No One Cares

US Geopolitics in South Asia

The US is repeatedly ignoring the decency in bilateral partnerships since its incumbent President Donald Trump ascended the throne. Abusing an alley for short-term gains is not a new habit in Washington, albeit it accelerated under current administration. Trump is more transactional in his attitude vis-à-vis bilateral relationships. The unveiling of new policy strategy for South Asia in the last month of this year is one of such moves.

The US under this new policy cursed Islamabad for its dismal performance on account of unsporting fringe organizations in the Af-Pak region. The Islamabad has been accused for its selective approach towards Afghan problem. The Pakistan gets funds for dismantling the elements that it provides safe heavens. This accusation has been rebutted by the Islamabad. The Pakistan countered with the view that no one recognizes its sacrifices since unraveling of 9/11 wars in the region. However, it is both Washington and the Islamabad who are hard bent on their national interests that overshadows the sufferings that people in Afghanistan are facing unabatedly.

The new US policy on the South Asia is based on three pillars viz. augmenting military personal in the Afghanistan, pursuing hard tone on Pakistan and relooking on its status of ‘major non-NATO Ally’, and supporting India’s penetration and its developmental projects in the country. The policy is full of flaws, as it does not recognize sensitive concerns of different stakeholders. Accusing Pakistan would not help in resolving the Afghan problem rather it may prove counterproductive for the region. The South Asia is already facing the brunt of Indo-Pak rivalry. Pushing India and cursing Pakistan would further aggravate Indo-Pak tension. The US should try to de-escalate tension between the old South Asian Rivals. However, this new policy would do reverse.  

The Indian establishment welcomed new move by the Washington. The new South Asia policy is in line with the New Delhi’s long stand narrative. India has always pursued in the Washington that Islamabad is misusing the funds it receives from US and creating anti-Indian proxies in the region. New Delhi presents its role in Afghanistan in positive manner. It is fifth largest donor for reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. From training Afghan police to reconstruction of roads and hospitals, New Delhi has moral argument for its presence in the Kabul. However, the Islamabad has different narrative on this.

Islamabad believes that New Delhi is using its soft power in Afghanistan to destabilize not only Af-Pak region, but bring instability inside Pakistan. It is creating anti-Pakistan proxies in the region. After unveiling this new policy Pakistan military general has cautioned Washington over its strategic partnership with New Delhi in Afghanistan. It is pertinent to mention that it was not incumbent US President but, his predecessor Barak Obama who had unveiled Indo-US Joint Strategic Vision on Afghanistan during his New Delhi visit in the year 2015.

      This is well-established fact that Washington has been always very cautious on India’s deep role in the Afghanistan. Since the incumbent President resumes his office a “South Asia balancing” policy has been attrited to a large extent. The growing sense in the Washington is based on the narrative that New Delhi promises good fortunes for its businesses and economy, therefore, Indian partnership is more important than Islamabad’s. Given the fact that Trump is a businessman and believes in quid-pro-quo policy, it is likely that in days to come New Delhi would be more accommodated in the larger policy orientations in the Washington.    

The new policy as outlined by the leading scholar Sumit Ganguly in his recent article in the Foreign Affairs, would backfire, as the sense of encirclement by India in Pakistan would increase. This may bring the dragon China and would unveil new crisis in the region. Keeping in view the recent Sino-India bilateral animosity over Docklam issue, China-Pakistan partnership particularly over Belt Road Initiative, this policy may unfold new geopolitical contestation.

The fact can not be denied that all the contestants viz. US, India and Pakistan would not offer any constructive role for the stability in Afghanistan, if they follow their crude national interests. The US is there to check Russian and Chinese influences. Pakistan considers it ‘strategic depth’. For New Delhi other than countering Pakistan, Afghanistan promises alternative energy routs for its thirsty economy into Central Asia.

The problem in Afghanistan cannot be resolved through geopolitical bargaining. It can be resolved through Afghan driven, regional based and diplomatic initiative at the highest level. If not done in that manner, the problem will aggravate and one day it would take all these countries down may be except the geographically far away US. Meanwhile, on daily bases it is Afghan people not the people in these countries, who are facing this crude realist brunt. All are looking for their interests, no one cares about the agonies the people in Afghanistan are facing daily basis.

Crisis from Balkans to Caucasus; Munich speech to reset button: Inevitability of new cold war.

From Archives:
This article was published in the 'Mainstream' (RNI NO. 7064/62), New Delhi, Vol. XLVII No. 43, Oct. 2009, pg. 32-34.

Introduction:

                   Declaration of independence by Kosovo assembly, the Muslim majority region of Serbia, on 17 February, 2008 has posed serious challenges before the world community. This declaration received conflicting reaction from the international community and is strongly opposed by the Serbia which continues to claim Kosovo as its province.[1] Several countries like USA, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia and France have announced their recognition, despite protests by Serbia in the United Nations Security Council. As on 5^th April 2009, no member countries of CIS, CSTO and SCO have recognised Kosovo as an independent state. The two permanent members of the UN Security Council China and the Russia consider it illegal. On the other hand, most of member countries of NATO, EU, and OECD have recognised Kosovo as an independent state.[2]

Serbia has been Russia’s Slavic Orthodox Christian ally for ages. Staying with it on Kosovo was a question of moral vindication for Russia. Following the II-week bombing of Yugoslavia by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1999, which Russia strongly opposed, Moscow persuaded Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw from Kosovo conveying to him a solemn promise by the west that NATO occupation of the conclave would never lead to its separation from Serbia. Moscow was stung by the west’s treachery; it has now vowed to “go as far as Belgrade is prepared to” in opposing Kosovo’s independence.[3]

                  Russia had warned the west that Kosovo would open a Pandora’s Box, setting off separatism and territorial conflicts in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Vladimir Putin, former Russian president and incumbent Prime Minister, stated that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence and its recognition by the west set a “terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations”. It was in this context Elena Guskova, head of the Balkan Crisis Study Centre, said that “by creating an independent Kosovo, the U.S. has placed a time bomb under European stability”. Moreover, Dr. Guskova further stated that “the Americans are using the Kosovors to perpetuate their military presence in the Balkans, but the Kosovors are also using the Americans to pursue their goal of Greater Albania”.[4]

                   Russia has rebelled against Kosovo’s independence because it sees it as part of U.S. efforts to dismantle the post-second world war international system based on the respect for state sovereignty and inviolability of borders and enshrined in the supremacy of U.N. in resolving international disputes. Even Kosovo’s independence is against the Security Council resolution 1244 of 1999, which gave the U.N. jurisdiction over Kosovo, had explicitly rejected Kosovo’s declaration of independence by reaffirming “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, of which Serbia is the successor state, and calling for “substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo”. [5]

Balkan and US Interest:                                                                                                    

                  Despite its so called declaration independence, Kosovo is set to remain a protectorate of the European Union. This is perhaps what Mr Ahtisarri, UN appointed Mediator and former President of Finland, envisaged, when he spoke of “supervised independence”. It has been noted that such “independence” enables the Americans to maintain a strategic military base at “Camp Bond steel” in the breakaway region- the largest American military base to come up in Europe over the last generation.[6]

                   Moreover, the Americans appear to have plans through “AMBO” – the Albania, Macedonia, Bulgarian Oil Corporation registered in the US – to build a trans-Balkans oil pipeline. This pipeline, bypassing Russia, will bring oil from the Caspian sea to terminals in Georgia and then by tanker through the Blake sea to the Bulgarian port of Burgas and then rely it through Macedonia to the Albanian port of Vlora, for shipment to refineries in Rotterdam and the US west coast.[7]

 CAUCASUS:

                  The “time bomb” of Dr. Guskova finally blasted in Caucasus when Russia intervened militarily in Tbilisi and broken away two provinces-South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russian-Georgian relations have been strained for some time over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Abkhazia has been demanding independence while South Ossetia wants to join Russia.[8] Russia has issued Russian passport to the 80,000 inhabitants of South Ossetia. Russian peacekeepers, nominally under the CIS umbrella, have been present in both regions since 1991. Russia has many grievances vis-a-vis the West. In 2004, Georgia saw regime change which brought a pro US government in power. NATO’s recent offer to Georgia of the alliance’s membership at some future date has further annoyed Russia.[9]

               Russia’s confrontation with Georgia appeared to be partly responsible for Moscow’s perception that attack on the Iran is on cards. It is now acknowledged that Russia seized control of two air fields in Georgia from where air strikes against Iran were being planned.[10] 

                  The western recognition of Kosovo’s independence last year also upset Russia deeply. The west has refused to take heed of Russia’s concerns. The US has supported Georgia all these years. This created an impression in Georgia that it enjoys US protection. But, during the crisis, the US exercised restraint not to get involved militarily in the conflict.

                 Apart from pressuring Moscow to fall in line on the Iran nuclear issue, what is the US game plan? To begin with, Saakashvilli, of course, is a progeny of the “colour revolution” in Georgia, which was financed and stage-managed by the US in 2003. The Georgia and the Caucasus constitute a critically important piece of real estate for the U.S. since it straddles a busy transportation route for energy. It can be used as a choke point. Simply put, keeping it under control as a sphere of influence is a high advantageous for the pursuit of US geopolitical interests in the Eurasian region. Rollbacks of Russian influence therefore become a desirable objective.[11]

                  With the induction of Georgia, NATO would cross over to the approaches to the Asia. The arc of encirclement of Russia gets strengthened. The NATO ties facilitate the deployment of US missile defence system in Georgia. The U.S. aims to have a chain of countries tied to “partnerships” with NATO brought in to its missile defence system- stretching from its allies in Baltic and Central Europe. The ultimate objective of is to neutralise the strategic capability of Russia and China and to establish its nuclear superiority. The National Defence Strategy document issued by the pentagon on July 31, 2008, portrays Washington’s perception of a resurgent Russia and a rising China as potential adversaries.[12]

Issues Of Differences:

                 The Russian-US difference exists over a range of issues. The US has been accused by Russia of expanding uprising in former Soviet territories such as through Rose revolutions and Orange revolutions. Also US has accused Russia of having an undemocratic political structure. The present US-Russia difference has arose over US plans to deploy Anti-Ballistic missiles, citing threats from Iranian missiles, in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Russia views it as a direct source of intervention in Russia’s neighbourhood. Russia in turn suspended the CPE treaty and is demanding a new treaty with US on lines of START. Moreover, they also the differences over Iranian nuclear issue. Russia is against the punitive action against Iran. US is also worry of development of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as a military block which would challenge NATO in west and Central Asia.[13]

 New Cold War:

                        Has the United States declared a new cold war on Russia? This question is being asked by Russian politician and analysts bewildered by a virulently anti-Russian speech of former U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney made at a conference in Vilnius, Lithonia on 30 April, 2006. Addressing a meeting of Baltic and Black sea states, Mr. Cheney lashed out at Russia, accusing it of curbing civil liberties and using its energy resources as “tools of intimidation and blackmail”.[14]

                       It was the harshest attack on Russia by a senior member of the US administration since the closing days of cold war, when President Ronald Reagan branded the Soviet Union an “evil empire”. Russian commentators compared Mr. Cheney’s address to a 1946 speech by British leader Winston Churchill in Fulton, the US; which gave the green light for the cold war. “The cold war has restarted, only now the front lines have shifted (from Eastern Europe to the former Soviet Union)”, Russia’s top business daily, kommersant, said.[15]

                      Russia’s transformation in foreign and security policy has been nothing short of spectacular. After years of humiliation and retreat, Russia has regained its great power status and global role. Mr. Putin, ex Russian President, has put Russia on an equal footing with the west. His famous ‘Munich Speech’ in February 2007, where he blasted the U.S. global policies as a disaster and proclaimed the unipolar world dead, underscored Russia’s return to the international stage as a leading power. Its international standing is probably higher today than during the best of Soviet times. Respected U.S. scholar Stephen F. Cohen, Professor of Russian and Slavic Studies at New York University, defines the US policy towards Russia as an “undeclared cold war Washington has waged, under both parties (Democrats and Republican), against post communist Russia during the past 15 years.[16]

                   Moscow’s message to the west is that resurgent Russia will no longer tolerate being treated as the cold war loser. “To be honest, not every one was ready to see Russia begin to restore its economic health and its position on international stage so rapidly”, Mr. Putin told the Russian ambassadors meeting in August 2006. He further stated that “some still see us through the prism of past prejudices and, as i said before, see a strong and reinvigorated Russia as a threat”.[17]

  Barack Obama’s pledge to “rest” relations with Moscow is although a good effort towards normalisation of US-Russian relations but, from Moscow’s perspective, the main problem of Russian American relations is that even though the cold war ends 20 years ago the U.S. has continued to treat Russia as an enemy, pushing NATO to Russia’s borders, surrounding it with a ring of military bases and supporting patently anti-Russian leaders in former Soviet Union states. Writing in Newsweek ahead of the Obama’s Moscow summit Russia’s Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said it “will take time” to overcome the “the crisis of trust” that had developed between the two countries.[18]      

---

[1] Rick Fawn, “the Kosovo- and Montenegro- effect”, International Affairs 84: 2 (2008), pg.270-71. 

[2]   ibid.

[3] Ramesh Thakur, “From Kosovo in 1999 to Iraq in 2003”, the Hindu, February 22, 2008.

[4] Vladimir Radyuhin, “Russia makes a statement on Kosovo”, The Hindu, February 29, 2008.

[5]  David S. Yost, “NATO and the anticipatory use of force”, International Affairs 83: 1 (2007), pg.49-50.

[6]  ibid.

[7]  Vladimir Radyuhin, “The loud and clear message from Kremlin”, The Hindu, february 21,2009.

[8]  Anuradha Chenoy, “ The Russian- Georgian confrontation”, Economic and Political Weekely, August 23,2008,pg.17-18.

[9]  ibid.

[10]  Vladimir Radyuhin, “Russia stands firm ahead of G8 summit”, The Hindu, July 15, 2006.

[11]  Vladimir Radyuhin, “Gas war: it is advantage Russia”, The Hindu, January 15, 2009.

[12]  Richard Sakwa, “new cold war or twenty years crisis; Russia and international politics”, International Affairs 84: 2 (2008), pg.251.

[13]  M. K. Bhadrakumar, “U.S. sets bear trap in the Caucasus”, The Hindu, August 11, 2008.

[14]   Vladimir Rudyuhin, “Makes a return to cold war rhetoric”, The Hindu, May 9, 2006.

[15]  ibid.

[16]  Vladimir Radyuhin, “The man who turned Russia around”, The Hindu, May 1, 2008.

[17] ibid.

[18]  Vladimir Radyuhin, “Towards a new cooperative era in US-Russia relations”, The Hindu, July 6, 2009.