Connect with us

Intelligence

Conquering The North: The Battle For The Arctic

Avatar photo

Published

on

Today, the Arctic attracts the special attention of the world’s strategists. Climate change is transforming the region, opening up new maritime routes and facilitating the use of underwater resources. It can be noted that in recent years, the confrontation in the Arctic has significantly increased. There are several reasons for this, the main one is the uncertain status of borders in this region, as well as its importance in the strategic plan:

Energy and resources

So far, no one knows exactly how much wealth the Arctic holds. According to calculations by the US Department of energy, up to 13% of undiscovered oil reserves and a large number of gas fields are located under icy waters. In addition to hydrocarbons, the Arctic has significant reserves of Nickel ores, rare earth metals, tin, tungsten, gold and diamonds.

According to some estimates, the Arctic contains 30 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves and strategically important deposits of rare earth metals worth more than a trillion US dollars.

Logistics

In the modern world, the value is not only raw resources, but also the communications and logistics through which they are delivered. There are two major transoceanic routes in the Arctic: the Northern sea route (Hereinafter NSR – Auth.) and the Northwest passage, which connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The richness of the Arctic latitudes is almost completely offset by the climatic conditions of this region. The nature of the Arctic is extremely hostile to man. Most of the year, the Northern sea route is covered with ice. The cost of mining is so high that the development of most fields is not profitable at the moment.

However, due to global warming, the situation in the Arctic is changing. The ice is gradually melting, which opens up access to resources and increases the attractiveness of Arctic transport routes. There are well-founded forecasts that by the end of this century there will be no ice in the Arctic ocean at all, and this will make the NSR free for navigation all year round.

Going along the Arctic coast of Russia The Northern sea route significantly reduces the passage time of ships between East Asian and European ports compared to existing routes passing through the Strait of Malacca.

These facts put the issue of “the registration of the Arctic`s residence” on the agenda of many leading countries of the world.

The Arctic is the most important strategic region and the North polar region of the globe, which covers the entire Arctic ocean, adjacent parts of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, as well as the edges of the continents of Eurasia and North America within the Arctic circle. This zone includes the territories of 6 Arctic states: Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. Two other states – Sweden and Finland – have territories beyond the Arctic circle, but do not have access to the coastline of the Arctic ocean.

It is worth noting that significant interest in the Arctic is also shown by those states which territories are very remote from it, namely China, India, Japan, and South Korea. In particular, South Korea and China maintains its leadership in scientific programs to study the Arctic and builds gas carriers for Russian Arctic projects. Asian shipping companies are actively showing themselves in using the Northern sea route. In addition, Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia) closed a deal to join the Russian Arctic LNG – 2 project in 2019. China, in turn, is actively engaged in investment activities in the region and the implementation of the Arctic Silk Road.

Thus, illustrative examples clearly demonstrate the fact that many countries of the world are attracted by the prospects for developing the oil and gas potential of the Arctic continental shelf, fresh water reserves and the possibility of reducing transcontinental transport routes that may serve their national interests.

It should be understood that according to international law, each country has the right to use underwater resources at a distance of 200 miles from its coast. However, there is a UN Convention that states that if a country can prove that the ocean shelf is an extension of its continental platform, it will be considered its property. In this regard, the territorial Arctic issue is becoming quite relevant. Thus, Russia believes that the Lomonosov underwater ridge is a continuation of the Siberian platform. In this case, 1.2 million square km of shelf with huge reserves of hydrocarbons fall under Russian jurisdiction. Such statement in redistricting borders is not supported by other Arctic States (Iceland; Denmark; Sweden; Canada; Norway; USA; Finland). This position of the Russian side also raises concerns in China, India and the UK. These countries interpret international legislation in a completely different way, claiming vast areas of the Arctic shelf:

  • Canada believes that the Lomonosov ridge is an extension of its territory and promises to prove this fact in the UN;
  • The Lomonosov ridge is also claimed by Norway, which has already achieved the transfer of part of the shelf under its jurisdiction;
  • The United States considers its own section of the shelf near Alaska and is also collecting evidence;
  • China supports the collective use of the region’s resources, which will open up access to the region for Chinese TNCs and activate the Arctic Silk Road.

It is believed that the requirement that unites almost all members of the Arctic Council is international control over the Northern sea route. Currently, Canada, the United States, Norway and Russia have adopted state programs for the development of the Arctic. However, the approaches to the division and development of the region among the member countries of the Arctic Council are largely contradictory.

China also began to show increased attention to the Arctic. This country is an observer in the Arctic Council, and in 2013, China adopted a state program for the development of the region. It provides for the construction of its own significant ice-breaking fleet. Since 1994, North sea sails, the Chinese icebreaker “Snow dragon” made already several passages on NSR.

Analyzing the confrontation of geopolitical interests in the Arctic region, we should note the main Arctic powers and their military capabilities:

1) Russia is the owner of the largest Arctic coast, the Arctic water sector, and the largest continental shelf;

2) NATO, this organization includes five countries (USA, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Denmark) with coasts and territorial waters in the Arctic;

3) China does not have a coast and territorial waters in the Arctic, but by increasing its economic and, as a result, military power (including, first of all, a large military fleet under construction) may try to join the division of the international Arctic shelf – most likely by joining one of the two sides (Russia or NATO).

Today, many experts point to Russia’s superiority over the West in the number of icebreakers and Russia’s military advantage in the Arctic. But icebreakers are not warships, the main military importance in the Arctic are: 1) a military fleet that can be quickly transferred to the Arctic ocean from the Pacific or Atlantic; 2) aviation, including strategic; 3) air defense systems. It is noted that today Russia is strengthening its military grouping and tools of transferring troops in the region, as well as taking under joint Russian – Chinese control key sea routes.

China’s military capabilities in the Arctic region are generally more modest and are limited to a fleet that is also potentially armed with naval missile weapons capable of carrying tactical nuclear charges. China’s aviation today is limited by its attachment to aircraft carriers, the number of which China intends to significantly increase in the future.

Without leveling cooperation with Russia in the military sphere in the region, China actively involves economic tools of influence in the Arctic. Thus,in June 2017, the state Committee for development and reform and the State Oceanographic administration of China named the Arctic as one of the directions of the “One belt, One road” project. The “Concept of cooperation at sea within the framework of the BRI” refers to the need to involve Chinese companies in the commercial use of Arctic transport routes.

In January 2018, the state Council of China published the first “White paper on China’s Arctic policy”, which states that Beijing is interested party in Arctic Affairs. It was noted that China intends to create, jointly with other States, the sea trade routes in the Arctic region within the framework of the “Polar Silk Road initiative”. Thus, it was decided that the Polar Silk Road will be part of the broader Chinese “Belt and Road” program, creating sea trade routes and strengthening trade relations with different countries in the region.

It should be noted that in the Arctic strategy of NATO, in contrast to the strategies of other countries, the power component is most clearly traced, and the desire for sole leadership in the Arctic is demonstrated. The combined expenditures of the United States and Canada to expand their military presence in the Arctic over the past 6 years have increased dramatically, while Denmark and Norway have increased by at least 20 percent. In the American and Canadian Arctic sectors new military installations, points of the body and signals intelligence continue to be created.

The head of the US Commission on Arctic research, M. Treadwell, once pointed out that the accessible Arctic means new and expanded routes for American naval transport, and the emergence of aircraft, missiles and missile defense has made the Arctic region an important point for demonstrating power and an advanced area for ensuring the security of North America, Asia and Europe.

According to a report of the US Congressional Research Center, by 2022, the Pentagon intends to replace the F-16 fighters, which belong to the 11th air force stationed in Alaska, with new F – 35S. NATO allies will also be obliged to rearm. Thus, Norway is going to put into service American fifth-generation fighters in the number of 52 aircraft. Norway, in addition to the military confrontation with Russia, continues to develop transport infrastructure and, perhaps, in 2021, the railway connecting the mining areas of Finland with the Norwegian coast will be finally approved.

In November 2018, the largest NATO training in the post – Soviet era in the Arctic region, Trident Juncture 2018 (with the participation of more than 50,000 military personnel and large air and naval forces), took place near the Russian border. It also involved an aircraft carrier strike group led by the aircraft carrier Harry Truman, which interrupted its preparations for a mission in the Persian Gulf. In addition, U.S. Secretary of the Navy R. Spencer also underlined that the issue of creating a strategic port in the Bering sea is being studied. He stressed that this would be a nationwide project that would involve the US Navy, the US Coast guard and private companies.

At the time, British defense Minister G. Williamson emphasized that the UK should increase its military power in the Arctic and called this region “London’s own backyard”. It was immediately supported by the UK Parliament’s defense Committee, which reacted as follows: “NATO’s renewed focus on the North Atlantic is welcome, and the government should be congratulated for the leadership that the UK has shown on this issue”. 

Thus, based on the above, we can predict that the relations within the China – Russia – US triangle on “the Arctic issues” are likely to be more complex and confrontational, since they are associated with countries’ desire to achieve “freedom of hands” and a leader’s position in solving many political problems, bypassing international organizations, and sometimes international law.

Analyzing the international situation on “the Arctic issue”, it should be emphasized that the Arctic can become the largest storehouse of energy resources and a key transport hub of the globe – this is the prospect of the near future, this is the prospect of the XXI century. The maritime route from Europe to Asia via the Arctic is much shorter than the Suez canal. From London to Shanghai, the South sea is 11,865 nautical miles, and the North sea is 8814nm.

Due to its special geographical location, large reserves of natural resources, defense, scientific, and environmental significance, the Arctic is a place where many countries’ interests intersect. Thus, tensions between the leading countries are increasing all over the world and will inevitably flow to the Arctic. Issues of sovereignty and freedom of navigation in the Arctic are becoming more relevant as sea traffic volumes increase and economic rates increase. Little-known in the past maritime routes such as the Bering Strait can become extremely important passages  – a kind of Persian Gulf of the future. In this regard, it can also seen that whoever controls the Arctic will largely control the world economy and the new international strategic corridor.

Dr. Maria Smotrytska is a senior research sinologist and International Politics specialist of the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists. She is currently the Research Fellow at International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES), Department for Strategic Studies on Asia. PhD in International politics, Central China Normal University (Wuhan, Hubei province, PR China) Contact information : officer[at]ifimes.org SmotrM_S[at]mail.ru

Continue Reading
Comments

Intelligence

India’s Strategic Use of TTP to Undermine Pakistan’s Stability

Avatar photo

Published

on

Image source: hindustantimes.com

Again, bloodshed in the city of flowers, with more than 90 martyrs and at least 250 injured in a suicide attack by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in Peshawar. India’s backing for the TTP and its participation in the group’s avowed jihad against Pakistan have emerged as the most important security challenges in South Asia, with significant ramifications for regional stability and peace.

The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), commonly known as the Taliban in Pakistan, is a Pakistan-based Islamist extremist group. The group, which was founded in 2007, has claimed responsibility for a number of fatal assaults against Pakistani civilians and military personnel. TTP has proclaimed war against Pakistan’s government and military forces, arguing that they are not Islamic enough.

TTP has become a major security danger to Pakistan over the years, spreading widespread fear and instability. The group’s constant strikes on civilians and military targets have resulted in hundreds of deaths and massive devastation. The rising frequency and savagery of TTP assaults has caused considerable alarm among Pakistanis and the international world. Despite significant international criticism, the TTP continues to carry out atrocities with impunity.

Evidence of India’s Support for TTP:

Over the last decade, Pakistani security services have often reported on the Indian intelligence agency (RAW) providing support to the TTP. This assistance has been reported to include financing, training, and weaponry, all of which have aided the TTP’s capacity to carry out strikes against Pakistan. Pakistani officials, security professionals, and independent investigators have claimed India’s participation with TTP, citing proof of Indian involvement in TTP activities and divulging the false flag operations.

TTP commanders obtaining safe shelter in India is another piece of evidence pointing to India’s connection with TTP. TTP commanders have been said to have crossed the border into India for medical treatment and then stayed for lengthy periods of time. The granting of safe haven to TTP commanders implies that India is not only supporting the organization, but also shielding its leaders from prosecution and reprisal.

In addition to the Indian intelligence agency’s direct backing for TTP, there have been claims of Indian media outlets distributing misinformation in favor of TTP. This has included interviews with TTP officials and positive coverage of TTP’s efforts by Indian news sources. The media coverage has been interpreted as a means for India to legitimize the TTP’s conduct and seek sympathy from the world community.

India is contributing to Pakistan’s instability by supplying TTP with the money, safety, and legitimacy it requires to carry out its assaults.

India’s Motives Behind Supporting TTP:

One of India’s key motivations for supporting the TTP is to undermine Pakistan’s government and military. By assisting the organization, India is able to undermine Pakistan’s ability to maintain security and stability, creating an atmosphere in which the TTP may operate with impunity. The ultimate purpose of this assistance is to weaken Pakistan’s military and political institutions, making it easier for India to achieve a regional advantage.

Another reason India backs the TTP is to create a political and security vacuum in Pakistan. By assisting the organization, India may foment turmoil and instability in the country, creating possibilities for India to exploit the situation. The political and security vacuum left by the TTP’s operations can then be utilized by India to further its own goals and acquire more influence in the area.

India’s backing for the TTP might also be interpreted as an attempt to shift attention away from its own human rights violations in Kashmir. By assisting the TTP and producing turmoil and instability in Pakistan, India is able to divert attention away from its own activities in Kashmir, which have been severely condemned for abusing the human rights of Kashmiris. By helping TTP, India can divert attention away from its own acts and position itself as a responsible regional actor.

The Consequences of India’s Actions:

One of the most serious consequences of India’s backing for the TTP is the worsening of terrorism in Pakistan. India is feeding the fire of terrorism in the area by supplying finance, training, and equipment to the group, making it easier for TTP to carry out its heinous actions. This has had a significant influence on Pakistan’s security and stability, as well as the safety of its population. Terrorism has exacerbated violence and loss of life, creating an environment of dread and insecurity throughout the country.

India’s backing for TTP worsens regional tensions and instability. The rise of terrorism in Pakistan has heightened tensions between Pakistan and India, as well as between Pakistan and its neighbors. This has produced a climate of insecurity and uncertainty in the region, threatening regional peace and security. As each side gets more entrenched in its stance, the international community’s ability to find a solution to the crisis has become more difficult.

India’s backing for TTP has had a significant influence on regional peace and security. The rise in terrorism and tensions has made it increasingly difficult to establish regional peace and stability. This has had a detrimental influence on the region’s economic development, social advancement, and people’s well-being. The continuation of violence and insecurity has also made it more difficult for the international community to address the underlying causes of conflict and work toward a long-term solution.

Conclusion:

The international community must take steps to confront India’s backing for TTP. India’s activities are clearly against international law and standards, and they endanger regional peace and security. The international community must strongly denounce India’s conduct and endeavor to hold those involved accountable for their acts.

Holding those involved accountable for their conduct is critical to preventing such incidents in the future. The international community must act to bring individuals who promote terrorism and destabilize the area to account. This involves investigating and punishing individuals responsible for supplying TTP with support, as well as those involved in planning and carrying out terrorist actions. Only by taking firm action can we expect to restore stability and security to the area and prevent such actions in the future.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Cyberwar, Netwar: The Untouchable and Unpredictable

Avatar photo

Published

on

Territorial integrity, sovereignty and non-interference are salient features of a just and secure state. For a state to exist, compete and survive in the international context, a country must be well equipped. The unbiased, neutral and non-aligned movement is the best way to reach heights, especially for small states. However, this is not an easy task, ‘everything has a price’. The existence and co-dependence of a state are made further vulnerable as well as strengthened by way of ‘information’. Unlike in past, when troops protected borders, at present country must face and react to content generated and disseminated on online platforms.

Cyberwar and Netwar are mechanisms that are used by certain individuals as well as entities to infiltrate systems, pass a message, steal information or change the material content. “Cyberwar” is the act of “disrupting, if not destroying, information and communication systems”. On the contrary, “Netwar” is to “disrupt, damage, or modify what a target population knows or thinks it knows about the world around it”.  These threats are vicious to national security. Since the whole world is digitalized, any information regardless of its credibility reaches a wide audience. There are various modes of cyberwar including Phishing, Ransomware, E-commerce data interception, Crimeware-as-a-Service, Cyber Scams and Crypto-jacking. (Arquilla and Ronfeldt 1995) states, that a Netwar may focus on public or elite opinion, or both. It may involve diplomacy, propaganda and psychological campaigns, political and cultural subversion, deception of or interference with local media, infiltration of computer networks and databases and efforts to promote dissident or opposition movements across computer networks.

According to Blackfog’s 2021 State of Ransomware Report, government agencies were the top targets for cybercriminals, followed by education, healthcare, services, technology, manufacturing and retail. According to Curran, Concannon and McKeever (in Janczewski and Colarik 2008: 03) have pointed out; the LTTE became the world’s first terrorist outfit to attack a country’s computer system in 1998. Another example is India. In August 2013, Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI) faced a Cyberattack. ‘Technical snag’ hit the operations of terminal no. 03. Nisar & StepovayaIn (2022) has cited (UNODC, 2021) which states that in September in Malaysia, a web-hosting service was the target of a ransomware attack demanding US$ 900,000 in cryptocurrency and In May, four subsidiaries of an international insurance company in Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and the Philippines were hit by a ransomware attack asking for US$ 20 million. Where that being said for cyber-war, net war is also a crucial problem. This is explicit in Russia and Ukraine conflict where information advantage is heavily discussed and debated. Byman (2022) has mentioned, “Confrontation between Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE (the so-called “Quartet”) and Qatar, for example, began in 2017 in part due to social media exploitation involving hacked email accounts and associated disinformation”. Sri Lanka too faces disinformation by LTTE and its international networks.

Threats, which occur on online platforms, are equally important as much as militaristic aspects of warfare. Where the militaristic aspect includes conquering and declaring power, Cyberwar and Netwar disrupt systems and brainwash people respectively. Since crimes conducted, are unpredictable, intangible and cross borders, ascertaining the criminal is daring. Due to these reasons, imposing liability as to whether it is collective or individual becomes strenuous. Furthermore, lack of experience, expertise in personnel, lack of technology and inadequate infrastructure can be identified as problems. Information illiteracy is another pertaining issue, which is the inability of individuals to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use information effectively. Moreover, cyber-attacks are widely done due to their low cost and widespread nature.

With that being said, it is imperative to reiterate, that national security is threatened by Cyberwar as well as Netwar. Thus, any country must overcome the challenges mentioned afore. For that, to fight cyber war, enhancing technological infrastructure and technical capacity is important. In netwar, information literacy must be instilled to the population. Hence, people will be able to evaluate the quality, credibility and validity of the content. In addition, it is crucial to have a reporting mechanism for false content disseminated online. International cooperation is effective to combat Netwar and Cyberwar. Likewise, it is vital to sign and ratify necessary laws and follow resolutions in the international context. Furthermore, individuals, government, as well as private entities, must behave in a cyber-resilient manner that they are otherwise not incentivized to do.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Operation Neptune Spear and the Killing of Osama bin Laden

Avatar photo

Published

on

The founder and first leader of Al-Qaeda, And establishing 20-years republican government in Afghanistan: Neptune Spear was the secret name or code of the operation that was carried out under the leadership of the CIA on May 2, 2011 in the Abbottabad region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for killing of the leader of the Al-Qaeda group Osama bin Laden. This operation, which was carried out from Afghanistan to the territory of Pakistan by former President of the United States Barack Obama, is generally known as JSOC.

 Why this mission was named Neptune Spear? 

The reason why the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaeda group, was given the name Neptune’s Spear is as follows: The mission was named Operation Neptune’s Spear because it was the emblem of the United States Navy Seal, and Neptune in classical mythology means the god of the sea. In addition, this operation is commonly known as JSOC, because the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) is a sub-command of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), which played an important role in the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011.

The Neptune Spear operation started on May 1, 2011 from the American military base in Jalalabad province of Afghanistan, and ended on May 2 in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Former President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and members of the national security team were monitoring the operation online. All involved in Operation Neptune Spear were 23 SEALs, an interpreter, two helicopters and a combat dog. The operation started from a base of the American forces in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, on May 1, 2011 at 10:30 pm local time, and on May 2, 2011, after 40 minutes long operation, they ended by killing Osama Bin Laden before one o’clock. Who was Osama Bin Laden and how did he become a big threat to the world, especially the United States?  Osama bin Laden, the son of Muhammad bin Awad, was born on March 10, 1957 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, but some sources close to Osama believe that he was born in 1958. Osama bin Laden had five wives, his first wife was Najwa Ghanim, who married him in 1974, his second and divorced wife was Khadija Sharif, who married him in 1983, and His third wife was Khairya Saber who married Osama bin Laden in 1985. His fourth wife was Siham Saber, who married Osama bin Laden in 1987, and his fifth wife was Amal al-Sadah, who married Osama bin Laden in 2000.

 Osama had about twenty male and female children from his first four wives, but according to some sources, Osama had twenty-four male and female children from his fifth wife, and some put the number of children at 26, but the exact report is 24 about Osama’s children. Osama bin Al-Adeen studied economics at Abdul Aziz University, And in addition to this, after receiving education in the field of Civil engineering, politics and Shari’a, he studied partially in English literature at Oxford University in England, But intellectually, he was more encouraged towards the jihadist ways and intellectually he chose the jihadist way. Before Osama Bin Laden left Britain and went to Pakistan to choose the path of war, he showed intellectual interest in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Moreover, during his university years, he financially supported jihadist groups in South Sudan, Egypt, Syria and a number of African countries, because he inherited 20 to 25 million dollars from his father, And Osama spends a part of that money on construction projects and financially supports terrorist groups with the money received from those construction companies. In 1979, Bin Laden went to Pakistan and stayed with his intellectual and jihadist teacher, Abdullah Azzam, and prepared for the war against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan, after that, he became friends with Ayman al-Zawahiri and founded the (Maktab-Al-Khadamat) in 1984 with Abdullah Azzam, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden. After that, he started recruiting fighters for Mujahideen against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and spent most of his wealth on financing terrorists. After that, Osama bin Laden started a massive effort to establish Al-Qaeda and started recruiting fighters from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, And he accelerated the search for young people with a fighting and jihadist mindset from all over the world, and he focused on Egypt in order to attract Egyptian engineers. After extensive financial and armed cooperation with other jihadist organizations in Pakistan, in 1988, the Al-Qaeda armed group was activated by Osama, Not only did they continue their attacks in Afghanistan, but they also carried out many bloody attacks in the Middle East and Africa. The bloodiest attack was the 11th of September 2001 and the darkest day in the history of the United States. September 11 or 9/11, on September 11, 2001, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes, and the first two commercial airplanes and suicide bombers targeted the New York City International Trade Center. The third plane targeted the headquarters of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, and the fourth plane planned to attack the federal government building in Washington DC, but did not reach the target, And in four attacks, around 3000 Americans were killed and up to 25000 Americans and foreigners were injured. After this attack, Osama was included in the list of the most wanted terrorists by the United States and the Western alliance, a list controlled by the FBI.

 After 10 years of intense investigations and intelligence investigations, on May 2, 2011, the US government avenged 9/11 by killing Osama at the ISI’s most secure location in Abbottabad, Pakistan. However, Osama’s body was thrown into the sea before his body should be presented to the intelligence agencies of the world as evidence. But there is some confidential information that Osama bin Laden, the American dictator and the founder of al-Qaeda, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the beginning of the US-sponsored jihadist war against Afghanistan, And he was 22 years old and trained in a CIA-sponsored guerrilla training camp. In any case, Osama’s entry into Afghanistan led to the fall of the first Taliban regime, and at the same time, a person who was famous for so dear to Westerners came to power in Afghanistan.

How did Hamid Karzai get from immigration to the presidency?

 Common understanding between former President Hamid Karzai and the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States and some untold facts: When the Al-Qaeda group carried out the deadly attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, and the leader of this group, Osama bin Laden, took refuge in Afghanistan. In addition, the first Taliban regime of Afghanistan at that time, under the leadership of Mullah Omar Mujahid, accepted the refuge of Osama Bin Laden. Not only that, the American people knew that the United States and the security agencies of this country would not remain silent, and would soon start preparing for revenge. But before that the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Army, and the Special Operations Command of the United States Army started a response plan, they first proposed to the Afghan government to hand over Osama Bin Al-Adeen to the United States. Nevertheless, the leader and founder of the Taliban, Mullah Omar Mujahid, rejected their request, and for the second time, the United States tried to mediate the Saudi Arabia. The US asked the Taliban government to hand over Osama to the government of Saudi Arabia, but Mullah Omar Mujahid said that handing over Osama Bin Al-Aden to Saudi Arabia means handing over to America.

Furthermore, after rejecting the second proposal, the plan to attack Afghanistan was started by the United States and its allies on October 7, 2001. Just 15 days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, CIA and US Special Forces personnel were sent to northern Afghanistan, to meet local tribal leaders and local commanders such as Abdul Rashid Dostum and work together, to start a war against the Taliban, who controlled the country and gave shelter to Osama bin Laden. A CIA team arrived with $3 million in $100 bills to use to recruit tribal leaders and strengthen the war against the Taliban, and teams of military units came from the fifth Special Forces Group. The then President of the United States, George W. Bush, together with the head of the CIA, George J. Tenet, made a coordinated decision to overthrow the Taliban government by appointing an influential person from the southwest zone of Afghanistan after the formation of a new government in the country.

That person was Abdulhad Karzai’s son Hamid Karzai who spent a lot of time in exile in Pakistan,  not only  he was the national leader for the Pashtuns of this side of the border, but he also had a special status among the Pashtuns of that side of the border in Pakistan. This position made him a target of the CIA. After October 7, 2001, members of the Central Intelligence Agency began to secretly visit Hamid Karzai’s house in Quetta and Chaman, Baluchistan, Pakistan, as a result, in July 2002, Hamid Karzai came to power in Afghanistan under the warm support of the CIA and the West, and he remained the president of Afghanistan until September 2014.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Southeast Asia1 hour ago

The Irony of Indonesian Media Disaster Communication

Indonesia occupies the fourth position as the most populous country in the world, with a projected population that will continue...

East Asia3 hours ago

Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia and America’s hostile policy towards China-Russia rapprochement

The visit of Chinese President “Xi Jinping” to Russia will be organized, which will most likely take place after the...

Economy4 hours ago

Prospects of Vietnam’s Economic Growth in 2023

The ongoing  war in Ukraine and increasing commodity prices across the world have impacted the developing countries. Countries in Asia...

Middle East6 hours ago

Drone attacks on Iran may lead to severe consequences

Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, said at a news conference in Tehran on Sunday that “a cowardly drone attack...

Middle East10 hours ago

Israelis and Palestinians do what they do best, but for the wrong reasons

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has put Israel’s closest allies and some of his key partners on the spot. So has...

Health & Wellness13 hours ago

Mushrooms emerge from the shadows in pesticide-free production push

By Ali Jones Mention La Rioja in northern Spain and most people will picture majestic sun-drenched vineyards nestled in the...

Middle East15 hours ago

Sisi’s visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan to join the Eurasian Union and BRICS

President El-Sisi’s visit to India, followed by Armenia and Azerbaijan, came as an affirmation from the Egyptian side and its...

Trending