54th country in the history of Bhutanese relations with the world”, with the Israeli side confirming that “there have been secret negotiations for many years between Israel and a state  Bhutan to persuade it to sign an agreement to establish peace and political normalization with Israel”. This is in view of (the policy of the isolationist state of Bhutan of its wn will since its inception and its distance from the idea of ​​conflict, polarization and competition between regional and international powers, and its adoption of the policy of national happiness for its people and its internationally limited relations). Hence, we understand that Bhutan does not have diplomatic relations with China, nor with the United States of America itself.

   The Egyptian researcher was very surprised by the lack of interest of the Arab side in the event, despite its researching, academic and analytical importance to me for a long time, due to my realization of its significance and its danger to the the Asian region and the Middle East security itself and their balances, so, I have profoundly analyzed the following information and inquiries, regarding:

     The reasons for the United States of America appointing a prominent official for the human rights file in the Chinese Buddhist region of Tibet directly facing the state of “Bhutan” in October 2020, just two months before the signing of the peace and political normalization agreement between Israel and Bhutan in December 2020?  As a result of a special strategic security arrangement between Israel and the United States of America, then what is its relationship with Afghanistan, and with the discovery of a spy network, a modern Israeli spy cell, and military bases for Israel in the state of “Azerbaijan” in Central Asia, at the closest border between it and Afghanistan, to spy on the activity of the “Taliban” movement and its armed militias and to monitor  Iran, then what does all this have to do with Israeli political normalization with the countries of the Arab Gulf and the Middle East, especially the United Arab Emirates?

    And that as you will understand from this long analysis, which took me a long time and extended to several whole months, in order to try to read, understand and analyze the entire scene, and research and analyze all its dimensions and fringes, and then  – the Egyptian researcher has been in-depth reading of the geographical, regional and border maps – surrounding the state of “Bhutan” to understand (the reasons for  Determining and choosing the Israeli side of the “State of Bhutan” specifically to sign a peace agreement despite its very small size, its small population of no more than 750,000 people, and its small influence), in view of my in-depth study of that Asian region, and the study of its relationship with China – as a precise focus of my academic specialization in Chinese political affairs  – and even linking Israel’s modern diplomatic relationship with the State of Bhutan, for a deeper future analysis in my research related to studying the impact of the relationship between Israel’s signing of the peace agreement with (the State of Bhutan) between India and China on (Taliban) in Afghanistan and its relationship with the discovery of two Israeli military bases in the State of Azerbaijan to monitor Iran’s movements and its activitie, additionally of the armed Taliban movement in Afghanistan, and the impact of this on the Chinese role and influence in confronting the state of India, and then the impact of all these data and interactions related to the Taliban. Finally, afterwards, the researcher was trying to analyze the impacts of Israeli-Bhutanese peace agreement on “the future of political normalization in the Arab Gulf region and the Middle East, focusing on the UAE side in particular”.

  Hence, the Egyptian researcher worked for a long time to analyze the issue of Israel’s signing of the peace agreement with (the State of Bhutan) between India and China through the Israeli embassy in the Indian capital “New Delhi” and with Indian mediation, then asking: (What is the relationship of the file of political normalization between Israel and Bhutan and the United States of America appointment of a prominent official on the file of “human rights” in the Chinese region of Tibet, which is directly opposite the state of Bhutan, and a dispute between Bhutan and China)?, and the reasons for that even though (the state of Bhutan) is very small, as you mentioned, which is also called internationally as “the kingdom or a state of  Happiness”, which is based on (the happiness indicators scale, and the Gross National Product for happiness to measure the Bhutanese productivity), the state of “Bhutan” is the first country in the world to appoint a “Minister of Happiness“.  But the serious question remains here, which is:

   (Does the completely severed relations and the cessation of contacts between the “State of Bhutan” and the People’s Republic of China since 1959 due to the Buddhist minority in the “Tibetan region of China” supported by the Buddhist population and its Buddhist monks in “Bhutan” in the face of China have anything to do with the establishment of official Israeli diplomatic relations with the State of Bhutan  Small, due to the difficulty of Chinese influence in the face of India as an ally of Israel and Washington in the region of South and Southeast Asia)?

   For all these reasons, the Egyptian researcher began a new in-depth study of the map of that Asian region of the state of “Bhutan” and to identify its importance in relation to the “file of Israeli political normalization with the Gulf countries and the Middle East”, by tracing the following main headlines:

First: The relationship between (political normalization agreements between Israel and the Emirates and the State of Bhutan or the Kingdom of Happiness) between India and China with the appointment of the UAE as a “Minister of Emirati Happiness”

   Although some were surprised by the depth of this new research and analytical idea globally, which the Egyptian researcher wounded for the first time, and which is not universally addressed by studying many influences from Asia to the Middle East and the United Arab Emirates, and linking it to the “political normalization agreements between Israel and the Emirates” and the UAE’s appointment of a Minister of Happiness, as a step  For full official diplomatic relations with Israel, as an idea inspired primarily by the “State of Bhutan” between India and China, which is considered the first country in the world to care about happiness, and to set the indicator and the national product of happiness, and to make continuous measurements of the happiness and well-being of its citizens at all times. My analysis is based mainly on the following dimensions:

A serious question jumped in the mind of the Egyptian researcher, related to: “Was political normalization between Israel and the UAE planned before 2016, when the UAE announced the appointment of the Minister of Happiness as a newly created Emirati ministry that was established in the UAE on February 8, 2016?”. The most important tasks of the Minister of State for Happiness, which are: Harmonizing all the plans, programs and policies of the United Arab Emirates to achieve the happiness of society.  The first Emirati minister to hold the position of Minister of Happiness is “Ohoud Khalfan Al Roumi”.  And that previous idea directly was linked by the Egyptian researcher to the (political normalization agreements between Israel and the Emirates), and with the appointment of the UAE before it (Minister of Happiness) as an idea that was mainly studied and inspired and brought forth from the experience model of the “State of Bhutan” known globally as the “Kingdom of Happiness”, and Bhutan was keen to appoint a “Minister of Happiness” and policies based on the happiness index and scale, for decades, and the complete reliance of Bhutan on the national product of happiness and measurements of the happiness of its citizens, given that “Bhutan” was and still is the first country in the world to adopt the happiness index and scale to measure (the Gross National Product of happiness in Bhutan),  And it adopted the designation of “official policies for happiness” in the previous long decades.

Hence, my research and academic understanding came in a deeper and more prolific way, related to answering a question that has always occupied me research and intellectually since the appointment of the UAE as its Minister of Happiness, and Israel worked out (political normalization agreements full diplomatic relations with the Emirates and Bhutan respectively, and the two countries’ attention at the same time itself with happiness on the political and national level), as a deep intellectual occasion for the Egyptian researcher to answer this question that raises her globally and intellectually, which no research or analytical study has previously addressed, namely:

    “(The extent of the relationship between appointing a Minister of Happiness in the UAE with Bhutan, and most importantly, Israel’s relationship with exporting the idea of ​​happiness to the Emiratis before signing the “peace agreement with the United Arab Emirates”, especially with the Israeli announcement of its quest for several years to sign an agreement for peace and political normalization with Bhutan, then recognition  Israel that this was done with an Israeli desire and an Indian mediation between Bhutan and Israel)?”

Bearing in mind as I have mentioned that the country (Bhutan) is the first country in the world to adopt the (national happiness index to measure the gross national product), and it was the first to formulate the idea and policy of (gross national happiness) in 1971. The fourth king of the Kingdom of Bhutan, his name is “Jigme Singhai Wang chuck”, who stressed that “the total national happiness of Bhutan is more important than the gross domestic product”. This concept means that:

“Sustainable development should not be linked only to economic indicators of well-being as a measure of progress”

   Since then, the concept of “gross national happiness” has influenced the entirety of Bhutan’s economically, socially, culturally, intellectually, touristic and planning policies, while also dominating the imagination of others outside its borders, prompting the United Nations and some countries and those interested to study the unique Bhutanese experience to learn from it.

The strange paradox of the Egyptian researcher is that Bhutan prevented the entry of television sets, the Internet, and telephones into the country until 1999, with the aim of (protecting traditional culture from external influences).  The Bhutanese authorities have also imposed a pedestrian day every Thursday, with the aim of preventing traffic in cities and protecting humans and the environment. It derives its energy from its surroundings, including: (rivers, valleys, lakes and landscapes), so you find that Bhutan is a small country, and one of the cleanest countries in the world, and the number of cars in it does not exceed a car, all its streets are about 200 cars only, and it has countless waterfalls and rivers  One of the strangest and rarest animals in the world lives in Bhutan, the takin animal, which is of the cow family, and the penalty for hunting it may reach the death penalty even for visiting foreigners.

What caught the Egyptian researcher with great interest, is “their link between the areas and priorities” indicators and measures of achieving happiness in the Emirati concept in a manner similar to the basis for the state of Bhutan, mainly represented in (nine areas for measuring the percentage of gross national happiness), which are, as follows:

  Mental health, physical health, education, time use, cultural diversity, adaptability, good governance, community vitality, environmental diversity and adaptability, and standards of living

   According to the “Gross National Happiness Index” in Bhutan, it was found that 42% of the population of Bhutan was “happy“, while 50% felt “almost happy“, and 8% of the people felt “completely happy“.

The Egyptian researcher also linked with interest the statements of UAE officials and officials in Bhutan about their common priorities for happiness, emphasizing the following:

  That their country had developed a system for measuring progress, which was not only useful for policy making, but would also motivate the government, NGOs and the private sector to increase their “gross national happiness rate and ratios”.

   In this context, Business Week magazine ranked Bhutan (as the happiest country in Asia, and the eighth happiest country in the world), citing a global survey conducted by (University of Leicester) in Britain, called (The World Happiness Map Survey).

Perhaps the Egyptian researcher presented this new and extensive idea in our Arab world and our region about happiness and the happiness index, then he linked it to the state of “Bhutan” in the first place, as the first country in the world that adopted and adopted those policies for measuring the welfare rates of its citizens, and so on, and to here, the matter has nothing to do with this problem or crisis, but my analysis came through (what is the connection between a common idea between the Emirates and Bhutan, which is happiness, and then its relationship later to Israel’s signing of peace agreements and political normalization with the two countries, especially after a period of the UAE’s announcement of appointing a “Minister of Happiness” in it, as an idea inspired mainly by the country of Bhutan).  This is what made me, as a researcher and political analyst specialized in Chinese and Asian political affairs, look at the event from a different angle “politically, psychologically, psychologically, strategically and securityly”, meaning:

  (The extent of the importance of psychological preparation for the Arab citizen and his feeling of happiness and his value and well-being in his country, before accepting the idea of ​​peace or normalization with the Israeli side despite the Arab rejection of it, especially the Gulf in the first place).

I know in advance that (I am willing to propose a new global idea that has not been discussed or circulated and analyzed globally before, but the whole matter has stopped me, not with the aim of attacking or prejudice against the policies of one country or another because that did not really concern me when adopting and presenting this new analytical idea in the Arab world  And globally), as much as it has occupied me as an Egyptian and Arab researcher specializing in Chinese and Asian political affairs for many years.  On what I started, especially from specialists in “political psychology“, regarding:

  (Is putting the happiness index and measure as a concept and a political position in the state an ideal prelude when concluding peace agreements between Arab parties and Israel)? Rather, it remains the most dangerous and most important, regarding: (the relationship between the common link between the Emirates and Bhutan, which is “happiness” and the agreements of political normalization, as the Israeli side is calling it or peace agreements, as it is called in the Gulf and the Middle East)?

   Based on the previous analysis, this brings me to another comprehensive level of analysis and is clearer to me that the (Psychologists) and not politics or strategic experts and academics this time, because it is more related to their understanding and vision of the idea, and the extent of the depth of what I presented and their analysis of it from their research angle, which is:

  (Is Israel’s choice of countries based on happiness indicators and with ministers of happiness, such as: Bhutan and the Emirates having a primarily maximum significance for Israel, politically and psychologically, in order to start normalization? Then, was the idea of ​​appointing an emirati minister of happiness an Israeli idea primarily by its experts to export the happiness of the state of Bhutan to the UAE or adopt the same idea specifically as a “psychological prelude” to pave the way for the acceptance of Israel among the people of the region and the Gulf?)

Second: Is Israel’s extensive study of the importance, danger and location of (the State of Bhutan or the Kingdom of Happiness) between India and China directly, the only motive for signing a peace agreement with it, and then persuading the UAE side to bring the idea of ​​“Minister of Happiness from the State of Bhutan to the Emirates and then later to the countries of the region”?, I am calling it the “theory of Israel’s employment of political psychology” functionally in the Emirates and the region

    When the Egyptian researcher analyzes this new and profound point for the first time globally regarding the UAE’s import of the Minister of Happiness as an idea from the very small “state of Bhutan” between the borders of China and India, and its relationship to Israel’s signing of the peace agreement or normalization, according to the term that has been in circulation in the Arabs for many years, as an introductory introduction to the agreement  Peace or normalization between the Israeli and Emirati sides. Hence, the Egyptian researcher understood this point, as follows:

On a personal level, this matter occupied my thinking as a political analyst on this issue from a different psychological angle, that the appointment of “a minister of happiness in the Emirates and then the signing by Israel, mediated by India, of a peace agreement with the state of Bhutan”, may have come as a deep psychological introduction and precedent to acceptance. Psychologically political normalization between the Emiratis and the Israelis, as a “new Israeli employment of what is known to me as a professor of political science for political psychology and its functional applications, happiness lies in its income and its gross national product”, but rather in its overall management of its internal and external conditions and when setting its policies, as I will explain.

This was withdrawn by the Egyptian researcher by analyzing another indicator that is more dangerous than the (political aspect), given that (the State of Bhutan) does not fully establish diplomatic relations with the State of China and has cut diplomatic relations with it until this moment since 1959, due to the sympathy of the State of Bhutan with the Chinese Buddhist majority located in (Tibet) and directly facing the border with the state of “Bhutan”, as well as the sympathy of (Bhutan Buddhist monks) with their views in the region of Tibet, and their support for the “Dalai Lama”, whom China considers in the rule of the rebels.

The (Bhutan State) also refuses to establish diplomatic relations with the United States of America and Russia, and, as we mentioned, it rejects absolutely any relations with China, because it desires to live in (happiness and harmony among its Bhutanese people), away from the conflicts of the surrounding regional powers and the competition of major powers.  international, such as the United States of America.  But on the other hand, Bhutan has very limited relations with a number of countries in the world, led by (the State of India), and here came the keenness of (Israel) as the Egyptian researcher followed for several years to appoint the Israeli ambassador to India as an ambassador (not residing in the State of Bhutan), and with the Arab side not being completely interested in looking at or thinking about (the State of Bhutan) in view of its very small size and low impact in its surroundings.

Hence, the Egyptian researcher has been preoccupied for several years, considering the importance and danger of the Bhutan site – for which she will single out a separate part – to ensure the Israeli influence and penetration on the two (Indian and Chinese fronts), and its relationship with Afghanistan and political normalization in the Middle East after that, and even remains the most dangerous for the researcher  The Egyptian, and related (reasons for Israel’s establishment of relations with the very small state of Bhutan, which has severed its relations with China since 1959), due to the accusation of (the State of Bhutan) to China of violating the rights of the Tibetan minority in the Chinese territory of Tibet, which has intertwined with the Buddhist majority in the state of Bhutan, as I have explained.

 On the other hand, the Egyptian researcher discussed a lot, and stopped to understand the importance of “Israel’s work for full diplomatic relations with the very small state of Bhutan, despite the presence of an Israeli ambassador who is not resident in Bhutan to the State of India”. It became clear to me that “the state of Bhutan has a great intelligence importance for the country”.  For Israel, which I have studied well, given that it is located in a dangerous middle area between China and India, and Bhutan’s complete severing of diplomatic relations since the fifties with the State of China, gives it a great additional importance and advantage for the Israeli side, ally of India and Washington, by ensuring (the inability to influence the State of Israel).  Bhutan was identified by China as a large country with influence in the region, and after the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, it became clear to me – by referring to the geographical and border maps surrounding Bhutan – the extent (the danger, sensitivity and depth of Bhutan’s borders also with Afghanistan, and its intelligence importance for Israel), and that is considered, according to my analysis of the danger of this small Asian country, it is:

“An Israeli intelligence maneuver to get between all the competing and competing Asian fronts through “a very small country, no one in the Arab world and the Middle East is fully aware of its importance to Israel”

Hence, we understand from this analytical part (the extent of the danger and political sensitivity of Bhutan in relation to Israel), and that Israel did not choose it randomly to sign a peace agreement or political normalization, but when I dig deep and understand what I have reached by studying, research and deep analysis for a long time to try to understand the reasons for Israel’s choice of Bhutan in order to establish a comprehensive peace with it, and even the (Israeli side was not satisfied with the Israeli ambassador in India as a non-resident ambassador also for the small state of Bhutan, and Israel’s request  India’s mediation with its friendly Bhutan to accept political normalization with it).

    Hence, I think that perhaps my research and analytical approach to understanding the importance and danger of this event analytically in the previous way, may have prompted me to think differently about the matter, and then try to transfer it in this new form to the Arab region and Western intellectual and research centers – to adopt the idea and the possibility of studying it together given that it is a new idea to the academic analysis and community that has not been touched upon before – and this may be what may move me to another part of this analysis, to identify the geographical importance, borders and regional sensitivity of the neighboring and surrounding countries of Bhuta in a practical way, especially China, and its proximity to the “Indo-Pacific” region from the ocean side  India, which are the countries of interest in the “new AUKUS defense agreement led by the United States of America with Australia and Britain to counter China’s security and maritime influence in Asia”.

Third: An analysis of (the content of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s statement to establish a peace agreement with the State of Bhutan) to balance relations between the Indian and Chinese sides in favor of Washington, and its impact on political normalization and Israeli peace agreements in the Arab Gulf States and the Middle East

     The most important thing that caught the attention of the Egyptian researcher about less than a year ago, specifically in December 2020, was what she read from a statement on the “Twitter website” of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in which it mentioned a text:

“Israel and the Kingdom of Bhutan have signed an agreement to establish full diplomatic relations between them, and this step represents an important development in the course of Israeli-Asian relations”

   Accordingly, the Egyptian researcher tried to trace this important historical event for the Hebrew state, and analyze the content of the statements of Israeli military intelligence men, state officials and Israeli politicians, as follows:

The celebration of the Israeli media, including the website of the “Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper”, emphasized that:

“The Israeli-Bhutanese agreement was signed in the Indian capital, New Delhi, in the presence of the Israeli ambassador to India (Ron Malka) and the Bhutanese ambassador to India (Stop Namgyel)”

The former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed this, saying:

“I welcome the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Bhutan, which is another fruit of the peace agreements”

Here, we find that “Netanyahu” intentionally added, in a statement issued by his office, regarding the new relationship with Bhutan, to a sentence that stopped the researcher analytically, namely:

“We are in contact with other countries that want to establish diplomatic relations with us”

Perhaps what stopped the Egyptian researcher in this context is that – the Israeli newspapers tried to approach in a very simplified and brief way – and by the way, it was ambiguous to me, research and academic, to explaining the importance of the state of Bhutan as a small Buddhist kingdom, and that it is located on an area of ​​40 square kilometers at the eastern edge of the Himalayas on (the border with India and the Tibet Autonomous Region in China), its population does not exceed 750,000 people.

Also, when I read analytically the Jerusalem Post’s comment on the new peace agreement between Israel and Bhutan came, the “Hebrew newspaper’s ambiguous statement to me), said that:

“The Israeli agreement with Bhutan has nothing to do with the normalization agreements that were reached during the last four months with American mediation between Israel and four Arab countries, namely: (UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco)”

The matter increased a research and analytical ambiguity for me, with the assertion of the “Israeli Jerusalem Post” newspaper on:

“The insignificance of the state of Bhutan, and its isolation, and that it pursues a policy of isolation from the world”

Perhaps my interpretation was that it was an Israeli intelligence attempt, which the researcher interpreted as “an Israeli attempt to divert attention away from the importance and danger of the state of Bhutan”, which is what the statement of the Israeli “Jerusalem newspaper” explicitly stated:

“There is no enmity between Bhutan and Israel, but the former pursues an isolationist policy with the countries of the world, in order to avoid external influences”

The important matter remains for the Egyptian researcher, which it has omitted and avoided mentioning all the Israeli statements that (Bhutan cut diplomatic relations with China because of Bhutan’s accusations of China infiltrating the Buddhist-majority province of Tibet near Bhutan).

As the assertion of all the Hebrew newspapers was dull, general and ambiguous to me analytically, with a quick reference, that the state (Bhutan) generally only establishes official diplomatic relations with (only 53 countries) around the world, and this does not include the United States, Britain, France and Russia.

Also, according to my in-depth reading about (the possibility of establishing future relations between China and Bhutan), it became clear to me that this is impossible, according to the strict Buddhist traditions of Bhutan, which (rejects any relations that it may have with China), especially with the “increased warning” of Buddhist monks to China, and their accusation of China explicitly that it violated the rights of Buddhists, so the final decision of Bhutan was to close its border with Beijing after accusing them of China’s invasion of Tibet in 1959, and Bhutan’s view that “the Chinese province of Tibet is an inseparable part of the Buddhist state of Bhutan”.

Based on the Egyptian researcher’s presentation of simple excerpts from all these Israeli statements and statements, she fully understood, as I indicated during the previous points, the extent to which “all Israeli statements deliberately indicate or avoid mentioning a lot about the small state of Bhutan, and its importance as an important regional balance area between China and India”.  Rather, all the statements of the Hebrew newspapers intended for an important matter that caught my attention analytically, which is all Israeli statements, including the official statement issued by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself and published deliberately on the famous “Twitter social networking site” to underestimate the importance of the state of Bhutan, and deliberately emphasize that it is a small country, additionally “it has deliberately concealed all the facts related to its relationship with China, and Bhutan’s close friendship with India, as an ally and closest partner to Israel and the United States of America in confronting China”.

Likewise, the Egyptian researcher noted with great interest the deliberate and omission of all these facts in Bhutan by Israeli statements (to not draw the attention of the world, especially the countries of the Middle East), despite my previous reading of statements related to prominent Israeli officials publicly published, in which they confirmed that “Israel deliberately establishes formal diplomatic relations and peace with countries that it deems of great importance to the interests of the Hebrew state”.

This confirms my previous analytical idea of ​​the danger, location and importance of Bhutan for Israel, and the reasons why “the Israeli side is not satisfied with the Israeli ambassador in India, as a non-resident representative of the State of Israel in Bhutan, who is present as a full ambassador performing his duties in India”.

I also analytically stopped, as a last matter, in a way that should not be neglected, about: “Israeli statements and newspapers deliberately refer to Israel’s explicit request for mediation by India to help it make a peace agreement with the state of Bhutan”, and the Israelis deliberately mentioned the reasons for this, despite “the presence of more impimportant and influential neighbors to India from Bhutan itself”.

   Finally, and based on my in-depth analysis of the content of Israeli speeches, statements and statements about the state of Bhutan, in my opinion and according to my understanding of the general scene according to Israel and its security and strategic relationship with India as an ally of Washington as well, that there is a link between what happened with regard to the location and importance of the state of Bhutan for China, as well as the great importance of Bhutan  , given that it has not had any relations with China for many years.  These are all matters (which were omitted by all the previously mentioned Israeli statements and statements), in a deliberate attempt that the Egyptian researcher read, according to her understanding, that (the state of Bhutan, perhaps is the main winning card for Israel in Asia, given that it is any Bhutan country also is the only country that has a relationship with a state the only one in the Middle East, which is Israel, for the time being).

Fourth: An analysis of the geographical, regional maps and border areas surrounding the state of Bhutan in practice, and an analysis of the danger of its location for Israel to play a role on (the borders facing Afghanistan) to monitor the movements of the Taliban movement, and in (the dividing line between India and China) to reveal the most important movements of China on its borders in China’s Tibet Province for the United States of America

   Perhaps the Egyptian researcher has been preoccupied for a very long time, following the signing of the “peace agreement or political normalization between Israel and the State of Bhutan” in December 2020, with a thorough and objective reading of the danger and importance of the very small “Bhutan” state through “reading and analyzing the maps and the surrounding geographical and regional area, and the most important human and natural resources in Bhutan”, the researcher was very surprised given the remoteness of the entire Arab and Islamic world and its lack of awareness of the danger of this very small country, whose population does not exceed only 750,000 people, but its borders on that (the line directly between India and China and the presence of heights in it to reveal both  From China and Afghanistan together), perhaps the most plausible reason for the Egyptian researcher, especially when (I brought political, geographical and natural maps to study the nature and analysis of the importance of the state of Bhutan, and gradually began a long time ago to study its importance and danger).

                                                                                                         By studying the maps of the Bhutanese state, the Egyptian researcher realized that it was definitely not a coincidence, but rather to establish certain political and institutional arrangements, and most importantly security, which she deeply analyzed that “Israel’s request for mediation by India to help it make an agreement for political, strategic and economic rapprochement with the state of Bhutan was not a normal request with linking the official Israeli-Bhutanese peace statement to the term “political normalization” in the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s statement on the same pattern as the recent normalization or peace agreements with the Arab and Gulf sides, especially the UAE).

    What caught my eye, as I analytically mentioned, and intellectually and researchly occupied me, is the adoption of the “UAE” as the first country in the whole region to set an indicator to measure and increase the awareness, proportions and equipment of well-being and happiness of the Emirati people (as is the case in the state of Bhutan), by designating the (Emirates Minister of Happiness) for the first time in its history and the whole region, and then Israel signed in December 2020 a statement of “political normalization” with Bhutan, mediated by India and an official Israeli request, despite its very small size and small population, as well as its different lifestyle, depending heavily on (indicators and measurements of Happiness and raising the level and awareness of happiness among the Bhutanese people, and primarily caring for the human being, his well-being, his rights, nature, water and the environment), and other such natural and environmental elements.

   Therefore, the Egyptian researcher realized the importance and danger of the “State of Bhutan”, for Israel, and perhaps for its ally Washington, and of course, the state of “India”, an ally of Israel, in facilitating the process of political normalization with the Bhutanese side, due to the friendship between them, given the location of “Bhutan” on the highest mountainous region in the world, and it can  both (China and Afghanistan) were revealed through its chain of heights very easily, and from here we can (by reading and analyzing Bhutanese maps, realize how dangerous the location of that very small country is in monitoring the movements of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and revealing the highest regions of China with ease), according to my reading to the indications of the sensitive areas surrounding the state of “Bhutan” by referring to the geographical and regional maps and the surrounding border area, as follows:

The state of “Bhutan” is the highest country in height above sea level, where the average height of the land in “Bhutan” is more than three kilometers above sea level, making it (the highest in the world), followed by the country of “Nepal“, in which the summit is located Mount Everest.

The sensitive location of Bhutan, as it is bordered by China from two directions for (north and east), and India is bordered by (south and west).

Here, we find that the highlands of the state of “Bhutan” can detect China very easily, given that the heights of “Bhutan” directly face the heights of the “Tibet Plateau as the highest region in China”, with an altitude of more than 1500 meters above sea level, and the summit of Everest is located on  its heights, knowing that the reason for the dispute between the “state of Bhutan and China” and the reason for the severing of relations between them since 1959 is the dispute over “the borders of the Chinese territory of Tibet and its intertwining with the state of Bhutan”, as well as, of course, the most important thing, which is “the ethnic and national intersection of the Buddhist minority in Chinese Tibet”, and the Buddhist majority in Bhutan,” which caused a sharp dispute between the Chinese and Bhutan sides.

We note here the occurrence of the state of “Bhutan” in the face of the heights and mountains surrounding Afghanistan, which constitute about 75% of the area of ​​Afghanistan, and the average height of the lands in Afghanistan is about 49% of the country, in addition to the high level of Afghanistan in the face of the heights of “Bhutan” with a height of up to  to about 2026 meters above sea level.

Here, we find that (the Hindu Kush highlands are the highest mountainous group in Afghanistan) and is an extension of the Himalayas, directly facing the small state of “Bhutan”, knowing that the “state of Bhutan” is sometimes called in some ancient sources and references that the researcher referred to as “the kingdom of the isolated Himalayas”, which is thus in the same extensions and borders of the sensitive geographical areas surrounding Afghanistan.

It is very close to “Afghanistan and the state of Bhutan, which is sometimes called the small kingdom in South Asia”, with an area estimated at 46,500 square kilometers directly between (China and India), and its location on (directly the southern slopes of the Himalayas) made it higher level of the mountains range region in the whole world, and the most dangerous for me analytically, research and academically is “the seriousness of Bhutan’s position in the US-Chinese conflict and polarization in the Indo-Pacific region”, given (the location of the state of Bhutan is only hundreds of miles from the shore of the Indian Ocean).

 Perhaps what caught my attention in research is what I have seen on Indian websites, with the announcement by the (Indian Army) in the month of April 2020, about (the Indian army has sent separate military medical teams to deploy in the countries of India’s regional neighbors), which are mainly (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan) countries, with the aim of helping these countries enhance their capabilities to deal with the increasing cases of the Corona virus.  And the danger of this matter for me, analytically, is (India deliberately deploying teams from the medical army, not the civilian, and pushing them into the heart of the two states of Bhutan and Afghanistan together), which refers to (an Indian move to Afghanistan through Bhutan).

    Through the previous detailed analysis, of the importance of the state of “Bhutan” directly on the border between India and China, as well as its location in the highest region of a chain of heights in the whole world (it confirms indirect confrontation with the state of Afghanistan across its neighboring regional and geographical borders), we will immediately realize the importance of choosing the State of Bhutan “as an ideal country for the agreement of (political normalization between Israel and Bhutan and linking it to the Emirates and the Minister of Happiness on both the Bhutan and Emirati sides).  Its head (China, India, Afghanistan, the Indian Ocean region).

Fifth: Analyzing the dangerous relationship between Israel’s signing of the peace agreement and political normalization with the small Buddhist state of “Bhutan” directly adjacent to the Chinese territory of Tibet in December 2020, and (Washington’s appointment only two months prior to the US special coordinator for human rights in the Chinese Buddhist region of Tibet in October 2020)

      What most stopped the Egyptian researcher was the (link between the appointment of the United States of America to an American official on the human rights file in the Chinese Buddhist region of Tibet in October 2020, and Israel’s signing, just two months later, of the peace agreement and politicalization with Bhutan, normal China in December 2020), which is the Chinese territory directly adjacent to the state of “Bhutan”.

      It came as a surprise when the United States of America appointed “Robert Destroc”, the American official, as responsible for (the human rights file in the Chinese Buddhist region of Tibet), in October 2020, who previously held the position of (US Assistant Secretary  of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor) during the era of former President Trump’s administration, and the United States of America announced that “Robert Destro” would take the additional position that had been vacant since the beginning of the presidency of former President “Trump” in 2017. Hence, the Egyptian researcher began to analyze this American step and its relationship to the agreement of political normalization and peace between Israel and the State of Bhutan, as follows:

The researcher personally considered that the step of appointing the United States of America to a prominent official for (the human rights file in the Chinese region of Tibet, which is directly adjacent to Bhutan) is a deliberate American provocation to China, and one of the latest stages and levels of escalation and tension between the Chinese and American sides, a move that has of course provoked anger  And criticism of China and its Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However, the Egyptian researcher stopped at Washington’s move to appoint a senior human rights official as the US special coordinator for issues related to (Human Rights in Tibet in October 2020), but what made me look at the matter from a different analytical angle is “Israel’s speeding up after that American step directly with less than less than two months to sign the peace and normalization agreement with “Bhutan”. It seemed to me research and analysis, as if it were:

  “Deliberate security, political, and intelligence agreement and coordination between Israel and the United States of America regarding their joint cooperation in the Chinese regions of Tibet and the Buddhist state of Bhutan directly adjacent to Tibet”

This was accompanied by what the former US Secretary of State (Mike Pompeo) announced during the administration of former President “Trump”, that “Robert Destro”, who was holding the position of (US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor), during the era of the former president’s administration Trump will take the additional position, which has been vacant since the beginning of the Trump presidency, in 2017. With “Pompeo” confirming in a statement that “Destro” will work to achieve:

“Leading U.S. efforts to promote dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama or his Buddhist representatives, protect the unique Buddhist religious, cultural, and linguistic identity of Tibetans, and press for respect for their human rights”

We find that (China has refused, until this moment to deal continuously with that American coordinator for Tibet affairs), considering Washington’s behavior as a blatant interference in its internal affairs.

China was not satisfied with this, but at the same time lodged a protest with the United States, following a meeting held between the Special Coordinator for Tibet Issues (Robert Destro) and the leader of the Tibetan government-in-exile “Lobsang Sangai”. Beijing called on Washington to refrain from supporting the anti-separatists for China.  Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman “Zhao Lijian” said, in an explicit threat and response to Washington, stressing that:

   “The affairs of Tibet are limited to China’s internal affairs, interference from outside is unacceptable, and the appointment of the so-called Special Coordinator for Tibet in the United States constitutes a political move to interfere in the internal affairs of the People’s Republic of China and undermine the development and stability of Tibet”

The official spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry “Zhao Lijian” also indicated that:

  “China firmly opposes and never recognizes this, and we have made solemn representations to the United States”

Here, “Zhao Lijian”, as the official spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, made a very clear criticism of the American administration, in which he verbatim said:

   “The so-called Tibetan government-in-exile is a political separatist organization that pursues unrealistic dreams of Tibetan independence, and this organization violates China’s constitution and legislation, and has not been recognized by any country in the world”

Also, China issued another statement through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in which it toughened its tone against Washington, in which it said in text:

    “We also oppose any contact with the so-called leader of the Tibetan government-in-exile “Lopsang Sangai” by officials of other countries, as Destro, after meeting with this man, violated the obligations and strategic position of the American side that the United States neither supported the independence of Tibet nor recognizes the “Tibetan government-in-exile”, hence we call on the United States to stop interfering in China’s internal affairs, undermining the development and stability of Tibet, and refrain from providing any support to separatist forces”

All official Chinese statements came through the official government newspapers and media, stressing that “China will take all necessary measures to preserve its own interests”.

And mainly because of these American provocations, relations between the United States and China have fallen to their lowest level in decades, due to a group of issues primarily related to “the blatant American interference in China’s affairs”.

     Based on my previous connection and analysis of the (relationship between Israel and the United States of America in Bhutan and the Chinese Buddhist region of Tibet), my academic research and analysis of those successive events between America and Israel came in a completely different way, that:

  It seems as if the matter came out of the context of being just a blatant American interference in China’s affairs, especially with my complete focus on the history of the American provocation to China in the Tibetan region, despite the existence of that Tibetan problem or crisis with China for decades, but “Washington suddenly remembered to appoint its own envoy to manage the human rights file in the Tibet region, and then Israel signed a peace agreement two months later with the Buddhist state of Bhutan, which is directly adjacent to Tibet”, which has completely severed its relations with China since 1959, suggests that there is something secret and mysterious behind the scenes that is not understood between the American and Israeli sides.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

The impact of the joint security coordination between Israel and Turkey in Afghanistan

Published

on

First: Analysis of the potential scenarios of (Israeli-Arab or Iranian-Arab security coordination on Afghanistan), or the extent of success of the (joint security coordination between Turkey and Israel inside Afghanistan), according to the Israeli intelligence point of view

Second: My analysis of the (content of the speeches of the Israeli military intelligence men and the Israeli Mossad) about the intelligence cooperation between Tel Aviv and Washington regarding Afghanistan… (I’m attaching it for the first time globally from an Egyptian researcher as a complaint to the international academic community towards the Israeli research and academic institutions and national libraries for not providing me the available researches, documents, data, and analyses and the required published Israeli publications on China’s relations with Egypt and the region)

Third: My analysis of the content of Israeli military intelligence websites and reports on (the joint security coordination between Israel and Turkey in Afghanistan in the face of the Taliban), its conflict with the Indian-Emirati interests as partners of Tel Aviv in the face of Turkey, and its impact on (the Abrahamic-Israeli peace agreements in the Arab Gulf and the East  middle)

Fourth: Analyzing the possibility of Israel’s game in the future to form (a new joint Israeli-Arab security umbrella as an alternative to the joint Arab defense agreement) to protect against the threat of terrorism and confront terrorist organizations after the Taliban rule, focusing on (analyzing the role of the United Arab Emirates in the success of the Israeli security alliance in the region)

    The Egyptian researcher has tried to analyze the content of Israeli military intelligence websites and reports regarding the Israeli Mossad intelligence presence in Afghanistan and the future expectations regarding the future potential scenarios and game of Israel’s strategy to make a  (joint security coordination with Turkey in Afghanistan), and its affect on the Indian-Emirati interests as partners of Tel Aviv in the face of Turkey, and its impact on (the Abrahamic-Israeli peace agreements with Emirates and the Arab Gulf States).

   On the other hand, the Egyptian researcher has attempted to analyze as well the Israeli potential scenarios and reactions to form (a new joint Israeli-Arab security agreement) to protect the Israeli interests and confront terrorist organizations after the Taliban rule, focusing on analyzing the role of the United Arab Emirates in the success of the Israeli security alliance in the region.

   So, the Egyptian researcher has analyzed the following aspects to highly understand the whole situation and its potential impacts on the Middle East region and its security and stability, as the following:

  First: Analysis of possible scenarios (Israeli-Arab or Iranian-Arab security coordination on Afghanistan), or the extent of success (joint security coordination between Turkey and Israel inside Afghanistan), according to the Israeli intelligence point of view

    Perhaps the expected US withdrawal from Afghanistan opened the door wide for advanced analyzes regarding what the situation will be in the coming period, and most importantly to me the extent of its relationship with the Middle East region, and the balance of regional and international powers within it.

  The Egyptian researcher was able, through her extensive reading in the recent period of all the analyzes that occurred under her eyes, regarding the possible roles of (Israeli, Iranian, Arab, Pakistani, Turkish) parts at Afghanistan to understand all what is going on in secret between the various previous parties, and its relationship to the Arab region and the Middle East in general, and this is what moved the researcher to research on several analytical fronts, regarding:

The impact of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan on the Middle East, the export and expansion of terrorism and the increase in the frequency of terrorist operations from the “leaaders of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq” known as “ISIS” in the region to demonstrate their defiance of the United States of America after its failure to manage the file of the war on terrorism in the region.  Afghanistan, and how this relates to French President “Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Iraq” and his announcement of the French partnership with the countries of the region and Iraq to fight terrorism.

The Israeli-Iranian conflict and the extent to which it is affected by the increasing influence of Iran in Afghanistan through (the Hazara and Tajik Shiite minorities) in Afghanistan, and the extent to which Israel is able to recruit other ethnic and national sects, mainly in Afghanistan, to monitor these “Iranian movements in Afghanistan”, and Israel’s attempt to extend relations with countries  The geographical neighborhood of Afghanistan, such as India, Bhutan and the Central Asian countries, to gather Israeli intelligence information about the Taliban’s movements and alliances with the Iranian side in that region, and whether it poses a threat to the security of Israel and the Middle East.

Which is closer to Arab cooperation against the idea of ​​(exporting terrorism to the region from Afghanistan), according to the preference of interests, do we cooperate with Iran or Israel? In the sense that thinking, as I understood it analytically from the Iranian and Israeli points of view, is mainly focused on “the game of regional interests with the Arabian Gulf and Middle Eastern Countries”, which deepens our understanding of how the Israelis and Iranians work in this context, ie:

    “Iran is presenting itself as the ideal partner for coordination with the Arab countries, especially the Gulf states, to help them protect their borders from the danger of Taliban militias extending and intrusion into the Arab interior, and on the Israeli side, the matter has become similar to that, with Israel trying to export itself as the most affected and dangerous than the danger of the Afghan  Armed militias and extremist jihadist movements that target the security and stability of the Hebrew state, so Israel is trying from now to extend relations of cooperation and security and defense partnership and perhaps sign joint military agreements between Israel and its allies in the region who seek to undermine the influence, penetration, and influence of jihadist movements and extremist militias to the borders of the countries of the region, which is what a number of Arab countries, especially, the Gulf states, may push to coordinate security cooperation with the Israeli side to defend the security of the region and combat terrorism, as the Israeli side mainly promotes it”.

Here remains the most dangerous question, related directly to the previous question, and which stopped me for a long time with study, research and analysis, about:

     What can actually happen if terrorism spreads to the Arab world and the Middle East from Afghanistan and the threat of ISIS and all the extremist groups and organizations associated with it spreads? Will the Arab regimes agree to form (a joint Israeli-Arab security umbrella to strengthen their collective front in the face of the threat of terrorism) as an alternative to the joint Arab defense umbrella to confront terrorism, which excludes any security rapprochement with Israel?

What are the forms of US-Israeli intelligence cooperation in Afghanistan, and its relationship to the Middle East? For example, the Egyptian researcher found that all Israeli military and intelligence analyzes have focused mainly on “the necessity and importaof Iransraeli coordination with Turkey to closely monitor the situation in Afghanistan” with the exclusion of  Iran and Pakistan, of course, and the Israeli rapprochement with Turkey in the recent period to coordinate the matter about how to deal with the new situation and how to control it, which has not been analyzed at all in the countries of the region.

In the same context, the Israeli promotion of the importance of rapprochement with Turkey as an ideal choice for them in Afghanistan began, and we find that the same question is being repeated, regarding:

 “Does Israel in Afghanistan tend to cooperate with Turkey more than (Pakistan, India), and why?”. This is according to what the Egyptian researcher has seen from Israeli military and intelligence analyzes that are publicly published in their military sites.

     Accordingly, the Egyptian researcher analyzed when trying to track the effects of the future US withdrawal from Afghanistan on the future of Egypt, the Middle East and the region in general, and their relations with the surrounding regional powers to coordinate security with them primarily in (whether Israeli-Arab or Iranian-Arab coordination or the success of joint security coordination between Turkey and Israel or the possibility of success  Israel in forming a security umbrella and front of alliances with the Arab world to confront terrorist organizations), according to the different analytical viewpoints, and in my personal belief that the future may bring us many surprises.

Second: My analysis of the (content of the speeches of the Israeli military intelligence men and the Israeli Mossad) about the intelligence cooperation between Tel Aviv and Washington regarding Afghanistan… (the Egyptian researcher is attaching for the first time a complaint to the international academic community towards the Israeli research and academic institutions and national libraries for not providing the researcher with the required available documents, data, research and analyses and the required published publications on China’s relations with Egypt and the region)

   The Egyptian researcher has been very interested several years ago in trying to track all (Israeli military and intelligence analyzes), through well-known military sites, such as:

Breaking Defense & Debka

    In addition to my constant knowledge, research and academically, of all the analyzes of the (Israeli Institute for National Security Studies) “INNS”

   On the personal and analytical level that I am conveying to you, I found that in particular, the only department or program that interests me in the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies is the “Chinese Studies Program”, due to my precise specialization in Chinese affairs, and my continuous attempts to track all Israeli analyzes of Sino-Egyptian relations, and trying to present it to Egypt and the region every once in a while.

  Hence, the Egyptian researcher will attempt to present her new international analysis for the first time, attached to it (a complaint submitted by me to the lack of cooperation from the Israeli academic and research institutions with me as an internationally and regionally known academic in Chinese and Asian political affairs, and the Israeli side’s reluctance to provide me with the required data and linking this to the aforementioned analysis), as follows:

The Egyptian researcher thinks that perhaps today I had the opportunity academically to complain about (the lack of cooperation by all Israeli academic and research institutions with the Egyptian researcher academically and research, and the failure to provide me with all the analyzes that interest me in my research area), and I do not know whether this is an Israeli intention or not?, whether (the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies) “INNS”, or the “Israeli National Library of the Hebrew University of Al-Quds”, which (contains almost all copies of all research published in all Israeli academic and research institutions).

The Egyptian researcher was also very interested in what stopped the Egyptian researcher and I think that it would “astonish the international, American and Western academic community as a whole”, when I tried to send emails to the “Israeli Institute for National Security  Studies” with my real personality and all my academic data for verification, in order to provide me and sending all the researches published by them mainly on (Sino-Egyptian relations or China’s relations with the region, from an Israeli academic point of view, mainly  , for academic and research purposes), is:

     “The Israeli Institute for National Security Studies, and specifically the “Chinese Studies Program” inside it, deliberately omitted and ignored the content of my request in the first place, and even deliberately sent them another email to their new branch in the Chinese capital “Beijing”, that is, to open the branch of the “Institute for Israeli National Security Studies in China”, to inquire From him about the required documents, and in my personal opinion, Israel is trying to draw the Egyptian researcher’s attention to their new branch  in the capital, “Beijing”, despite “the absence of these Israeli academic analyzes in the first place at the branch of the Institute for Israeli National Security Studies in Beijing” related to analyzes and research on China-Egypt relations.  And the region from the point of view of the Israelis themselves, so I think that this Israeli reluctance to cooperate with me in research and academically regarding my research areas and my specialization in Chinese political affairs, certainly has a “negative impact” on the Israeli  academic side, because we do not understand in the region, the Arab world and Egypt the point of view of Israeli academics On Egypt’s relations with China and the region, mainly from an Israeli point of view, and therefore, it hinders Israel’s plans and attempts to build bridges of cooperation and political normalization or perhaps cooperation with all the countries and states of the region and the Arab world, and I believe that the opportunity has now opened for me for the whole world to read my view on that dangerous part related to our desire as Egyptian and Arab academics to understand the way of thinking and analyzing  Our academic colleagues in Israel, however, there is Israel’s reluctance to cooperate with us in this regard, and I am confident that it is a point that has been raised for the first time internationally, especially with my complete possession and full of academic courage, by asking me all Israeli analyzes, statements, research and documents available for publication and public viewing in their libraries and research and academic centers, primarily, and by giving me the opportunity, as an Egyptian academic in Chinese and Asian political affairs, and even for all my other academic colleagues to review them, to understand the Israeli academic viewpoint on it, and “I’m confidentiality that my complaint will find a great international and academic resonance, due to my desire to understand Israel academically and the reluctance of the Israelis to help me in this matter”.

With the Egyptian researcher completely amazed at the question about (the reasons for the Israeli refusal to provide her with what she wants from research and academic data concerning her research and academic area in Chinese political affairs and its relationship with Egypt and the countries of the region, and trying to follow it from an Israeli point of view), knowing that I was surprised that “The Israeli National Library” has put in its own archive my own published papers within a book on China and Israel on its own website network, however, the “Israeli National Library officials” refused to provide me with important documents that they mainly have for public viewing, regarding my international analysis of the previous publication, on:

   (The leaked Russian documents to the Israeli National Library during the period of the Israeli military rule in Palestine from 1948-1968)

Although the Russian documents are available for public viewing on the “Israeli National Library” website, “the Israelis refused to provide them to me completely by opening the link for them to view them, as an academic and research cooperative with me as an Egyptian academy known to them and internationally”, which is what I’m going to tell you, and I was very surprised.

Perhaps this previous point – although it may seem unimportant in the context I am talking about – is of great and utmost importance to me, related to the reasons for this (the Israeli selection and choice of those with whom Tel Aviv cooperates, and its schools and research institutions welcome them according to its interests).

Based on (the Israeli selective selection process for those who cooperate or refuse to cooperate with them), this quickly moves me to study and analyze (the aspects of Israeli-American intelligence and military cooperation in Afghanistan), especially after a number of Israeli officials visited Washington at the end of August 2021 as an Israeli request to strengthen intelligence cooperation (between the CIA and Mossad), in light of the United States’ exit from Afghanistan.

In general, and returning to my analytical point in this context, related to “analyzing Israel’s relationship with the Afghan issue after the withdrawal of the United States of America and the control of the Taliban’s rule”, the Egyptian researcher follows the most prominent of those Israeli defense and military sites, to get acquainted with their military vision for dealing with the region and for aspects of cooperation.  The required, for fears of (the growing threat of the terrorist organization “ISIS” and its extension to Israel and its borders with Egypt, Lebanon and also Syria, given the occupation and the Israeli presence in the Syrian Golan Heights).  We will find here, that the Israeli military intelligence analysis confirmed:

    “The Israeli diplomacy prefer to open political, and even military channels of communication with Turkey regarding Afghanistan, to protect the “State of India” as Israel’s militarily ally in the South Asia region, given the difficulty of Israeli military-intelligence coordination with Pakistan and Iran as allies of China in the face of India, as an ally of Washington”

This brings the Egyptian researcher to a more serious point related to the reasons for the Turkish presence in Afghanistan, and the attempt to be present and communicate with the Taliban leaders to the extent that the Taliban leaders asked Turkey to modernize and rebuild the international  airport in the capital “Kabul”, and whether that was (with a joint Turkish coordination with Israel in the face of (the Iranian-Pakistani moves as allies of China against India), whereas India is   Washington’s ally in the region around Afghanistan)?

Here, the Israeli intelligence and military focus on the necessity of (improving the exchange of US-Israeli intelligence information) comes amid renewed fears that (the terrorist organization of ISIS) will use Afghanistan as a hub to launch new attacks on American and Israeli targets, whether in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

Here, the Israeli Mossad officers, through their military and intelligence positions, blame (ISIS in the Afghan province of Khorasan), the branch that focuses on Afghanistan, for the suicide bombing that targeted “Kabul Airport”, and resulted in the deaths of more than 200 people after the withdrawal of the United States of America from Afghanistan, including (13 American soldiers).

By following the Egyptian researcher on the Israeli military and defense sites, she found Israeli analyzes that confirm:

   “There are indications that ISIS and its various proxies are terrorist acts, and it is now encouraged by the success of the Kabul airport and the lack of an appropriate American response to it as it exits Afghanistan”

Here, the Israeli military analysts agree on:

    “Raising fears that the US intelligence network in Afghanistan will inevitably be paralyzed by the Biden administration’s departure from the country, with little human intelligence left behind and a possible lack of any intelligence on the horizon, even if at least a little of that intelligence on paper is needed to counter ISIS”

And here remains (the most dangerous analysis that the Egyptian researcher stopped at much, because based on it, the rest of her other analyzes will be based very carefully), which is the Israeli intelligence and military analysis published on Israeli defense and military sites, with the confirmation of the Israeli military generals, that:

“Israel’s major covert operation in the region could help complement US intelligence efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere”

  Here came the confirmation of Mossad officers and military generals in Tel Aviv, according to a special coverage on the Hebrew “Breaking Defense website”, which specializes in defense and security affairs, in their published statements, affirmed that:

“The Americans know that these Israeli capabilities can save lives, even in remote places”

With the confirmation of the Israeli military sources, according to the “Israeli military Breaking Defense Hebrew website”, about:

   “That Mossad is particularly adept at taking raw data and turning it into action, and that people in Israel’s intelligence services see the little details that in many cases are crucial to stopping terrorist attacks”

In a publicly published statement in the Hebrew media and press, according to the head of the internationally known Israeli intelligence service “Ephraim Halevy”, the former head of the Israeli Mossad “Ephraim” mentioned literally, according to the “Breaking Defense website”, saying that:

“There are very close ties between terrorist organizations in countries bordering Israel, such as Syria and Lebanon, and similar organizations in the international arena”

With the most dangerous statement of the Egyptian researcher, which revealed all the dimensions of the Israeli game, and analyzed them carefully, according to the statements of the former head of the Israeli Mossad, “Ephraim Halevy”, about:

“Through close Israeli monitoring of terrorist organizations’ actions in neighboring countries, Israel is obtaining intelligence information that is “extremely vital to our allies” that would not be available without Israeli human intelligence sources on the ground”

In response to a request to comment on the statements of the former Mossad chief, the spokesman for the “American embassy in Jerusalem”, said that:

    “We do not comment on intelligence issues”

It is worth noting here that the discussion about the increasing intelligence relations between Israel and the United States of America regarding Afghanistan comes after (the visit of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency “William Burns” to Israel in August 2021, and then he made a surprise trip to Afghanistan to meet the Taliban leadership), without any official clarification about the relationship between my visits to Kabul and Tel Aviv directly, which is something from my point of view, which raises a big question mark for me and I must stop at it for a long time, regarding (the visit of the Director of American Intelligence to Israel, then his visit to Afghanistan directly and not vice versa).

We also find the talks that took place between the Israeli Prime Minister (Naftali Bennett in Washington at the end of August to meet with President “Joe Biden” to discuss the US-Israeli intelligence plans in the post-Afghanistan era), but the meeting, which was scheduled due to the Kabul attack, was postponed to later date.

Here, the Egyptian researcher noted, according to the same American websites, to analyze the reasons for “Israel’s Prime Minister Naftali’s meeting with US President Joe Biden”, that “Naftali Bennett” carried with him two requests mainly during (Israel’s meeting in Washington on Afghanistan), and the two Israeli requests, they are basically:

    A) The first Israeli request from the United States of America regarding Afghanistan:

  Naftali’s requests from the American side mainly focused on joint coordination on Afghanistan, whereas the United States open foreign military funding to help Israel more quickly buy new fighters of “F-15”. And for the United States to help buy additional “Dome” interceptor missiles

  With the Israeli assurance to the American side, according to Israeli military intelligence websites, that:

 “Israel’s purchase of Dom missiles from Washington became necessary for Tel Aviv after Hamas fired nearly Dom missiles during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict earlier this year 2021”

B) The second Israeli request from the United States of America regarding Afghanistan:

  The request of “Naftali Bennett”, the Prime Minister of Israel, came from Washington, that:

“Israel wants to get about $1 billion in new money to cover both Iron Dome’s needs and the Israeli Air Force’s ‘special munitions’”

Here, the Egyptian researcher noted, that the Israeli delegation of “Naftali Bennet” left Washington without obtaining a firm commitment on either of the two issues of funding from the United States of America.

Here, the Egyptian researcher concluded by reading the United States’ meeting with Israel, that Washington shed light on:

“Biden’s full support for the renewal of the Iron Dome system in Israel”

The Egyptian researcher also noted that Israel, in its requests from Washington, has linked (the US-Israeli cooperation on Afghanistan depends on Iran, which Washington was convinced of in the first place).  Where we find that after the secret meeting session between (Biden and Naftali Bennett) in Washington, US President “Biden”, confirmed:

“The United States is committed to ensuring that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, but he has not backed away from his administration’s hopes for a political solution”

The most important thing here is what Joe Biden confirmed, regarding leaving all options open with the Israeli side regarding Iran, and dealing with Afghanistan or any other files that may arise for the benefit of the Hebrew state itself, as confirmed by US President Joe Biden, about:

“We put diplomacy first and see where that leads, but if diplomacy fails, we are ready to resort to other options”

     And we conclude through the previous analysis very briefly in that part related to (how and the mechanism of Israeli coordination with the United States of America regarding Afghanistan), the words of US President “Joe Biden”, regarding Afghanistan, and his attempt to include “Iran” in the American-Israeli political equation, regarding everything related to security coordination and defense cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv on Afghanistan.

Third: My analysis of the content of Israeli military intelligence websites and reports on (the joint security coordination between Israel and Turkey in Afghanistan in the face of the Taliban), and its conflict with the Indian-Emirati interests as partners of Tel Aviv in the face of Turkey, and its impact on (the Abrahamic-Israeli peace agreements in the Arab Gulf and the East middle)

    The most prominent Israeli military intelligence reports, which were reviewed by the Egyptian researcher, came from (the well-known sites close to the Israeli military intelligence departments immediately after the American withdrawal from Afghanistan), and with the Taliban movement taking over the reins of power and control in the country.  With the entire situation, and an (analysis of the content and context of the statements of the military spokesmen in Tel Aviv), by referring to the sites of the Israeli military intelligence, most notably, are:

The Hebrew “Breaking Defense” website, as an intelligence and security website, specialized in defense and security affairs.

“Debka website”, it’s an Israeli military intelligence website, headquartered in Jjerusalem. It is a well-known Israeli military intelligence website, providing mainly (Israeli military commentary) on issues related to terrorism, intelligence, national security, international and military relations, with a special focus on the Middle East.  Knowing that DEBKAfile had won – in its Israeli military and intelligence capacity – the (Best Award-winning Website among the global websites), for its diverse and comprehensive intelligence analyzes from (Forbes International Magazine).  Forbes magazine specifically identified the “archives” section of DEBKAfile as “the best part of this Israeli military intelligence site”, but Forbes magazine warned at the same time that (most of the information is attributed to unspecified sources).  Based on the Egyptian researcher’s tracking of the most prominent and important reports, data and statements of the aforementioned Israeli military and intelligence sites, through which, the Egyptian researcher was able to extract and analyze the following scenarios and points:

By informing the Egyptian researcher of most of those “unknown or unidentified Israeli military and intelligence sources or the Israeli military identity”, she noticed that there is almost unanimous agreement in the Israeli analyzes issued by those Israeli sites, that (Turkey is the best and optimal option for  For Israel to coordinate joint security with it in Afghanistan and on its borders to monitor the movements of the armed Taliban movement), given the difficulty of security coordination between Israel and Iran or Pakistan, given the impossibility of doing so, as is known.

Although Turkey has been publicly excluded several times from any “secret military cooperation with Israel”, the succession of events made the Egyptian researcher pause for a long time to analyze “the features of the increasing Turkish role and influence inside Afghanistan and the extent of its relationship with Israel”. The first thing that stopped me here, in research and analysis, is that (the Turkish request to manage the airport of the Afghan capital, “Kabul”).

But (this matter related to Turkey’s request from the Taliban leaders has been rejected), and this was what the spokesman for the Taliban movement, whose name is (Zabihullah Mujahid) publicly stated.  In the name of the “Taliban movement”, that “the leaders of the Taliban movement want good relations with Ankara, but we strongly disagree with the presence of Turkish military forces in our country, because this is considered interference in our internal affairs”.

The Egyptian researcher also noted the extent of the Turkish insistence on (negotiating with Taliban leaders regarding the status of the international airport in Afghanistan under Turkish administration, with Turkish-American and international coordination), which was rejected by the Taliban leaders, with confirmation (Zabihullah Mujahid), spokesman for Taliban, that:

“Ankara does not allow us to send our forces to it to secure one of its airports, because this deed interferes in the internal affairs of other countries and is very dangerous, but despite that, we are ready to negotiate with Turkey, and it must realize our concerns, and we negotiated to settle and solve the dilemma”

The most important thing that caught my research and analytical attention was (Turkish negotiations with the United States to ensure the security and management of Hamid Karzai International Airport), with the Turkish assertion to Washington and the world that these fears are increasing from “the airport falling into the hands of Taliban leaders and militias since the movement launched an attack against the Taliban Afghan army”. In fact, the Turkish justification for the reasons for this insistence on its request to control the Afghan international airport was that “the Taliban movement has been leading a comprehensive attack against the Afghan forces since the withdrawal of US forces in May 2021 from Afghanistan”, while the international forces began the process of their final exit from the country at the end of last August 2021.

Perhaps what the Egyptian researcher concluded here is the question about (the reasons for this Turkish offer to control the international airport of Afghanistan), despite the presence of many international and regional forces that are closer and more understanding with the Taliban leaders and can present this request to them, discuss it and negotiate about it, especially Iran and Pakistan, but rather and Central Asian countries close to the immediate borders of Afghanistan.

In my opinion, too, “the Taliban movement may have read the scene carefully, and noticed the extent of Turkey’s adherence to being in the most sensitive and strategic areas in Afghanistan under the pretext of “maintaining regional and international peace and security”. Therefore, the Taliban sought to miss the opportunity for Turkey politically and security, and he himself what was confirmed by (Zabihullah Mujahid), the spokesman for the “Taliban“, by confirming the actual control of the Taliban movement over most of the regions of Afghanistan, sending messages of global reassurance, and in particular to the neighboring countries of Afghanistan, that:

“The leaders of the Taliban movement spoke with “neighboring countries about the crossings, and the situation will be urgently controlled and organized in the best way, and there will be no problem”

On the other hand, the policies of Turkish President “Erdogan” as a defender of the Muslim Brotherhood and the currents of political Islam contradict (the Abrahamic Alliance for Peace between Israel, the UAE and the Gulf), hence the Turkish-Israeli rapprochement, according to the analysis of the (weakening the Abrahamic-Israeli alliance to conclude peace agreements Political normalization with the countries of the Middle East, as well as his opposition to the UAE and the Hindu nationalist orientation of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who rejects Turkey’s sponsorship of political Islam currents), as well as India and the UAE’s explicit accusations of Turkey of encouraging their opponents, so both India and the UAE reject Turkish influence in Afghanistan  and its surrounding area.

Despite (India’s encouragement of the Abrahamic peace agreements concluded between Israel, the UAE and the State of Bhutan with Indian mediation), India sees that Turkey is an obstacle to it. Therefore, tensions have escalated between India and Turkey, with (Turkey intensifying its support for Pakistan in the Kashmir issue in the face of India), since Erdogan’s rise to power, and what has increased the tension in Indo-Turkish relations is (Turkish President Erdogan’s speech before the United Nations General Assembly in 2019, and his public criticism of India for abolishing the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir).  Hence, we understand the reasons for the Indian rejection of Turkish influence in Afghanistan, even if it was coordinated with its ally Israel, because of Turkish interference in the affairs of the Indian state, and public criticism of its policies.

Therefore, we find that, on the other hand, due to the Turkish stance against India’s policies, Indian Prime Minister “Narendra Modi” canceled a trip that was scheduled for him to Turkey in 2019.

Moreover, a part from the Indian dispute with Turkey over the Kashmir issue, Pakistan’s relations as well as a strategic competitor to India with Turkey, as well as (Pakistan’s rejection of the Abrahamic peace in the Israeli concept and its public criticism in favor of Turkey, as a security partner and supplier of arms to Pakistan), especially  After Pakistan’s support for the Turkish intervention in “Libya and Azerbaijan”, and with (Pakistan’s desire to obtain a deal from Turkish drones, which increased India’s concerns about this close and joint security and military relationship between Pakistan and Turkey) in the face of Indian policies.

 As well as the Indian dispute with Turkey for its support for Pakistan’s membership in the (Nuclear Suppliers Group with Turkey’s opposition by India’s membership in the organization at the request of Pakistan as a security ally of Turkey).

Therefore, in response from India to this growing threat from the joint security coordination between Turkey and Pakistan, (New Delhi turned to the eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, especially the United Arab Emirates to support agreements of political normalization and the Israeli Abrahamic peace), according to what Israel is trying to promote.  This new term is used in the region to encourage its countries to sign peace agreements with Israel, in order to counter Turkish influence through (Indian cooperation with Turkey’s main opponents, namely: Greece and the UAE), and to encourage their policies against Turkey.

Hence, we find (Indian support for Greece and the United Arab Emirates in the eastern Mediterranean region against “Turkish naval boat diplomacy”).  New Delhi and Athens have also intensified their military coordination and cooperation to confront Turkish moves in the eastern Mediterranean.

In July 2021, (Greece and India) conducted a naval maneuver in the eastern Mediterranean against Turkey, in order to confirm (Indian support for Greece in the face of Turkish ambitions in the eastern Mediterranean), which is called “Indian maritime solidarity with Greece and the UAE in the face of Turkish naval ambitions” in the eastern Mediterranean.

Hence, we understand the reason for (the UAE’s inclusion of India in its camp as allies of Tel Aviv and Israel’s drinks of the Abrahamic peace), especially with Pakistan approaching Turkey, who reject the Abrahamic alliance announced between Israel, the Emirates and India, as well as the possibility of other countries entering the Middle East.

The new strategic consensus between (New Delhi and Abu Dhabi revolves around combating Islamic extremism and spreading the values ​​and spirit of the Abrahamic Israeli peace in the face of Turkey and Pakistan), defending the sovereignty of their two countries, repelling the increasing influence of the Islamic political system led by Turkey, and undermining the (new Abrahamic peace efforts).

And in confirmation of joint security coordination and cooperation to spread and confirm (the Abrahamic alliance between India, the Emirates and Israel in the face of Turkey that rejects it), we find the UAE’s invitation to India to attend (the meeting of foreign ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Abu Dhabi for the first time in 2019), and in the same year, it was the UAE’s granted “Narendra Modi” as well received the “Prize of Zayed Honor”, which is the highest civilian honor in the UAE, despite international outcry over his government’s campaign in Kashmir.

In December 2020, for the first time ever, (Indian Army Commander General “MM. Naravani” visited Saudi Arabia and the UAE), as an attempt to establish (security arrangements that include joint military exercises and security and intelligence partnerships between India, the UAE and its partners in the Gulf). It is understood from this Indian step that (its support for the Abrahamic peace policies led by Israel and the United States of America with the help of the Emirates in the region).

Based on Naravani’s visit to the UAE, India participated in air exercises hosted by the UAE in March 2021, alongside air forces from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, as a joint Emirati-Saudi-Gulf attempt to (integrate India into the heart of the joint security arrangements in the Arabian Gulf to counter Turkish influence and penetration).

   Hence, according to my personal and analytical point of view in this regard, which stems from my understanding of the logic of the Israeli strategic and military thinking for its presence in Afghanistan through Turkey, this can be understood and explained through that (the Israeli desire to move from political and economic relations to security coordination and defense and intelligence cooperation with various countries in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, even if it is indirectly through the presence in Afghanistan from the Turkish gate), and perhaps to collect more Israeli intelligence information about Afghanistan, as well as to monitor the movements and movements of Tehran directly confronting it, if Israel achieves this inside Afghanistan through “Israeli security coordination with Turkey inside Kabul”, this may (provide a broader movement space for Israel in an important circle that has an impact in the Middle East, and may make Israel an active part, according to the Israeli planning to try to integrate it in the future in the issues of security and defense coordination with the Arab world  and Islamic), thus providing it with a broader regional role in the context of competition between regional powers over the region’s breadth, as Israel seeks through  For its presence inside Afghanistan through (its intelligence coordination with Turkey, perhaps to invest it in order to integrate into the economies of the region, and to become a legitimate party in the paths of the network of relations and balances of power within the Middle East and the countries of the Arab Gulf).

Fourth: Analyzing the possibility of Israel’s game in the future to form (a new joint Israeli-Arab security umbrella as an alternative to the joint Arab defense agreement) to protect against the threat of terrorism and confront terrorist organizations after the Taliban rule, focusing on (analyzing the role of the United Arab Emirates in the success of the Israeli security alliance in region)

  The Egyptian researcher was following the most prominent and dangerous Israeli analyzes after the Taliban movement took control of “Kabul”, and it consisted in asking this prominent question, which is:

 “Can Israel start a new and comprehensive regional security dialogue for all in the region and the Arab world, mainly after the “Taliban” took control of the political power in Afghanistan, in a way that supports the US regional strategy that aims to achieve balance with Iran?”

    Here, we find that the common American-Israeli fear, is that the growing threat of the terrorist organization of “ISIS” and the other terrorist militias in Afghanistan and on its borders who may create a (joint security integration and coordination between the countries of the region with Iran), known as: (Iranian integration with regional structures in the region to try to integrate them), which could create opportunities to reduce Arab-Iranian tensions in the Persian Gulf at Israel’s expense, including: (threatening basic American and Israeli interests).

   Through the Egyptian researcher’s tracking of a number of Israeli intelligence and military sites to determine the degree of their analysis and understanding of the situation, specifically after the Taliban’s takeover, and the same Israeli fear of the spread of the danger of terrorism, militias and extremist terrorist movements and their threat to the security of the Hebrew state, my research and academic analysis came, as follows:

 The United States of America has prepared well for attempts to integrate Israel into the heart of the same Arab regional security umbrella, and perhaps (the political or Abrahamic normalization agreements and the Israeli-Gulf peace, especially with the United Arab Emirates, is a series of American and Israeli attempts themselves, to integrate Israel in the future into the Arab circle security), despite the expected Arab and regional reservations.

 Hence, Israel is trying to exploit the situation of the control of the Taliban and its militias, and the fear of the spread of a series of terrorist operations in the region and on Israel’s borders to make (security partnerships and alliances with the countries of the region to confront any future dangers), considering that this is the appropriate alternative or entrance to the idea choice for Israel’s proposal with the help of its first ally, Washington, to activate security and intelligence partnerships on the countries of the region, to form that “joint Arab-Israeli security alliance under the pretext of protecting the region surrounding Israel from the danger of ISIS terrorism and armed militias”.

Perhaps the most prominent sudden development that occurred in the file of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement and negotiations project, which has been frozen for many years, is those (American attempts to revive it again, despite the immaturity of the political conditions surrounding the activation of this thorny and complex file), as a suitable main entrance for the Hebrew state and the United States of America.  In order to (present the security cooperation or the security alliance between Israel and the Arabs, in light of the common security and intelligence challenges facing them all from the fear of the spread of terrorist movements and operations in those countries surrounding Israel), and their impact on the security of Tel Aviv itself.

We find here that the US administration of President Joe Biden had given the green light to a high-level security and political delegation from Washington to head to the region, and try to hold meetings with the Arab, Palestinian and Israeli sides to test the waters on the possibility of moving the negotiations file and reviving the settlement project again. Additionally, the establishment of (an expanded security alliance between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves and the Arabs). Therefore, the American delegation headed to the region at the end of July 2021, and its first trip landed in Egypt, accompanied by holding meetings with Egyptian security and political authorities to discuss how to put the first step of the settlement project back on track, and bring the views closer to reaching a common point that helps break the stalemate.  In this file, and then (discussing the file of common security challenges between Tel Aviv and the Arabs after responding to a minimum of those Palestinian and Arab demands in the face of Israel).

We find that the American delegation also headed to the Jordanian capital, Amman, as well as to Jerusalem, expressing that if the conditions matured, it might hold meetings with Palestinian President “Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen” inside the district headquarters in the “city of Ramallah in the West Bank”, there are intensive contacts from the American side with (Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Israel), to prepare and set the initial outlines for any American move in this thorny file related to sharing the Israeli settlement with the Palestinians, to ensure its success and to obtain the support and approval of all parties and to start from the last point  At that point, negotiations were concluded, the last of which was at the end of 2014. The Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations have been suspended since April 2014, for several reasons, including: (Israel’s refusal to release former detainees and halt settlements).  The US administration here began to move “from the stage of rhetoric to actions”, especially after (Washington’s decision to resume financial aid to Palestinian refugees).

From my analytical point of view, both Washington and Tel Aviv are planning a project to “integrate the Israeli state into the internal affairs and Arab regional security after making certain efforts at the point of settlement of the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, and this is what the US administration has stated several times under the leadership of “Biden and Trump”. On the common security challenges facing the entity of Israel and the Arabs due to the stalemate in the peace negotiations between the two parties.

The Israeli strategic thought in this regard is clear and does not know any ambiguity, but the question posed is: “the arrangement of its dealings with the region is based on this new security logic”, and it is also trying to adapt the American perception to make American policy if it does not stand in support of such a strategy at least avoid rejection.  There is no doubt that the Israeli policy proceeds with real awareness, based on “not to rush in its steps, not to rush after achieving its goals, and to wait for the right moment when the situation becomes ripe to advance the wheel of development”.  In fact, the observer of Zionist diplomacy – and not Israeli policy – notes that it was prepared for the diplomacy of the Jewish state in this regard from a far-sightedness when it worked to transform the Arab national system into multiple internal systems, even in the economic sphere.

Israel’s future strategy revolves around two logics, both of which complement the other: the first: paralyzing the dangers it faces, and the second: working to achieve its Zionist goals, not in the sense set by the early Zionist fathers, but in the sense imposed by contemporary reality, which is “the security challenges facing the Hebrew state, and the flexibility that may entail with the Arab and Palestinian side to obtain what Israel aims to protect its borders and security”.

What caught the Egyptian researcher with great interest are the statements of Palestinian President “Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen”, published on Tuesday, December 30, 2018, when he spoke about:

“Security cooperation between Palestine and Israel is described as a Palestinian “national interest”, regardless of the Israeli behavior towards the Palestinians”

We find that the call of the Israeli Minister of Defense “Benny Gantz” on Tuesday, August 25, 2020, is the first with the UAE Minister of State for Defense Affairs “Mohammed bin Ahmed Al-Bawardi”, focused on:

“The need to advance security cooperation between the two countries”

The Hebrew “Yedioth Ahronoth Newspaper” published a statement by Israeli Defense Minister “Gantz”, in which he said that he spoke with the emirati minister about “the need to advance the normalization agreement that establishes, including: security relations between the two countries and the region”. Which is now paving the way for a more formal and public security relationship.  We find that “the new Israeli-Gulf alliance can create advanced early warning systems against Iranian missiles, and it can create the conditions for implementing a connected command and control network for missile defense and naval operations in the Red Sea, the northern Indian Ocean and the Arabian Gulf. It also allows for a joint use of military technology and a regular exchange of information”.

According to the same Israeli future analysis, (Abu Dhabi could benefit greatly from increased security cooperation with Israel. For example, the Emiratis could request Israeli assistance in protecting the country’s critical infrastructure, including: oil and water desalination facilities, power stations and airports and sea ports). The Israeli missile defense system “Iron Dome” can also represent an addition in this regard. There were already some indications that the UAE might buy the (Iron Dome system) in the future.

According to the same Emirati future analysis, (the UAE can also benefit from Israeli support in the “fields of cyber security and intelligence,” and the Israelis had already supported the UAE for some time in this field, even before the normalization agreement), several Israeli companies, such as: “Aronatex” By providing Emiratis with products and services to enhance their intelligence and electronic capabilities. It is said that Emirati companies, such as: “DarkMatter”, brought in former Israeli army cyber experts from the (army’s 8200 secret unit) to work in the UAE.

Israel will also benefit from closer security relations with the Emirates, which are located in the Gulf near the southern flank of Iran, and thus the Emirates can provide a foothold for Israel to monitor and spy on Iran. What (confirms this joint step for security cooperation between Israel and the United Arab Emirates), is what was reported by several joint security intelligence reports between the two parties, according to which:

  “The UAE and Israel are planning to develop a joint spy base on the Yemeni island of Socotra overlooking the Arabian Sea”

  Regardless of the veracity of these reports, the UAE’s proximity to Iran (as well as the large Iranian population in Dubai) could provide Israel with access to Emirati intelligence about Iran and its regional activities.

Moreover, by establishing official relations with the Emirates, (it will become easier for Israel to coordinate regional security affairs with Saudi Arabia), even in the absence of official relations between Riyadh and Tel Aviv.

On the other hand, the Emiratis can provide tacit support to Israel in the (Eastern Mediterranean region) that is increasingly important to Israel’s security.  Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv are likely to cooperate closely with (Greece, Cyprus) and other members of the European Union in taking a strong stand against Turkey’s geopolitical ambitions.

The Horn of Africa region could also become a theater for increased Emirati-Israeli cooperation. For example, we find that countries, like: (Socotra, Puntland, Eritrea) are areas where “the UAE could facilitate a small Israeli presence to monitor potential hostile developments”, according to former US Defense Department officials in published statements, stating:

“Israel knows that most of these Arab regimes do not represent the people, which means that once they fall, the weapons will be in the wrong hands”

But on the other hand, the (increasingly complex dynamics in the UAE’s relationship with Syria and Iraq may complicate a closer security partnership with Israel), so Israel is now planning to help the UAE currently, according to the same Israeli security perception to reintegrate Damascus into Arab diplomacy, while targeting Israel regularly organizes Iranian-backed militias loyal to President “Bashar Al-Assad” in Syria to achieve Israel’s interests.

The same Israeli security thinking may apply to Iraq (considering the Iraqi state is an important regional balance area in the region that the UAE and Saudi Arabia are trying to return to the sphere of influence of the Egyptian, Saudi and Emirati bloc), and here, according to what the Israelis themselves analyze, (the Emirates need to be careful not to appear overtly supportive of potential future Israeli military strikes against Iranian-sponsored groups given Abu Dhabi’s relations with the governments in Damascus and Baghdad).

   Here, we find that through this comprehensive previous analysis of the Egyptian researcher, Israel, with the help of its American ally and their Gulf partners in the Middle East, especially the United Arab Emirates, or regionally in the Asian region, with the help of “India and the State of Bhutan”, (Israel is trying to encircle and protect the network  its regional and international interests to protect its areas of influence with the help of the United States of America), which can explain to us all the American-Israeli moves in the Gulf and Asian region itself to form that (the joint security umbrella between Israel and the Arabs and a number of Asian countries to protect Israel’s security, its borders, and the areas of its regional and international outlets, whether from  Middle East or Asia), which may explain to us the reasons for this Israeli insistence on being among all those parties internationally and regionally to make partnerships and peace agreements and political normalization with them, as the researcher analyzed in the previous manner.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Sino-Russian regional activities after Afghanistan

Published

on

Terrorism

After the Taliban took control of Afghanistan last August, Russia warned against the threat from the extremist organisation of the Islamic State (ISIS) and the increase in drug trafficking.

The Taliban have decided to cooperate with Russia, China and Iran to maintain regional security. The news agency France-Presse reported that the Taliban had participated in high-level talks in Moscow. During that time, ten countries requested emergency humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan and said that the countries which have recently withdrawn from Afghanistan should provide funds to help with reconstruction. The countries are the following: China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Before that meeting, Russian President Vladimir Putin had warned that some ten thousand ISIS fighters had gathered in Northern Afghanistan to spread religious and ethnic discord. The Soviet Union once bordered on Afghanistan and Russia still considers this area a zone of influence.

Putin reported in mid-September that the ISIS leader was planning to send people disguised as refugees to neighbouring countries in Central Asia.

The countries participating in the Moscow talks stressed in a joint statement that they were concerned about the actions of terrorist organisations and reaffirmed their willingness to continue to promote security in Afghanistan to contribute to regional stability.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov criticised the absence of US officials during the meeting. He said earlier that ISIS-affiliated fighters and al-Qaeda were trying to take advantage of the power void in some parts of Afghanistan.

In the joint statement, the participating countries urged the Taliban to implement appropriate and cautious domestic and foreign policies and adopt a friendly policy towards Afghanistan’s neighbours.

In terms of internal policy, they demand that the Taliban respect the rights of ethnic groups, women and children. Prior to that meeting, Taliban representatives had met with EU and US officials and had also travelled to Turkey, hoping to gain official recognition and assistance from the international community.

The Taliban are in desperate need of allies at the moment because Afghanistan’s economy is in danger due to the loss of international aid, rising food prices and increasing unemployment.

With specific reference to China and Russia, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the signing of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Good Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation, relations between the two countries entered the third decade of stability and friendship.

Currently, however, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan has led to at least two negative outcomes for China and Russia: 1) Afghanistan, located in the ‘backyard’ of China and Russia has destabilised; 2) the conflict has been chaotic and the future is uncertain and after thirty years since the end of the Cold War, the United States has freed itself from that burden to focus on the challenges of the two major Eurasian powers.

Before the US withdrawal – although the Sino-Russian-US geopolitical game continued to intensify – Afghanistan was still the place where the interests of the three countries overlapped and the parties were all interested in achieving a “soft landing” on the issue.

Since 2019 the three countries have been working together in the form of an enlarged “troika” to peacefully resolve the Afghan issue. For Russia and China, the US military presence in Afghanistan was a double-edged sword: it did not only represent a geographical threat, but could also effectively contain radical Islamic forces in the region.

Both China and Russia hoped that, after reaching a sustainable peace agreement with the parties involved in Afghanistan, the US military would withdraw from Afghanistan in an orderly way to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a “terrorist sanctuary” again.

The quick US defeat in Afghanistan, however, without agreements and/or compromise solutions, was unexpected for China and Russia, especially when, on May 11, the US military evacuated the Kandahar airport without informing the Afghan government, etc.

China and Russia have no choice but to face an Afghanistan whose political future is doubtful. The two superpowers, however, have completely different attitudes towards the Afghan issue: the former is more proactive in contacting all parties inside and outside Afghanistan.

On May 11, at the Second Meeting of the Five Foreign Ministers in the format of “Central Asia and China” held in Xi’an, the Chinese State Councillor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, had warned that “foreign troops should withdraw from Afghanistan in an orderly and responsible manner to prevent hasty actions against Afghanistan”. A few days later, the Chinese Foreign Minister told his Afghan counterpart that China was “willing to host Afghanistan’s internal talks and help its efforts against terrorism”. In mid-July, during the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Dushanbe, Wang Yi reiterated that proposal.

It was in that context that Wang Yi paid an official visit to Tajikistan on July 14 and then participated in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Foreign Ministers’ meeting and met Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in Tashkent the following day. Furthermore, on July 16, Chinese President Xi Jinping had a telephone conversation with the then Afghan President Ashraf Ghan. Xi Jinping urged “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned political dialogue to promote national reconciliation and peace processes”. He also promised to provide more assistance to Afghanistan in the fight against Covid-19 and hoped that the Afghan side would provide more protection to Chinese citizens and organisations in Afghanistan.

Ten days after US forces suddenly withdrew from Bagram Air Base (July 6), i.e. when Xi Jinping and Ghani were in talks, the United States announced that the new deadline for the US withdrawal was August 31, thus causing the Afghan army’s collapse across the country as early as late July.

On July 28, while meeting Taliban political leader Abdul Ghani Baradar in Tianjin, Wang Yi said: “The sudden withdrawal of the US and NATO troops from Afghanistan marks the failure of US policy in Afghanistan. The Afghan people are now faced with an important opportunity to stabilise and develop their country”.

Baradar hopes that China will increasingly participate in the peace-building process in Afghanistan and play a greater role in the country’s reconstruction and economic development. Wang Yi said the Taliban should draw a clear line with terrorist organisations such as ISIS. In response, Baradar promised that the Afghan Taliban would “absolutely not permit any force to do anything harmful to China on the territory of Afghanistan”.

Baradar is not the first to visit China. Before September 11, 2001, the Taliban had contacts with China but, after the tragic events, China supported the Afghan Northern Alliance and the aforementioned contacts with the Taliban were interrupted for several years. Nevertheless, China has never classified the Taliban as a terrorist organisation.

China’s active diplomacy towards Afghanistan has two main reasons: firstly, security concerns, particularly China’s Western borders; secondly, economic interests, because all of Afghanistan’s neighbours are countries linked to the Silk Road Initiative.

In the actual operation, security and economy are closely related and are both essential. On July 14, the shuttle bus of the Dasu Hydropower Project in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Northwest Pakistan, was attacked by terrorists. The attack caused the death of thirteen people, including nine Chinese citizens. The Dasu Hydropower Plant is part of the construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

Moreover, as a neighbouring country to Afghanistan, China has a 92-kilometre-long border at the eastern edge of the 300-kilometre-long Wakhan Valley, which is connected to this war-torn country. According to reports, China provided about 70 million dollars in military assistance to Afghanistan between 2016 and 2018 and helped the Afghan army establish a mountain brigade dedicated to fighting terrorism in the Wakhan corridor.

Furthermore, during the two decades in which the United States occupied Afghanistan, China’s investment there included millions and millions of dollars in economic assistance, including various projects such as schools, hospitals, flats and food assistance, and trained thousands of Afghan students and technicians in China and Afghanistan.

Since 2017 China, Afghanistan and Pakistan have been discussing the possibility of extending the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to Afghanistan. Nevertheless, some major economic projects, such as the 2008 four billion dollar contract for the Anyak copper mine and the 2011 contract for the Amu Darya Basin joint oil and gas field development, have been suspended due to security concerns.

Unlike China, Russia has considered the Taliban a terrorist organisation since February 2003, but this has not prevented it from having contacts with them. On August 13 last, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed: ‘We are in dialogue with all important political forces in Afghanistan, including the Afghan government and the Taliban, the representatives of Uzbeks and Tajiks and others”.

In fact, the representatives of the Taliban visited Moscow as early as November 2018 to participate in the peace Conference hosted by Russia. They also held two meetings in 2021 (on March 18 and July 8) to participate in tripartite consultations, Russia’s preferred format for dialogue. Two days before the Taliban took control of Kabul, Foreign Minister Lavrov envisaged an enlarged tripartite consultation mechanism to include Iran and India in addition to Pakistan. Outside Afghanistan, Russia has invested many resources in Central Asia and has considerable influence in the security field (Collective Security Treaty Organisation).

As important countries, many global problems are related to the relationship between China and Russia. Western countries, like colonies led by the United States of America, have preferred to have hammers in their hands and nails in their eyes. China and Russia have not followed the Western model, but have gone their separate ways. This is a hope for the countries that have been devastated by the US interference (former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, African countries, etc.), and it is also a hope for the Westphalian world order disrupted by the United States after the Twin Towers attack.

The development and progress of human civilisation cannot have only one pathway, nor should there be only one model. As a Chinese saying goes: “Those who are fit for themselves but forgets the others are abandoned by the people; those who deny themselves and rise again are admired by everybody”.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Development1 hour ago

Multilateralism ‘struggling’ to solve world challenges

While multilateralism remains “committed to solving global challenges”, the deputy UN chief said on Sunday, United Nations Day, it is...

Tech News3 hours ago

Do You Really Need Name-Brand Cartridges?

Cartridges from printer manufacturers like Hewlett-Packard are notoriously expensive.  Considering the price of their basic equipment, ink may cost almost...

Americas3 hours ago

General Colin Powell: A Decent Man in Indecent Society

Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s (1892-1932) famous treatise Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) needs significant revisitation through a personal case: former...

International Law5 hours ago

Support the UN’s leadership position and multilateralism

Despite its inability to fully satisfy people’s expectations on some issues, the United Nations and its agencies, as well as...

Terrorism7 hours ago

Taliban Takeover and Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan

As a Security and International Relations student and someone who lived in Afghanistan, I believe that the withdrawal of the...

Intelligence9 hours ago

Israel-Bhutan peace agreement and its affect on China’s influence

First: The relationship between (political normalization agreements between Israel and the Emirates and the State of Bhutan or the Kingdom...

South Asia13 hours ago

The Khalistan nightmare

 After several postponements, the “Punjab Referendum Commission has announced to hold the “Punjab Independence Referendum on October 31, 2021.  The...

Trending