Hafiz Saeed’s release: Pakistan’s brazen mockery

In a brazen mockery, Pakistan released Hafiz Saeed two days ahead of the 9^th anniversary of 26/11 which led to killing of over 166 people including foreign nationals. Barely 10 months back under burgeoning US pressure, Pakistan maimed to entire world of having arrested Saeed initially for three months and later extended the same several times. Now the Lahore High Court (LHC), refused to detain him any further claiming “insufficient evidence”. Challenging authority of political establishment, Saeed thanked the judges of LHC after his release from house arrest.  Despite India providing irrefutable evidence and numerous dossiers to Pakistan of Saeed’s nefarious terror activities, Pakistan refused to act.  After the brutal Mumbai attacks, UN designated Saeed as globally-designated terrorist and US announced $10 million bounty in 2012.  Hafiz Saeed, Chief of JuD (Jamaat-ud-Dawa) founded two organizations- LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) for training personnel and JeM (Jaish-e-Mohammed) headed by Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi for planning and carrying out terror activities.

In August US administration issued a stern warning of cutting aid to Pakistan if it fails to stop “providing safe havens to agents of terror and chaos”. Responding to the threat, Pakistan rejected US claims and warned America against holding Pakistan responsible for its failures in Afghanistan. US-Pakistan relations touched a new low as both countries traded charges. But Trump administration also refrained from repealing the classification of “major non-NATO ally” ascribed to Pakistan like his predecessors. Rather, intensifying its South Asia Policy campaign, US senate passed a bill saying that Pakistan must show “it has taken steps to demonstrate its commitment to prevent the Haqqani network and LeT from using any Pakistan territory as a haven and for fund raising and recruitment efforts”. Additionally, in September India strongly prevailed at the BRICS summit that patrons of terror must be named and shamed. Accordingly, joint declaration of Xiamen BRICS Summit named JeM and LeT as terror groups operating from Pakistani soil. With Pakistan’s all-weather friend too making substantial noise about terrorism Foreign Minister Khwaja Asif at a Press Conference agreed that his country should rein in on the terror outfits to avoid “embarrassment” on global stage. He added, “I am not making any political statement…. We cannot afford to shut out eyes on the activities of these organizations in our country. If we continue to do that we will always face such embarrassments. We have no stakes involved but we are carrying the baggage of past follies. We cannot correct ourselves as long as we donot accept historical facts”.  Though Asif reiterated that Pakistan’s dependency on US has reduced, by October, Islamabad faked sincerity and released a Canadian family held captive by the Taliban in 2012. President Trump immediately thanked Pakistan and added, “I believe they have started respecting United States again”.

Interestingly, during the same period, India’s ties with Trump administration solidified with US making India a key player in Afghan issue. US promised to strengthen cooperation in paralyzing terror networks operating in the sub-continent. Even the talks on revival of the Quad, began on a positive note in November along sidelines of EAS (East Asia Summit). Days after the summit, the US congress passed new version of National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2018, which didn’t contain name of the LeT under the list of terror networks operating in Pakistan. The Act mandates Pakistan to launch military operations against the stated terror outfits and disrupt their functioning. The bill which also includes $700 million aid from US Coalition Support Fund (CSF) stipulates that half the fund be withheld if Pakistan fails to take conclusive action against terror outfit. By removing LeT- focused on Kashmir from the list, America demonstrated its cursory interest in addressing cross-border terrorism faced by India. By seeking action against Haqqani Network from Pakistan, American clearly reiterated its priority of restoring some order in Afghanistan. American position surprised India. This unequivocal American demarcation between the terror groups gave new ideas to Pakistan. Tossing up the task of tackling Haqqani network into air, Pakistan infused fresh momentum to its good terrorist network. Pakistan’s deep state facilitated release of Hafiz Saeed who feigned “innocence” and said “I am happy that none of the allegations against me proved as three judges of LHC ordered my release…India has levelled baseless allegations against me. The LHC’s review board decision has proved that I am innocent”.  Kashmir issue has always been the bread and butter of Pakistan military and Hafiz’s release added more strength to their vicious strategies.

Moments after release, confirming India’s worst fears Saeed vowed to fight for the cause of Kashmiris. He said, “I will gather the people from across the country for the cause of Kashmir and we will try to help Kashmiris get their destination freedom”. He lashed out at the political establishment, directing his angst at former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif saying “You took oath on defending Pakistan and Kashmir, you betrayed people of Kashmir. I wanted to tell you that you were ousted from power because you committed treason of trying to develop close relations with Modi”. Saeed’s critical outburst removed veil off the nefarious strategies hitched by Pakistan deep state to create unrest in Kashmir and destabilize India.  He claimed, “I was detained on the pressure of the US on the Pakistan government. The US did so on request of India”.

Succumbing to international pressure, Sharif government ordered the arrest of Hafiz Saeed and his four aides-Abdullah Ubaid, Malik Zafar Iqbal, Abdul Rehman Abid and Qazi Khasif Hussain on January 31^st for 3 months under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act. All of them were detained for next 6 months under “public safety law” making two extensions. Judicial Board refused extension of Saeed’s aides and they were released last month. To facilitate Saeed’s release, officials withdrew terrorism charges against him and JuD under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) rules. Political establishment of Pakistan fearing threats of military aid and limited sanctions from UN provided important information for detaining Saeed but Judicial Board refused to review.

Military-judiciary nexus inadvertently highlighted deteriorating civilian functioning of Pakistan. Daud Khattak in his article “Pakistan: The War within” ascribed this internal war to ever widening divide between military and political establishments which reached a crescendo with successfully unseating of three times Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on charges of money laundering. Deep state colluded with judicial authorities and toppled the democratically elected government. Previously, in 2012, military deposed Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani after Supreme Court disqualified him for his “state within state” remarks.

Cognizant of growing military high-handedness, Nawaz Sharif upon his re-election in 2013, tried to reassert control over areas dominated by military. Despite military’s disapproval, Sharif attended Modi’s swearing in ceremony, attempted to resurrect ties with India, refused to extend the tenure of Army Chief, Raheel Sharif who had a larger than life image and went ahead seeking punishment for President Pervez Musharraf for his unconstitutional excesses. While the military managed to downsize powers of Sharif through a vital bargain in exchange for bringing civilian unrest fomented by opposition under control. Despite the deal, Sharif made every effort to remain stubborn which in a way led to the arrest of Saeed in January. But Sharif’s authority ended in July when deep state launched a judicial coup to overthrow him. Though Sharif was disqualified, he was re-elected as the head of PML (Pakistan Muslim League). To expedite Sharif’s ouster, military wooed opposition Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf party chairman, Imran Khan. No sooner Sharif was disqualified, military pushed Supreme Court to investigate charges of incomplete disclosure of assets in nomination papers against Imran Khan. Strategically, by weakening the credibility of existing political parties, military wanted to fill the vacuum by streamlining extremist organizations into newer political outfits. 

As a trail blazer to this new strategy, military began lionizing terrorists and intensified efforts to mainstream extremists paving way for complete Islamization of Pakistan, the ultimate goal of Pakistan constitution. The original version of Pakistan Constitution of 1949 laid out that society must adhere to teachings of Quran and Sunnah. This resolution was incorporated into subsequent versions of Constitution. Giving more thrust to Islamic ideology, the 1973 Constitution, which has become supreme law of Pakistan drafted by government of Z. A. Bhutto declared Pakistan would be Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It facilitated creation of Shariat Court and Council of Islamic Ideology rendering mosques more powerful. Consequently, radicalization and intolerance swept the society and extremist groups began gaining more foothold. Chilling assassination of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer by Mumtaz Qadri for supporting blasphemy of a Christian woman and subsequent idolization of Qadri aptly exemplifies near total Islamization of Pakistan. Particularly, a group by name Tehreek-e-Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLY) glorified Qadri and built a mausoleum in his honor. This pro-Muslim, Sunni majority, religious organization headed by a Maulana Khadim Hussain Rizvi, has now turned into a political movement, and began demanding establishment of Sharia law. The same group is now holding protests across Pakistan since November 8^th calling for amending the constitution whereby politicians must swear oath affirming in the finality of prophethood (Khatm-i-Nabuwwat). They are demanding death sentence for PML leaders and dismissal of Parliament.

Interestingly, TYL secured third place in the by-election held for the NA-120 constituency following the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif. The Milli Muslim League (MML), political front of JuD secured fourth position in the contest. MML, brainchild of Pakistan military is an effort to launch banned JuD into politics. With Interior Ministry of Pakistan informing that JuD and its charity organization Falah-i-Insaaniyat are under US and UN sanctions, Election commission stalled JuD’s attempt to enter the mainstream politics by rejecting MML’s application. (Falah-i-Insaaniyat, collected funds to send supplies to Kashmir as a symbol of solidarity to valley after the death of Burhan Wani). MML formed in August is headed by Saifullah Khalid, a key member of JuD central leadership. After election commission’s rejection, MML began fielding its candidates as independent in another by-election in Peshawar.  LeT/JuD supports Sipah-e-Sabah Pakistan a banned terrorist organization. Sipah-e-Sabah a Deoband organization is part of Defah-e- Pakistan council constituted by Lt General Hamid Gul of ISI. Defah-e-Pakistan includes over 36 different extremist organizations. These appalling intricate nefarious connections between military and terrorist organizations are truly intimidating. By supporting extremist jihadi organizations, military is lending credence to religious fanaticism which is portrayed as nationalism. Penetrating military intervention is crippling the civilian supremacy and turning Pakistan into a sham democracy.

Pakistan is heading for elections in 2018 and with release of Hafiz Saeed, military is aiming to gain firm hold over political establishment by mainstreaming jihadists. Already, MML and TYL made successful electoral beginnings in recently held by-elections. With military establishment firmly behind them, the extremist jihadi organizations are expected to dent electoral prospects of mainstream political parties.  Especially, the PML which is planning to establish good relations with India. Besides by mainstreaming JuD/LeT military is exculpating of its heinous crimes and thus substantially nullifying the plausibility of additional sanctions. Also, by taming these supposedly, strategic assets, military aims to accentuate proxy war against India.

It has been a decade since 26/11, the wounds of families of victims of ghastly Mumbai attacks are still afresh and waiting with bated breath for justice. With Pakistan conveniently absolving Saeed of all his crimes, India should stop fantasizing about prosecution of Hafiz Saeed. US warnings of serious repercussions failed to deter Pakistan from releasing Saeed. Clearly, Pakistan no longer fears US with China shielding Islamabad at every possible platform. Back home, reports indicate that people of Lakhimpurkheri in Uttar Pradesh are celebrating the release of Saeed while the principal opposition taunts government of failed “hugplomacy”. India’s inaction has emboldened Pakistan and its covert supporters within the country.  It is high time and India must seriously consider inflicting damage to Pakistan where it hurts the most.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Implacable Chinese Connection in Zimbabwean Regime Change

The situation in Zimbabwe is slowly unravelling. Interestingly, what began as a military coup is now assuming hues of political coup to oust President Robert Mugabe who has been in power for the past 37 years. Clearly, what is making this entire event more suspicious is covert Chinese nod for the military coup that is triggering transfer of power from the dictatorial Mugabe.

Unlike in many countries, since its independence in 1980, Zimbabwe thrived on the strong cohesion between the ruling party Zimbabwe African National Union- Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA). Indeed, there has been an unwritten agreement that civilian authority would be supreme. ZANU-PF, a Maoist front, spearheaded a guerilla kind of freedom war against the white-minority Ian Smith’s regime and eventually emerged as ruling party after independence. Since then ZNA personnel unequivocally pledged their loyalty to ZANU-PF and subsequently, strategists ruled out possibility of any military takeover or an eventual coup. But the hostilities between ZNA largely inundated with liberation war veterans and the political front began to simmer over a period of time. The 93-year old Mugabe’s deteriorating health and his second wife Grace Mugabe’s ambitious efforts to clinch power critically generated an uncertainty amongst war veterans. In a bid to strengthen her claims to power, Grace created an association G-40 faction comprising the younger generation who weren’t associated with the liberation war. But were enthusiastic in ushering Zimbabwe into twenty-first century after death of Robert Mugabe. Grace started reaching out to youth, women and smartly purged officials who didn’t comply with her political ambitions. Curiously, Mugabe turned a blind eye to these developments. Soon veterans felt threatened of their political relevance.

In the meanwhile, Emmerson Mnangagwa, a former veteran, who had immense support among the military and war veterans was appointed as vice-president in 2014. As Mugabe’s health deteriorated, Grace intensified her efforts to clinch the highest political position. She began to openly taunt Mnangagwa, as a snake who needs to be crushed at political rallies. Mnangagwa, known as “Ngwenya” or The Crocodile, colleague of Mugabe, having served as minister of defence monitored intelligence agencies. He has a formidable reputation and highly feared. He engineered some of the worst massacres in 1980, which led to killing of over 20,000 Ndebele tribes who had strong allegiance to the opposition. Lately, bowing to Grace’s pressure Mugabe began to accuse Mnangagwa of using “Witch Craft”. These allegations widened rifts between Mnangagwa’s Lacoste faction and G-40 faction. Sudden uncertainty and power tussle flared up with the expulsion of Mnangagwa from the Vice-President position on November 6^th.

Fearing death, Mnangagwa attempted to flee Harare with his loyalists. But with severe checks imposed along major transit routes, he managed to reach South Africa through the labyrinthine smuggling pathways. During this period, Mnangagwa remained in contact with his ally General Constantine Chiwenga, a Mugabe loyalist. Chiwenga travelled to Beijing citing official work and met Mnangagwa who reached China. Both these men who obtained military training in China discussed their plans of a coup with Chinese army official Li Zuocheng. Interestingly, these two men struck several millions worth diamond mining deal with China. Reports suggest that they have swindled over $15billion from the state exchequer through these deals.  General Chiwenga who arrived Beijing as state guest espoused that “Zimbabwe and China are all-weather friends” and expressed “willingness to deepen exchanges and cooperation in all fields with China to promote rapid development of bilateral state and military relations between the two countries”. China is the largest foreign investor of Zimbabwe and fourth largest trading partner. Recently China constructed $100 million Zimbabwe National Defence College and $200million Long Cheng Plaza shopping mall in Harare and pledged to build Parliament Complex. Zimbabwe’s ties with China dates to 1979 when the Rhodesian Guerilla fighters request for arms and weapons was turned down by Soviet Union and they approached China. Beijing supplied the needed supplies to Zimbabwe. In 1980, independent Zimbabwe established diplomatic relations with China. Ever since under the “Look East” strategy, Zimbabwe deepened ties with China to rally against West which was highly critical of Mugabe’s ruthless actions. Zimbabwe purchased arms and ammunition from China and relations were strong till 2008, after which there was a sharp down turn following a controversy regarding the overland shipment of arms through South Africa. Zimbabwe during this period tried to reengage with the West. Despite this hiccup, China had been a biggest market for Zimbabwean tobacco, cotton, and minerals. While Zimbabwe imported electronics and finished products. In the past four decades, China provided technical support to ZANU-PF and both countries established strong military contacts.

In 1993 Mugabe prompted military veterans to forcibly take over the land possessed by the white-minority without compensation. He undermined the democratic institutions, flouted the rules of law and destroyed all his rivals. His economic policies rooted in Leninism and Marxism inflicted devastating blow to otherwise prosperous economy. Hyperinflation became a norm, overwhelmed by skyrocketing inflation, Zimbabwe even made US dollar its currency for a while. Agriculture was neglected, thousands of refugees fled Zimbabwe. Though elections were regularly held, Mugabe increasingly resorted to violence to contain protests and won back the trust of military with land ownerships. Irked by ruthless policies US and UK imposed sanctions in 2002. While the west loathed Mugabe for the excesses and gross human rights violations. China firmly stood by the rogue regime. China in 2015 conferred  highest honor “Confucius Peace Prize” on Mugabe for supposedly “injecting fresh energy into the global quest for harmony”. Additionally, Xi on his state visit to Harare, pledged $4 billion investments in power, infrastructure and pharmaceutical sectors. While China began to pour investments in Zimbabwe, Mugabe called for strict enforcement of Indigenization Law mandating the foreign investors to have a black majority ownership. Mnangagwe opposed Indigenization Law which hampered Chinese investments and even proposed use of Chinese Yuan as legal tender along with other currencies. Mugabe’s Indigenization Law spooked Chinese investors. China expressed its dissatisfaction over absence of Mugabe’s succession plan and clearly favored Mnangagwe who favored limiting indigenization law. Zimbabwean expert Matyszak even acknowledged, “When Mugabe went on a visit to China last year to try and seek some sort of economic help, we were told that the Chinese had said they wouldn’t provide any assistance and investments would be severely curtailed until we sort out the succession issue, because they don’t see any political and therefore economic stability in Zimbabwe until Mugabe leave office. And they were encouraging Mugabe to put Mnangagwa in as successor”

Dwindling economy and internal bickering within the ZANU-PF intensified. Mugabe’s decision to fire Mnangagwa on November 6^th hastened the crisis. By Nov 10^th military forces joined hands with Mnangagwa in China and together, they enacted coup on November 15^th to prevent G-40 faction from taking over reigns from 93-year old Robert Mugabe. Security forces arrested Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace. Since Mugabe remained defiant and refused to resign, Mnangagwa and Chiwenga stirred up a political coup by taking refuge in Country’s constitution. Invoking the Section 97 (3), Senate and National Assembly passed a resolution to institute impeachment motion. Under this constitutional provision, any President or vice-president can be removed from office on charges of “serious misconduct, failure to obey, uphold of defend constitution or inability to perform the functions of the office because of physical or mental incapacity”. Accusing Mugabe as “source of instability” for allowing his wife to usurp constitutional power ruling party moved the motion in Parliament. It was seconded by opposition on Tuesday. In the meanwhile, Zimbabweans tired of the dictatorial regime, intensified protests and appealed President to step down. Even the Southern African Development Community (SADC) urged Mugabe to resign. At the time of writing this piece, news broke out that Mugabe submitted his resignation to Speaker of the Parliament ending the eight-day long political crisis. Ever since Zimbabwean independence, the country was ruled by Robert Mugabe and his resignation will usher the country into a new era. Now speculations are rife that Vice-President Mnangagwe will become interim President.

Zimbabweans are elated with this new development and welcomed a change. Political analysts observed that transfer of power may not change the fortunes of the country since perpetrators are least bothered about the welfare of the people. Clearly, profound changes in political and economic policies are unlikely.

Strategists contend that China’s involvement in Zimbabwean politics stems from its concerns of business and strategic interests. China is focused on stability of Zimbabwean regime. It firmly believed that transfer of power to Grace Mugabe would spell disaster for its investments in Zimbabwe. While Beijing favored a smooth transition of power it is not concerned about the ideological commitment (democratic or non-democratic) of the government.  

Interestingly, though China continues to claim that it has no role in Zimbabwean power transfer, China’s closeness to Zimbabwe, ruling party’s allegiance to Maoist ideology indicates otherwise. Even the two leaders who perpetrated coup, received military and ideological lessons from China.

Unlike in 2011, when Beijing supported Libyan ruler Muammer Gaddafi for its oil interests, it didn’t support Zimbabwean parochial dictator. But certainly, there is a change in China’s stance of its avowed non-interference in affairs of foreign countries proclaimed in early 1950’s. With its rising global stature and burgeoning strategic interests in Africa, Beijing is shifting its position. To safeguard its investments and oil needs, China actively intervened in Sudan and South Sudan political crisis. Zimbabwe will be no different. As expected, China will not care about restoration of democracy and rule of law in Zimbabwe. But with two Chinese henchmen at the helm of affairs in Zimbabwe, China might be assured of its interests. In the meanwhile, mounting Chinese investments notwithstanding Zimbabwe’s inability to repay debt will invariably exacerbate Harare’s financial crisis plunging it into a quagmire of debt trap. Unfortunately, for all the jubilation and celebrations marking the fall of a despotic ruler, Zimbabweans hopes of economic revival might still be a day dream….  

@ Copyrights reserved.

The Quad: Revival and Relevance

“The Quad (Quadrilateral Dialogue)”, a concept, which created buzz ten years ago in diplomatic circles has become topic of phenomenal interest once again. The revivalism of The Quad, after a decade is clearly attributed to unremitting Chinese aggression and floundering American foreign policy. In 2006, Shinzo Abe, envisioned coming together of democratic nations and sought “the confluence of two seas”, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean for realizing the concept of “Broader Asia”. This zealotry in turn strengthened the emergence of the term, Indo-Pacific, which briefly found consonance with American political establishment as well. Abe even promoted the concept of formation of “Arc of Freedom and Prosperity” rooted in a deep commitment to democratic values. Enthused by a positive response, a pragmatic doctrine of “Security diamond” comprising the democracies of the Indo-Pacific region-India, Japan, Australia, and US was proposed in 2007.  With a paradigm of ensuring free navigation, promoting free trade and safe guarding the region stretching from Indian Ocean to Western Pacific the maritime democracies infused fresh dynamic into the doctrine. In March 2007, Japan and Australia signed Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation setting the rubric for strong bilateral strategic relations, later, Japan signed similar framework agreement with India. By September 2007, the maritime democracies of the Indo-Pacific region held first ever joint naval exercises, Malabar in the Bay of Bengal. This Quadrilateral, which set off a new bench mark for cooperation, suffered a major blow after the newly elected Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, withdrew from the Malabar exercises. Thus, the Quad, which started off with great enthusiasm, fizzled out.

Perturbed by overwhelming Chinese unilateralism and burgeoning power imbalance in Asia, Japan reached out to India and Australia, the regional powers to reinforce a rule-based world order. Australia’s wobbly stance, eventually thwarted the Quad in a nascent stage. At the height of Global recession, when the West was reeling under financial stress, Australia remained unperturbed. Canberra, firmly believed that its Chinese exports accounting for over 30% of its entire trade volume saved it from the dire economic crisis, as China’s demand kept its economy floating. This and China’s outrage at the Quad’s joint naval exercise as an attempt to contain it prompted Australia to withdraw from the Quad in 2008. China referred to the Quad cooperation as “Asian NATO” and went ballistic. Soon, Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi, announced Australia’s unwillingness towards Quadrilateral Dialogue. While the concept of coalition of maritime democracies, hasn’t vanquished, but it was deposed for time being. Even India was reluctant to revive the Quad, rattled by the prospect of upsetting China, Indian Defence Minister A K Anthony, summoned the Indian Naval Chief and ruled out the possibility of any further joint naval exercises. Also, quick succession of rapid political change in Japan, failed to pursue the Quad. From September 2007 to December 2012-Japan’s political leadership transitioned from Yasuo Fakuda, Taro Aso, Yukio Hatoyama, Naoto Kan and Yoshihiko Noda.

China began to assert its power more vigorously. In 2010, President Obama shunned a possible G-2 kind of sharing of global power with China. As if awakened by burgeoning Chinese dominance in Asia, launched the Pivot to Asia doctrine in 2011 to assure America’s Asian alliance of its support. By 2012, Abe was re-elected who revived the Quad vociferously articulated the need for “peace, stability and freedom of navigation in the Pacific Ocean are inseparable from peace, stability and freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean”. Anxious of rapid developments in South China Sea and China’s renewed efforts to turn it into “Lake of Beijing”, Abe wrote a compelling piece on the need for the democracies to join hands. In late 2012, Abe informally urged that Britain and France should take active role in strengthening Asian security. He reminded that Britain has Five Power Defense Agreements with Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand and France positioned its fleet in Tahiti for Asian security. But UPA regime hardly evinced any interested in rejuvenating the idea of Quad. Discarding the reluctance NDA regime under Narendra Modi reached out to Japan. In the year 2015, Modi called for inclusion of Japan in the trilateral exercises showing signs of reinvigorating the idea of cooperation. Japan became part of the Malabar exercises in 2016.

But by 2013, China intensified efforts to consolidate its hegemony by extending its ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) over disputed regions of East China Sea. By brazenly disapproving the verdict permanent court of arbitration, in 2015, Beijing accentuated worst fears of the smaller regional neighbor of its overwhelming unilateralism and dominance. Growing inflexibility of China towards freedom of navigation through South China Sea crucial for the international trade has sparked new concerns among countries in the region. America’s inaction amidst China’s assertion of power intensely prompted Japan to revive the Quadrilateral Dialogue. In the meanwhile, increased Chinese penetration in administration, trade, politics, and college campus began to rattle Australia. Inundated by reports of threatening Chinese influence even in media, security and strategically important infrastructure projects, Australia offered to join this edition of Malabar Exercises. But India turned down Australian requests but expressed willingly obliged to continue with the AUSINDEX bilateral exercises.

Reenergized by spectacular electoral triumph, Abe began resurrection of Quadrilateral Dialogue officially. The new revival plan made a move to associate European powers. India which had its own reservations, about Australia, signaled its approval saying, “India is open to working with likeminded countries on issues that advance our interests and promote our view point”. Taking cue, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro, announced that initial level talks of the Quad along the sidelines of East Asia Summit meet in Manila. Accordingly, senior level officials from all the four countries met in Manila and markedly reemphasized the use of “Indo-Pacific” as opposed to “Asia-Pacific”. “Indo-Pacific” term not only reiterates India’s preeminence to the new coalition but refuses China’s centrality to the region. The Quad, is now increasingly viewed as another multilateral aimed at containing China and ensuring prevalence of rules-based order with secondary objectives of enhancing connectivity, countering terrorism, curtailing proliferation of nuclear weapons and promoting free trade. Ironically, with America embracing protectionism, liberal trade regime can be contradictory. Though fertile ground for cooperation between the countries remains containing China’s unilateralism, with lone common factor being democratic credentials strategists are skeptical about the extent and scope of cooperation. Further, all these countries have extensive trade relations with China.  Regarding the maritime cooperation, valid questions are raised in the context of interoperability. As US, Australia, Japan’s naval forces are based on American combat systems, Indian forces are Russian built. Despite these contradictions, emergence of The Quad, is all the more essential since, ASEAN, which evolved as a bulwark to contain China has now become fragile. China has effectively crippled the solidarity of ASEAN countries through coercive diplomacy. Further it must be recalled sceptics raised doubts about the survival of BRICS. Much to the chagrin of the strategists, despite its incipient discord, BRICS effectively developed a multilateral financial institute which has started issuing grants for infrastructural projects. Similarly, the Quad would eventually gain the support of nations like Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore which are wary of China’s penetrating aggression and dominance.

As of now, Quad must travel long to be reckoned as meaningful entity. Unlike other multilaterals, which issue a joint statement, countries individually released their own versions. Strikingly, there are subtle variations in each of these reports.

Above all, the Quad should be a moment of elation for India since its revival changed the existing connotation of Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific. It also signifies marked shift in India’s approach of raising above the throes of ambiguities and sentimentalism. India partaking a role of responsible stakeholder in the maritime cooperation reflects a new change which is guided by self-interests. Delhi has always believed in a multipolar world and rightfully so, India unlike the other countries of the quad, stressed on the word “inclusive” in the core Quad agenda. Indian foreign policy is always guided by “Strategic autonomy”. Rightfully so, despite active engagement in the Quad, foreign ministers of India, Russia and China are meeting next month in Delhi. Moreover, India is well advised to be cautious since an inconsistent American South Asian Policy continues to surprise India.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Saudi Arabian Purge

After the ruthless Erdogan’s purge in Turkey, authoritarian rise of President Xi, unflinching consolidation of power by the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) is all set to change the dynamic of power play in Asia. Massive purge has been integral to events in Turkey and China, where Xi through the anti-corruption drive targeted nearly 1.5 million officials and political opponents. Unfoldment of similar pattern of events in Saudi Arabia unleashed by crown prince portended advent of a new change in the middle east region. Eventually, the three events on Nov 4^th is all set to usher Saudi into a new realm under the reigns of MbS.

On Nov 4^th the anti-corruption task force headed by MbS arrested 11 princes which included sons of late King Abdullah, 30 former and current ministers and three heads of Saudi TV stations. All their assets were attached, and wealth was frozen. Several other members of the Royal family are held in Ritz Carlton hotel.

On the same day, Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri announced his resignation from Riyadh citing an assassination bid by Hezbollah. Hariri, who is half Lebanese, raised in Saudi with business interests in the kingdom, has been a puppet of the Royal Sauds. On Nov 3^rd, Hariri met Iranian delegation led by Al Akbar Velayati, advisor to Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei but the next day he traveled to Saudi and declared his reluctance to continue as Prime Minister. His resignation which wasn’t preceded by any radical events raised curious doubts about the major power play politics unleased by Saudi Arabia.  Hariri, who took over the charge as Prime Minister last year headed a government which included Hezbollah, political-military outfit propped by Iran. A deal was struck for equitable distribution of power in Lebanon. Accordingly, Michel Aoun, strong ally of Hezbollah, became the President while Hariri backed by Riyadh, represented the Sunni interests. Days into power, Hariri called for disarmament of Hezbollah, but the President defended that it was necessary for security interests of Lebanon. Hariri slowly lost control over budgetary issues and was forced to accede to Hezbollah’s insistence of sending an ambassador to Syria. Saudi began to feel the crumbling influence of Hariri. A stable government legitimized Hezbollah in Lebanon. By ordering Hariri to step down, Saudi will create chaos in Lebanon as Hezbollah will find it difficult to form coalition government. Hezbollah’s maneuver will be restricted, and Iran would be held responsible for the unrest. Saudi earlier legitimized its control over Lebanon through Hariri’s father Rafik who was assassinated in 2005 by Hezbollah. Lebanon always served as a barometer for the balance of powers operating the middle east region. Presently Iran, preoccupied by battles in Syria and Yemen crisis, has failed to focus on the balance of powers in Lebanon. MbS has rightly picked up the occasion to assert Saudi’s influence in the region.

Worsening this crisis, a ballistic missile launched from Yemen was intercepted at the King Khaled airport, Riyadh. Though there were no reports of any causalities, this incident has opened yet another new front for the Saudi to intensify its narrative against Iran. Saudi unequivocally blamed Houthi rebels, who belong to Zyadi sect as Shia Muslims and firmly believed that Iran offered military support. Reiterating that debris of the missile confirmed Iran’s role, Saudi lost no time in upping the ante. Riyadh remarked this as “blatant act of military aggression by the Iranian regime” and that they reserved “right to respond”. After the missile launch Saudi tightened blockade exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Together, these events changed the fragile balance of power in the Middle East.

MbS entered political arena in 2009 and steadily rose to power.  With the death of King Abdullah in January 2015, his father Mohammed Salman became the King and MbS was appointed the Minister for Defense and head of newly established Council for Economic and Development Affairs. Yemen crisis began to escalate, and Iran backed Houthi rebels established control over the Northern Yemen. Consequently, Saudi-backed President Abderabbo Mansour Hadi exiled to Riyadh. In March 2015, MbS mobilized the coalition of GCC partners and launched aerial strikes against Sanaa, becoming the architect of Yemen war.  By April 2015, as per royal decree, Muhammed bin Nayef became crown prince and MbS the deputy crown prince. He even took charge of the Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian Oil and Natural Gas company. In Dec 2015, MbS stitched an Islamic Military Alliance, a coalition of 34-Islamic (Sunni) nations, hailed as Islamic NATO, to fight terrorism. This counter terrorism alliance, which elicited skepticism of the global community soon found a commander in Pakistan’s Raheel Sharif. Ambitious MbS wary of the fluctuating oil prices and Kingdom’ reliance on the oil revenues, in April 2016 enunciated a vision 2030 plan, with an aim of diversifying the economy. To steadily build, non-oil revenues, MbS cut back on subsidies, introduced new taxes and austerity measures to slash down expenses. He planned to create $2 trillion Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund by selling 5% shares of Aramco. But the move was delayed. He introduced series of economic reforms termed as the National Transformation Program and mooted the idea of “green cards” for non-Saudi residents. Exuding keen interest in extricating social fabric of the Kingdom from the clutches of religious restrictions, in September, MbS removed ban on female drivers and permitted entry of women into stadiums and theatres. This progressive move, which was in tune with aspirations of young Saudis received appreciations from the West. Last month, calling for a moderate Islam, MbS announced plans of constructing a new city NEOM along the Red Sea coast connecting Jordan and Egypt. To prepare Saudi for the post oil-era, MbS enunciated the new project worth $500 billion funded by Saudi Sovereign Fund and international investors will focus on biotechnology, manufacturing, entertainment and will be solely powered by Solar and Wind energy.

 Unlike the earlier generation of Saudi Royals, MbS lived through the most traumatic events in the Gulf ranging from the Kuwait Invasion in 1991 is conversant of nitty-gritties of monarchy. MbS armed with twin goals of overhauling the Kingdom’s economy and bolstering Saudi Arabia’s position as a regional power against Iran, embarked on an ambitious plan of consolidating power. To realize his objectives, MbS cemented relations with the American establishment by establishing close personal relationship with President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who oversees the Middle East affairs. A week after President Trump’s visit to Riyadh, MbS carried out a diplomatic campaign to isolate Qatar, accusing it of supporting terrorism and for its close ties with Iran. With the support of other Gulf countries, MbS successfully reduced the influence of economically robust Qatar which pursued an independent foreign policy. This event which divided the Gulf region has substantially increased the leverage of Washington.  Iran’s success in Syria and Iraq, growing influence in Beirut and unremitting Houthi attacks worsened Saudi’s fears of burgeoning Shiite dominance in the region. Instinctively, MbS favored closer ties with Israel which considers Iran its mortal enemy. Even the new American administration through Kushner facilitated ties between Arabs and Israelis. MbS objective of scuttling Iran’s influence found consonance with the Trump’s belligerence towards Iran. America’s tacit approval to MbS larger plans had indeed emboldened him.

In the meanwhile, MbS surgically eliminated obstacles for his political ascent. In June, he replaced Mohammed bin Nayef, his elder cousin who was removed from the position of Crown Prince on charges of morphine and cocaine addiction.  Now under the anti-corruption campaign, he ousted another rival to his succession, Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, head of the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Miteb who belongs to King Abdullah clan wielded considerable power. Another Saudi Prince, Prince Mansour bin Muqrin, son of Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, former intelligence director and one-time crown prince is killed in a helicopter clash. Similarly, another senior prince was reportedly killed in a firefighting. Till now despite several disagreements various tribes of the House of Saud, put up a show of unity to project strength. Now with the arrest of various princes, MbS made several enemies. To prevent emergence of strong military leadership, in Saudi armed forces are categorized into three different institutions- the regular army, the national guard, security forces of Ministry of Interior. Each of this is headed by different branch of House of Saud. Now, with these divisions gone, MbS seems to be directly or indirectly controlling the armed forces. In his ongoing purge, MbS targeted media heads and business leaders like Alwaleed bin Talal and Bakr bin Laden who are accused of embezzlements and operating though a nexus with bureaucrats. MbS thus successfully eliminated any competing military, political, economic and media-related power. Besides, MbS, ever since, his political positioning in 2015, began to portray Iran as an aggressor and the reason for the conflict in the region. His massive purge which is believed to be carried with the support of his father King Salman will now lead to an unnerving scenario of great power consolidation in the hands of a single individual. Considering the radical decisions made by MbS, West’s indifference to his repressive authoritarianism might be dangerous.  Till 2015, Saudi never put boots on ground to battle its rival, but MbS changed the traditional “checkbook diplomacy” of the Kingdom and mobilized a coalition to take on the Houthi-Saleh duo controlling Sanaa.

While the battle for regional supremacy between Saudi Arabia and Iran existed for several decades, concentration of power in a single person steered by anti-Iran narrative may spell disaster for the entire region. Already middle east is mired by several fault lines and any trigger can simply blow the lid off the residual peace in the region. After the resignation of Hariri, Saudi accused Lebanon of declaring war against it and ordered its citizen to leave the country. Israel toed similar line citing security issues and proclaiming that growing foot print of Iran (with the near complete defeat of IS, Iran is planning to establish a land corridor connecting Iran to Lebanon passing through Syria) and its allied forces might pose danger to the region. Israel indicated previously that Hezbollah in Lebanon are close to producing guided-precision missiles. In the meanwhile, MbS purge created domestic chaos, though there is no report of an organized resistance, oil prices have spiked. Interestingly, Trump’s endorsement of MbS actions, have certainly strengthened Saudi Arabia’s heft in the region. Meanwhile fears of Lebanon being pushed into chaos caused French President Macron rush to Riyadh. Lebanon has been testing ground for Saudi-Iran co-existence and unusual aggression of Saudi Arabia may push the region into a battle ground for Sunni versus Shia conflict.

@ Copyrights reserved.

China’s Coercive Water Diplomacy

At the height of Doklam stand-off when the World solely focused on hostilities between the Asian giants-India and China, Beijing sought to punish India covertly by withholding hydrological data regarding the water flows of Brahmaputra. Brahmaputra which originates in Tibet enters India at Arunachal Pradesh and these waters are an indispensable for the entire North-East region of India. India the lower riparian country had earlier suffered the inconsequential flooding due to sudden release of discharges by China, signed a five-year bilateral agreement for sharing hydrological data in 2013. Accordingly, China is mandated to share the daily hydrological and meteorological data of Brahmaputra river from three river monitoring stations in Tibet for the flood-prone season between May 15^th to Oct 15^th. India signed similar agreement with China for Sutlej river in 2015. While many countries including India, share the data for free as ruled by the Water Course Convention, China exchanges data upon payment. This year India made the payment but didn’t receive the data, Chinese foreign ministry attributed the lapse to upgradation of upstream data station. But Chinese lie was soon busted when BBC news report, found that China shared data with Bangladesh, another riparian country of Brahmaputra. Eventually, days before, resolution of Doklam standoff, Chinese mouth piece Global Times confounded Indian apprehensions reiterating that China withheld the data as it was irked by India boycotting the BRI (Belt Road Initiative) Summit held on May14-15^th (the mega flagship global connectivity project of China) and for alleged infringement of Chinese territorial sovereignty. It even threatened that China will not share the data until pulls out troops from Doklam. Despite, India’s upgraded flood-alert systems, in absence of the hydrological data, unprecedented water flows flooded Assam. Ironically, Assam suffered the double whammy of below normal monsoon rainfall and massive inundation.

Till now China have ruthlessly advanced its foreign policy goals through economic sanctions, stalling strategic exports, suspending Chinese tourism, and manipulating foreign-aid policy instruments. Of late, it has opened a new front of dexterously unleashing the strategic weapon of water. Having wrested control over Tibet through forceful annexation, China is now coercing nations leveraging the invaluable fresh water resources. About 46% of humanity depends on the major river water systems like Indus, Sutlej, Brahmaputra, Irrawady, Salween, Mekong, Karnali, originating from Tibetan plateau. Ever since 1950, China has been steadily building dams across the river water systems of Tibet initially to make arid Chinese lands arable and afforested massive tracts of lands reducing the water flows to downstream regions. To harness the strategic rivers China embarked on a relentless dam building process. Soon China not only controlled water flow to downstream regions but began selling hydroelectric power to neighboring countries. China even refused to sign the United Nations Water Convention (UNWC) adopted by 100 countries in 1997 indicating its strong desire to control water in Asia. China recently began construction of three dams across Brahmaputra-Dagu, Liacha, Jiexu and hasn’t officially communicated to India. Beijing is even seriously contemplating diverting the course of river even. Already India is reeling under the stress of less water flow with China stopping the flow of one of the tributaries of Brahmaputra. Experts conceded that once China finishes construction of all three dams, “Brahmaputra will become a seasonal river”.

Boosting its dam building spree, days after the first BRI summit, China signed a MoU with Pakistan for building the Bhasha and Bunji dams on the Indus in Gilgit-Baltistan area under the OBOR. Indus with 46% melted snow waters is a perennial river and offers huge potential for hydroelectric power generation. Predictably, China jumped in to firm up the deal with Pakistan to control this strategic river flows.  In June Chinese firm clinched a deal making 75% investment to build largest hydroelectric power project in Nepal over the Gandaki river asserting control over its waters and power generation.

Indeed, China indiscriminately exploited the Mekong river basin, the longest in the South-East Asia to augur its ambitions of being a hydro-hegemon. It built six mega dams in the upper reaches of Mekong river and many more in the downstream region in collaboration with lower riparian countries damaging the fragile ecosystem of Mekong river deltas. Numerous dams have changed the course of river. Calamitous building of dams created rifts between Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and downstream water flows to Vietnam reduced by 50%. Wetlands size have shrunk to half, fisheries have suffered, and economy of the downstream countries is now under threat. Interestingly, despite China controlling the waters flowing into 12 countries, it hasn’t signed a single water sharing agreement.

Recent report now claims that China is planning to divert water from the Yarlung Tsangpo, Chinese name for Brahmaputra in South Tibet to Taklimakan desert in the Xinjiang province. The Chinese engineers are making all preparations to build a 1000km tunnel to carry the river waters. Taklimakan and Gobi desert lie at the foot of the Tibetan plateau but fall in the rain shadow region hence they receive scanty rainfall.  China’s longest tunnel built to carry water in Liaoning province eight years ago is 85 km. As a preparative attempt, Chinese government green flagged the construction of 600km long tunnel in the geographically unstable, mountainous Yunnan province. The demonstration Yunnan- Guizhou water project, scheduled to be completed in 8 years is planned to carry three billion tons of water through a terrain similar to the Tibetan plateau. The challenges faced during its construction would greatly help China in building the proposed 1000km tunnel which can carry 10 to 15 billion tonnes of water. According to rough estimates, construction of one kilometer of tunnel would cost 1 billion yuan. China strongly believes that diversion of waters will make Xinjiang province prosperous. Drawing analogy to California, which suffered acute water shortage in 20^th century, China asserted that Xinjiang would bloom if water from Tsangpo is diverted to the region. In 1933, under the Central Valley project, water from northern California was diverted to San Joaquin Valley turning it into an agriculturally productive region.

Chinese engineers, admitted that water diversion plan would invite ire of India of Bangladesh which will be critically affected. But remained defiant that the current plan is more environmental friendly than construction of a slew of dams. They argued that “it won’t leave a mark on the surface for other countries or environmental activists to point fingers at”. But there is no denial that a project of this scale would interminably damage the ecosystem and the landscape of entire region.

Though China quickly denied the reports of water diversion project, experts warned that in 2015, China indicated that it had no plans to convert reclaimed islands in SCS (South China Sea) into military bases. Two years down the lane, China is operating sophisticated drones to carry supplies to bases in SCS. Similarly, in 1984, Premier Zhao said, “We do not engage in nuclear proliferation ourselves, nor do we help other countries develop nuclear weapons”. In less than two decades, China created two bullies, which are threatening the global security. Clearly, this project will have grave consequences for India. Brahmaputra waters are life-line for India. Livelihoods of millions of people are integrally linked with the potential flows of this river. By controlling inflow of Brahmaputra waters, China is planning to bring India to its knees. China’s unprecedented leverage will make India eternally vulnerable. An audacious China overpowered by hegemonic aspirations is unpredictable. India can hardly afford to ignore these developments.

@ Copyrights reserved.

China vetoes ban on Masood Azhar interminably

As expected, China once again imposed a technical hold on the UN resolution proposed by Britain, France and US at the UN for designating Masood Azhar as a terrorist at the UNSC. Masood Azhar, head of terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) is accused of several terror attacks against India, including the one the Pathankot Airbase in 2016. The resolution was supported all other permanent members baring China. Just days before the resolution under the 1267 sanctions committee was scheduled for voting, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Hua Chunying said, “As for listing of application by the relevant country (India), there are disagreements. China put a technical hold so as to allow more time to deliberate on this matter. To our regret, the committee has yet to reach any consensus. China always maintained that on the listing of matter, the 1267 committee, shall uphold the principle of objectivity, impartiality and professionalism, and its decisions by consensus among its members on the basis of solid evidence”. But interestingly, China’s decision has always been quite contrary to the principles cited above.

The 1267 sanctions committee was set up by the UN in 1999 to impose strictures on anyone dealing with Taliban and Osama bin Laden. In 2011, Al-Qaeda added to target group and by December 2015, UNSC renamed the group as ISIL and Al-Qaeda sanctions committee. India put up a resolution for imposing ban on Azhar in September 2016. Soon Britain, US and France supported Indian resolution while China vetoed it through a technical hold ever since. With the latest technical hold, China has exhausted any further extension of technical hold. Consequently, China has blocked Azhar’s ban at the UN. Sanctions would effectively lead to a travel ban and freezing of all financial assets.

Responding angrily Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson said “We are deeply disappointed that once again, a single country has blocked international consensus on the designation of acknowledged terrorist and leader of UN-designated terrorist organization, Masood Azhar. India strongly believes that double standards and selective approaches will only undermine the international community resolve to combat terrorism. We can only hope that there will be realization that accommodating with terrorism for narrow objectives is both short sighted and counterproductive”.

China’s technical despite knowing the Indian sensitives may not portend for Indo-Chinese relations. With Beijing even single-mindedly stonewalling Indian efforts to gain a place in NSG (Nuclear Security Group) still afresh, this technical hold will invariably weaken the bilateral ties. Interestingly, after the block, Chinese foreign minister enunciated that “we are ready to work with India to promote constant progress of bilateral relations guided by this diplomacy with Chinese characteristics for the new era”.

China defended its position of imposing technical hold by claiming that it failed to obtain consensus of member countries. This ridiculous argument holds no ground as common sense implores person in charge of a UN designated terror organization would invariably be a terrorist. JeM was designated as terror group by UN 1267 sanctions committee in 2001. China indeed demanded “solid evidence” to change its position. Indeed, Azhar was released by India in 1999, in return for safe exchange of passengers travelling in the hijacked plane. Azhar, in his book, From Imprisonment to Freedom, discussed in length about his links with Osama bin Laden and his efforts in recruiting people to Al-Qaeda. There are mounting evidences of his links to terror attacks in India over the place. But China refuses to accept.  Obviously, China wouldn’t have found no right-thinking nation joining its cahoots.

China’s relentless bids to save its “all weather friend” from international shame, will be watched more closely with the Dragon making formidable pitch for new recognition as emerging global power. Couple of days back, attacker Sayfullo Saipov mowed down a truck in New York leading to death of 8 people and injuring 11. Saipov, an Uzbek national is a member of IMU (Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan) which pledged loyalty to IS. Uzbek nationals of late have been prime perpetrators of terror in Europe are found to be closely associated with IMU. IMU, which was formed in 1998 with original objective of overthrowing the President Islam Karimov, soon resolved to create an Islamic state governed by sharia. It allied with Al-Qaeda, Afghan Taliban. After suffering worst causalities in the US air raids in 2001, the group found settled in South Waziristan and Federally Administrated Tribal Areas of Pakistan (FATA). Now US administration has pulled up Pakistan for sheltering IMU. Though Pakistan denied IMU having safe havens on its territory, reports indicate active presence of residual factions of IMU after US raid in 2001. Increasingly, Pakistan’s direct or indirect role in proliferation of global terror is becoming tad clear. This latest terror attack, once again invalidates China’s claim of Pakistan as victim of terrorism and lends credence to India reference to Pakistan as “mother of all terrorism”.

Indeed, China’s move though expected is intriguing as Beijing listed JeM as a terror organization in the joint statement at Xiamen BRICS summit concluded in September. In the para 49 of Xiamen declaration, countries pledged- “we deplore all terrorist activities world-wide, including attacks in BRICS countries, and condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations wherever committed and by whomsoever and stress that there can be no justification whatsoever for any act of terrorism. We affirm that those responsible for committing, organizing or supporting terrorist act must be held accountable”. China’s duplicitous position barely after two months clearly exemplifies its double standards. Interestingly, while China Masood Azhar is not important to China, strong relation with Pakistan is crucial for the success of its flagship OBOR initiative. Imposing ban on Azhar is tantamount to saying Pakistan is safe havens for terror.

 China misusing its veto for protecting its client state will raise curious questions about the real intentions of the Dragon. Clearly Chinese actions critically fall short of actions. Further, the recent development vindicates India’s claim of China being hand and glove with Pakistan when it comes to containing Indian aspirations and its global rise. Besides, technical hold, reiterates, the general perception of China’s reluctance to adhere to International regulations to foster it self-interests. These global perceptions, in turn will negatively impact the reputation and credentials of China as global giant. Chinese callous attitude and obstructionism will invariably have an impending effect on the Indo-Chinese bilateral ties.

With every new terror attack across the globe Pakistan’s role as perpetrator of terrorism is becoming more imminent. At this juncture, while China is walking the extra mile to protect its economic interests in Pakistan, preponderance for terror is inherent in Pakistan’s realm.  Recently, two Chinese nationals, working for CPEC project were kidnapped by Pakistan terror outfits. While China censured Pakistan for security lapses in private, recusing Pakistan of terror on international platform might be counterproductive. By supporting Pakistan’s stance China is complicit of promoting terror. This dubious distinction might be inimical to the Dragon’s aspirations of occupying a high seat.

@ Copyrights reserved.

President Xi’s unparalleled consolidation of power

The quinquennial six-day long 19^th Congress of Communist Party of China concluded shortly with no unexpected surprises. The largest congregation of Communist delegates from across China who unanimously approved extension of second term for President Xi, witnessed the selection of the Party’s Central committee, 25-member politburo, 11-member Central Military Commission and seven-member apex politburo standing committee (PSC).  As has been the tradition, the decision-making body, PSC should include the successor to Xi and hence countries eagerly waited for the announcement of the apex body. Aside, President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang, the revamped PSC had leaders who can’t be prospective successor to Xi. All the members of PSC are aged between 60 and 67-Li Zhanshu (67), Vice premier Wang Yang (62), Wang Huning (62), Zhao Leji (60), Han Zheng (63) and hence don’t stand a chance to serve for a customary decade to become President, as age of retirement is fixed at 68. Composition of new PSC strengthened the speculation that Xi would defy the tradition and rule beyond the second. While Chinese media widely commended political showdown as a show of openness and transparency, the names of the PSC members were so secretly guarded that none had a clue of its composition till the members were escorted on to the stage. Incidentally, with extension of term Xi has become become head of party, country, and military.

On the opening day of the Congress, apprising the 2300 delegates of the achievements and enunciating a new vision for China, Xi spoke for 205 minutes. He promised to strengthen the economy, encourage innovation, boost domestic consumption and “support growth of private businesses”. But months ahead of his coronation, Xi targeted Chinese business tycoons who challenged the party. Worried of wealthy entrepreneurs gaining control over national assets, which resulted in rise of oligarchy in Soviet Union, after its collapse, Xi began to corral Chinese businessmen. Despite Chinese government’s attempts to silence, there are reports of sudden disappearance of billionaire entrepreneurs. In past five years, Xi successfully decimated potential political rivals by thrusting corruption charges. Under the guise of anti-corruption campaign, Xi took action against 1.4 million communist party workers and firmed up his control over the party (some Indian newspapers hailed this drive as disciplining). He detained human rights activists, crushed dissidence with impunity and overhauled military by replacing several officers with his loyalists in June. He eventually asserted control over every sphere of governance.

Hailing the global connectivity project OBOR (One Belt One Road), Xi asserted “China’s development doesn’t pose a threat to any country. No matter what stage of development it reaches, China will never seek hegemony or engage in expansion”.  Ironically, Chinese ambitions of entering the Indian Ocean Region, through infrastructure development projects in Sri Lanka has pushed Colombo into debt nation. Now nations like Cambodia, Laos are likely to join the same league. China has been aggressively funding projects in all aforementioned countries under OBOR. In the same length Xi elaborated, “China will never pursue development at the expense of others interests, nor will China ever give up its legitimate rights and interests”. Apparently, CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor), a glowing example of China’s developmental interests threatens the territorial sovereignty of India. Despite New Delhi’s repeated objections, China chose to trample India’s claims and refused to at least change the name of project.

To allay fears of neighboring nations, Xi pledged “We should commit to settling disputes through dialogue and resolving differences through discussion, coordinate responses to traditional and non-traditional threats and oppose terrorism in all its forms”. China’s territorial claims to 90% of SCS (South China Sea) rattled its smaller neighbors. After China occupied Scarborough Island, Philippines pulled up China to Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and when the verdict was delivered in favor of Philippines, China refused to accept the order. Instead, it coerced Philippines and wooed it with investments. Further, Xi highlighted China’s land reclamation spree in SCS as major achievement of his first term signaling that Asian countries must ready to accept the aggressive expansion of China. Regarding the promise of coordinating responses to combat terrorism, Beijing has been vetoing India’s appeal for imposing ban on Masood Azhar at UNSC six times in a row for the past three and half years. For all the grandiose claims of “dramatic breaks in foreign policy” Chinese rise is certainly creating a massive turbulence in the region and world at large. Unlike his predecessors who stressed the need for “multipolarity”, with China making accelerating strides in recent years, Xi announced his keenness in pursuing Chinese interests. Xi declared “China is resolved to never give up its own legitimate rights and interests and would never swallow the bitter fruit of damage to its own interests”. China claims territories of 23 countries though it has borders with 14 countries. Beijing’s new resolve might thus be inimical to several countries in this region. 

Cautioning that China should be battle ready, Xi stressed on the need for greater innovation and modernization of armed forces. Xi advocated that Hong Kong and Macau can govern by themselves but only “with patriots playing the principal role”. He issued a premonitory warning to Taiwan saying that “We will never allow anyone, any organization or any political party, at any time or in any form, to separate from any part of the constitution”. Xi suppressed all kinds of social dissent or public unrest with an iron-hand and imposed strict controls over the internet and censored media by constituting National Security Commission. Xi thus had remarkable control over governance, domestic security, handled foreign policy and steered the Middle Kingdom undermining the collective leadership. Elaborating his vision for China, he rejected liberal ideology of the west and reiterated he wouldn’t “mechanically copy political systems of other countries”. Last year Communist party has endorsed him as Core leader, elevating him to the position of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.  Xi outlined his vision for “new era” with an ultimate objective of making China a “fully developed nation” by 2049 which marks the centennial celebration of founding of People’s Republic of China. Some experts argued that going by the pace of American isolationism and global retraction, China might soon topple America and clinch the elevated position much earlier.

Xi has been instrument in China’s phenomenal rise and in recognition “Xi Jinping thought on Socialism with Chinese characteristics for new era” is inserted in the Constitution. The report titled as “secure a decisive victory in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects and strive for the great success of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era” is now part of the Constitution. With this unique distinction, President Xi has reached the highest pinnacle of acclaim for having his name and philosophy inserted into Constitution in five years, while Mao waited for over two decades and Deng’s name was etched after his death. Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao’s doctrines are part of the constitution, but their names are not included.

Modern Chinese history is broadly divided into three eras- first era, dominated by Mao witnessed establishment of China as a communist state. This was followed by era of economic reforms introduced by President Deng Xiaoping and the current era where Xi has positioned China globally. Indeed, Xi’s credibility, absolute consolidation of power reminds China of Mao Zedong who held the authoritarian position till his death. By not announcing successor, Xi has broken the party tradition and rejected the collective leadership introduced by Deng. Two names- Guangdong party chief Hu Chunhua (54) and Chen Miner (57) have been making rounds as possible successors. But both are accommodated in party politburo instead of the apex PSC. At least one of them might possibly be elevated in the next five years in PSC suggesting that Xi might in fact continue after second term. Interestingly, Xi’s doctrine like Mao’s red book will now be part of the academic curriculum any denigration of his philosophy can invite communist party ire leading to grave consequences.

Xi’s pet project OBOR, proposed in 2013 is now elevated to status of “flagship project” and enshrined in Communist Party Constitution. Exalted emphasis on this official policy might have far reaching geopolitical implications especially for India. India has politely refused to be part of BRI citing violation of territorial sovereignty. India’s rigid stance might create frictions between both countries.  Further, experts cautioned that members of PSC are hawkish and perceived to be anti-India. China even warned India to restrain contacts with the Dalai Lama.  A day after the elevation of OBOR as Chinese official policy, top three rating firms (Moody Corp, Standard & Poor’s, Fitch) analyzed 68 OBOR partners of China. Of them, 27 partner countries are rated as junk or below investment grade and 14 countries (including Afghanistan, Iran and Syria) withdrew from ratings, and the list includes most corrupt countries. It is found that most the OBOR routes pass through major conflict zones. Report concluded that OBOR should be viewed as geopolitical project and “not an economic one in the sense that each project will generate a return”.

Though China attained a new global stature of emerging economic superpower, its collective attributes of overarching vision of socialism, vehement indifference towards rules-based international order, refusal to comply with tribunal’s ruling based on UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), declaration of Air Defense Identification (ADIZ) over east China sea, coercing MNC’s into technological transfer will hamper its cohesive functioning with comity of nations. With China’s meteoric rise opaque governance, socialism and authoritarianism might evolve as guiding principles challenging the existing World order.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Catalan Cataclysm

Across the globe the concept of self-determination has been a basic tenet for formation of different countries. People of different ethnicities have raced against time to establish their identities through declaration of statehood and vowing allegiance to their lands. In this process they defied all odds and tried to display patriotic fervor by fighting for the cause of their identity by violent and peaceful ways as well. History is replete of examples where new nations were carved by brute force or by peaceful modes of secession. In contemporary times, referendum evolved as a peaceful, legitimate process of consolidating people’s decision and forcing the polite elite to relent to majoritarian aspirations.

Since 1945, thirty new states obtained independent statehood following a referendum. The average time lag from referendum and Independence Day was found to be 15 months.  Declaration of independence in most of the cases has become synonymous to obtaining membership of UN and subsequent establishment of diplomatic ties with comity of nations. But this accepted norm received a major jolt when 2008 Kosovo referendum received a mixed response. UNSC was divided with Serbia claiming Kosovo as integral part of its sovereign territory. Burdened by dilemma UN referred the issue to International Court of Justice which ruled that declaration of independence of Kosovo “didn’t violate any applicable rule of international law” in 2010. By 2013, Serbia and Kosovo established normal relations after EU allowed both countries to become members. Despite, this recent phenomenon, increasingly, ethnicities obstinate on carving out new recognition for themselves have relied on referendum as favored means of declaring independence. Notably, four referendums were held in 2014-Crimean, Donetsk and Lungansk, Scottish and Catalonian referendum. Of which, Crimean and Donetsk, Catalonian were considered illegitimate. While Scottish claims for parting ways with UK suffered a setback with majority preferring to remain united.

Referendums of the recent past are plagued by claims of illegitimacy due to political inflexibility of parent countries. Precisely, for defying the Spanish government and Constitutional ban, the Catalonian referendum for self-determination held by Catalan government on Oct 1^st is declared illegitimate. Far from reaching any consensus, the basic objective of a referendum, the region has plunged into a crisis. Clearly, grievous mishandling of the referendum has exacerbated the issue. Unlike the Iraq government which allowed the Kurdish referendum on Sept 25^th, Spanish President Mariano Rajoy pledged to stop voting. He sent thousands of police who man-handled the activists, used rubber bullets and confiscated ballot boxes on the poll date. These repressive tactics characteristic of authoritarian regimes strengthened the resolve of Catalans, irked elders and other factions who were earlier indifferent to the idea of independence.

Widening chasms of Spanish and Catalans is not recent origin and stretches back to 300 years. The current outburst of the separatist movement is an outcome of centuries of oppression at the hands of Spanish government. Catalan territory lost its autonomy after the Bourbon Kings of Spain captured Barcelona in 1714. Catalan had unique cultural, linguistic, traditional identity and markedly different from rest of the Spain. Further differential economic growth widened the disparities. Catalan region was one of the most economically advanced regions and flourished enormously by exporting goods to former Spanish colonies- Puerto Rico, Philippines and Cuba till 1898 when Spain had to cede these colonies to the US. Catalan businessmen lost their markets in former Spanish Colonies.  By 1899, traders and the upper middle class began to support the fledging Catalan national movement. Despite cultural differences, demand for autonomy received massive boost only after economic interests of the region suffered. In 1917, giving in to calls of autonomy, Santiago Alba declared Barcelona a free port. Interestingly, voices for greater autonomy always co-existed with articulations of solidarity favoring socialism (largely supported by working class) in Catalan region. Catalan Republicans exiled in Havana wrote Project of Constitution by 1928. In 1931 Republicans of various hues dethroned the Monarchy of Bourbon Kings and the Nationalist forces finally managed to negotiate autonomy in 1932 under the Second Republic. But eventually military coup led by General Francisco Franco toppled the Republican government and restored the unitary state model of administration in Spain.

Authoritarian Franco, ruthlessly demolished cultural identities of Catalans widening the fissures between Madrid and Catalonia. Brutal repression of Franco laid firm foundations for a strong nationalist movement. By mid-1970’s protests by Catalans and Basque Country separatists intensified. In 1978, democracy was restored and self-government with some degree of autonomy to all the 17 regions of Spain. Catalonia was angered as autonomy was granted to regions that were not culturally and linguistically unique. Catalonia was irrevocably miffed when Spain allowed Basque country and Navarre to collect 100% taxes and denied Catalonia of similar privilege.

In 2006 Catalans made a fervent push for greater autonomy whereby Spanish Parliament and Catalonia referendum approved amendment of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia 1979. Catalonia was subsequently referred as “nation” in the preamble. The New statute bestowed special privileges wherein Catalonia had organized political structure comprising of Parliament, President, and Executive Council. Government of Catalonia had authority over education, culture, taxation, transportation and had special agencies to control terrorism and immigration. But things changed with Spanish President Rajoy referring this issue to Constitutional Court which after four years of scrutiny claimed that word ‘nation’ has no legal standing. In 2008, for the first time, Spanish government released data on the fiscal contributions of all regions. The data indicated that taxes collected in Catalonia region are invested in development of other regions.  Coincidentally, economic recession badly affected the economy of Spain caused an alarming spike in the unemployment in Catalonia. Spanish Court’s judgement of squashing certain provisions of autonomy for Catalonia triggered a decision of holding referendum on self-determination. President Mas Artur of Catalonia spearheaded the nationalist movement. Protesting court’s ruling, nearly 1 million took to streets in Barcelona and later they rejected austerity in 2010. With economy still reeling under recession, Catalan government in 2012, requested Spain seeking approval for collecting regional taxes (an arrangement in vogue on Basque Country). But President Rajoy rejected the idea saying that it was “contrary to the Constitution”.  President Mas called for snap elections to seek support for independence. New Parliament dominated by pro-referendum parties reached an agreement on conducting independence referendum and forwarded the request to Spanish Parliament for consent. But Spain vetoed referendum deal indicating that Constitution calls for holding referendums on sovereignty nationally not regionally. In 2013, displaying a new resolve towards independence Catalans formed a human chain covering 250 miles in Catalonia. Despite constitutional ban, non-binding referendum was held in November 2014. The turnout was 36% with 80.8% supporting independence.

Referendum issue created political instability prompting President Mas to call for second snap elections. Internal rifts and tensions within Catalan political parties intensified and no party obtained absolute majority. After “rancorous infighting”, a new coalition of parties led by Carles Puigdemont took over as the President in January 2016 and sought discussion on referendum and 46 issues. But Rajoy who was re-elected to Parliament in October 2016 demanded “loyal cooperation” for negotiating issues related to Catalonia. In the meanwhile, Spanish government announced €3.9 billion towards infrastructure development in Catalonia this year but when the final budget was rolled out it was much less. When the Catalan government questioned the reduced investment, Spanish Finance Minister replied that the deficit amount will be sanctioned in 2018. In May, President of Catalan Assembly was arrested for allowing a Parliamentary debate on independence. Together, these simmering discrepancies over the financial issues and reluctance to negotiate autonomy culminated in protests across Catalonia.  On September 6^th Catalan Parliament passed a law for referendum on secession from Spain and pronounced that independence would be binding with a simple majority and doesn’t need a minimum turnout. Next day, Constitutional court declared referendum illegitimate and ordered use of force to prevent it. Despite use of force, referendum recorded 43% turnout of which 92% voted for independence. Catalan parliament invited international observers for the polls but they declared it invalid, citing a failure in meeting international requirements.

Catalonia culturally distinct from Spain, makes for 6% of the territory and 16% of population (7.5 million). It accounts for a fifth of economic output, one quarter of exports, half of start-up investments and home to one third of Olympic medalists of Spain. It borders France on one side and Mediterranean and has tremendous  tourism potential. Catalonia is vital for financial, economic, and political stability of Spain. But, Rajoy, in a bid to quell rising tide of separatism in Catalonia hastily used force and invited ire of Catalans.

Interestingly, though Catalans overwhelmingly voted for secession, Puigdemont stopped short of declaring independence for various reasons. Catalan political parties are ideologically divided and they critically lack a commitment to establish an independent nation. They don’t have a clear and coherent map for independence. Business class preferred to be part of Spain. Moreover, EU unequivocally enunciated that independent Catalonia will lose its membership and its re-entry would depend on the consent of all members including Spain. Many observers, contend that an overwhelming yes is not truly representative since undecided or disengaged voters stayed away from voting.

As of now a pall of disenchantment and mistrust looms over Spain with the government and Catalans refusing to relent. Spain has revved up its oppression, jailed Catalan separatists on charges of sedition. Spain had earlier arrested leaders who mobilized pro-independence referendum in 2014. Similar treatment might await the Catalan leaders who led referendum now. Reminding Catalans of authoritarian Franco, Rajoy called for unveiling article 155 of constitution, that empowers Central government to suspend self-rule of Catalonia and terminate the powers of all Catalan institutions including regional Police. While Rajoy waits for the approval of parliament, Puigdemont asserted that Catalan Parliament is in complete control of Catalonia’s finances and broadcasting services. He lashed out at Spain for abusing the democratic principles and rule of law. This confrontational approach escalated crisis leaving little room for negotiations. Spillover effects of the referendum for self-determination is already felt in parts of Europe with wealthy territories of Italy Lombardy and Veneto voting for greater autonomy on Sunday. Separatists in Flander’s region of Belgium, Transnistria of Moldova and France’s Corsica are now active. With Spain threatening to sack top Catalan officials, people are planning to launch massive civil disobedience movement.

Majorly, ethnicity (identity) issues, have been a formidable trigger for claims to a specific territory. Additionally, economic (unequal distribution of resources, poverty); political (grievances, institutional representation) and structural factors (geography and demography) too spark separatist movements. Interestingly while ethnicity is irreconcilable, other factors can be addressed by making suitable amendments in the constitution.  But countries necessarily refrain from conceding ethnic groups claims for a territory for the fear of precedent-setting wherein other groups might be encouraged to make similar claims.  Spain perceived Catalans demand for independence as a threat to its territorial integrity and ratcheted up repressive measures. But use of brute force or authority bestowed by constitution needlessly escalated the crisis. Rajoy would be doing Spain a great service by embracing the concept of “functioning federalism” and by bestowing greater autonomy to Catalonia.

@ Copyrights reserved.