Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The geo-strategic picture
By Syed Mohammad Ali
Many future developments in this region are inextricably tied to larger geo-strategic realities. Change in one country invariably affects the others. Such are the realities of the new world order; dismissing them just leads to over-simplification and a much less nuanced understanding of the part of the world that we live in.
In our contemporary world, varied regional groupings are readily made on the basis of ideology, prospects of economic cooperation, ethnic homogeneity or geographic proximity. There is a strong case to be made for clustering countries like China, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan together, not for the purpose of integrating them into a regional association however, but merely to understand the larger context of the ongoing developments initiated by the ââ¬Ëwar against terrorââ¬â¢.
After more than a decade and half of neglect, there is renewed US interest in this sub-region, which has multiple long-term implications. Besides wreaking immense destruction, the US ââ¬Ëwar against terrorââ¬â¢ has also led to a large inflow of foreign aid. Since 2002, international donors have pledged nearly $24 billion for developmental activities in Afghanistan. Yet the Afghani economy has not reached a critical mass where it could take off on its own strength. Pakistan, too, has been the recipient of immense bilateral and multilateral aid, not only for its support to the US but also due to the 2005 earthquake. The US itself has recently committed $800 million for countering ââ¬ËTalibanisationââ¬â¢ in the northern areas of the country.
Only India has decided, since 2003, to phase out foreign aid from all but six major donors. Instead, it has become one of the largest donors to Afghanistan. It has even signed a preferential trade agreement with Afghanistan. But Pakistan is wary of providing a land route to India, since the two countries are competing for the same consumer-goods market in Afghanistan. Pakistan only allows Afghanistan the transit rights for its exports to go to India, but not the other way round. While Pakistan still has the largest volume of trade with Afghanistan, many more trade routes could be opened across the lengthy border region if the security situation improves.
Given that Pakistan has been unwilling to grant India preferential trade status without progress on the core issue of Kashmir, India has begun to look eastward to forge closer relations with ASEAN, and to form new partnerships like the Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand Economic Cooperation (BIMST-EC), which plans a free trade pact by 2017. China too has become Indiaââ¬â¢s second largest trading partner, with their two-way trade worth $20 billon dollars a year and expected to double by 2010. On the other hand, trade between China and Pakistan has increased by 35% since 2004. This trade balance still remains overwhelmingly in Chinaââ¬â¢s favour, whose exports amounted to $1.8 billion compared with Pakistanââ¬â¢s $575 million.
While still continuing to reward Pakistanââ¬â¢s cooperation in the ââ¬Ëwar against terrorââ¬â¢, the US Congress has begun warning of aid cuts to Pakistan with the weakening of the Republicans under Bush. If elected to the White House, the Democrats may withdraw from Afghanistan and take a much tougher stance against Pakistan by using India to apply pressure from afar. The US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Co-operation Act, signed under the Clinton administration, was already a step in this direction. An important implication of this US-India deal is a reference to integrating Non-Proliferation Treaty outliers like India and Pakistan into the mainstream through a Regional Non Proliferation Regime to prevent export of nuclear technology to other non-nuclear states. The implications of this attempt for Pakistan have yet to become overt. Nonetheless, besides increasing Indian nuclear energy outputs, US support will also lead to increased Indian access to technology in other spheres, which Pakistan will be increasingly wary of.
Pakistan is thus keen on developing even closer ties with China. Ignored by the US, Pakistan is now undertaking nuclear energy cooperation with China. There are plans to build six more nuclear reactors, besides the one already built with Chinese help in Chasma. China has helped Pakistan build the Gawadar deep-sea port as well. For Pakistan, Gwadarââ¬â¢s distance from India is of strategic importance. Gwadar also provides China a foothold in the Arabian Sea, which heightens Indiaââ¬â¢s feeling of encirclement by China. But China is currently more interested in getting a strategic foothold near the Persian Gulf region, vis-à-vis the US. China is in fact on a path of rapprochement with India, but unlike the US it remains more cautious about not sidelining Pakistan in this process.
There are internal compulsions requiring greater cooperation despite the lingering tensions between previously hostile neighbours. Cooperation in the energy sector to fuel economic growth is one such example, although this example is not free of contentions either. One of the proposed projects is a gas pipeline between Pakistan, Iran and India, and Turkmenistan, India and Afghanistan, respectively. Many experts have opined that there is no evidence of huge quantities of gas in Turkmenistan to justify the laying of a pipeline. Besides, the government in Kabul is in no position to guarantee the security of such a pipeline. Moreover, it would be difficult to raise finances for such a risky project in Western financial markets, even though the US is more in favour of this pipeline than one going through Iran.
Besides an escalation of violence in Afghanistan and creating more turmoil in Pakistan, another immediate consequence of a strike on Iran as part of a broadening of the US ââ¬Ëwar against terrorââ¬â¢ would be a humanitarian crisis in terms of the movement of refugees into the Herat, Farah and Nimruz provinces of Afghanistan, and towards Balochistan in Pakistan. An influx of Irani refugees into Afghanistan would no doubt destablise an already fragile Afghan government. Already, Pakistan has announced that all 2.4 million Afghan refugees must return home by 2009, despite the Afghan governmentââ¬â¢s inability to ensure their adequate resettlement.
Many future developments in this region are therefore inextricably tied to larger geo-strategic realities. Change in one country invariably affects the others. Such are the realities of the new world order; dismissing them just leads to over-simplification and a much less nuanced understanding of the part of the world that we live in.
The writer is a researcher. He can be contacted at ali@policy.hu
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\27\story_27-3-2007_pg3_5
The geo-strategic picture
By Syed Mohammad Ali
Many future developments in this region are inextricably tied to larger geo-strategic realities. Change in one country invariably affects the others. Such are the realities of the new world order; dismissing them just leads to over-simplification and a much less nuanced understanding of the part of the world that we live in.
In our contemporary world, varied regional groupings are readily made on the basis of ideology, prospects of economic cooperation, ethnic homogeneity or geographic proximity. There is a strong case to be made for clustering countries like China, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan together, not for the purpose of integrating them into a regional association however, but merely to understand the larger context of the ongoing developments initiated by the ââ¬Ëwar against terrorââ¬â¢.
After more than a decade and half of neglect, there is renewed US interest in this sub-region, which has multiple long-term implications. Besides wreaking immense destruction, the US ââ¬Ëwar against terrorââ¬â¢ has also led to a large inflow of foreign aid. Since 2002, international donors have pledged nearly $24 billion for developmental activities in Afghanistan. Yet the Afghani economy has not reached a critical mass where it could take off on its own strength. Pakistan, too, has been the recipient of immense bilateral and multilateral aid, not only for its support to the US but also due to the 2005 earthquake. The US itself has recently committed $800 million for countering ââ¬ËTalibanisationââ¬â¢ in the northern areas of the country.
Only India has decided, since 2003, to phase out foreign aid from all but six major donors. Instead, it has become one of the largest donors to Afghanistan. It has even signed a preferential trade agreement with Afghanistan. But Pakistan is wary of providing a land route to India, since the two countries are competing for the same consumer-goods market in Afghanistan. Pakistan only allows Afghanistan the transit rights for its exports to go to India, but not the other way round. While Pakistan still has the largest volume of trade with Afghanistan, many more trade routes could be opened across the lengthy border region if the security situation improves.
Given that Pakistan has been unwilling to grant India preferential trade status without progress on the core issue of Kashmir, India has begun to look eastward to forge closer relations with ASEAN, and to form new partnerships like the Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand Economic Cooperation (BIMST-EC), which plans a free trade pact by 2017. China too has become Indiaââ¬â¢s second largest trading partner, with their two-way trade worth $20 billon dollars a year and expected to double by 2010. On the other hand, trade between China and Pakistan has increased by 35% since 2004. This trade balance still remains overwhelmingly in Chinaââ¬â¢s favour, whose exports amounted to $1.8 billion compared with Pakistanââ¬â¢s $575 million.
While still continuing to reward Pakistanââ¬â¢s cooperation in the ââ¬Ëwar against terrorââ¬â¢, the US Congress has begun warning of aid cuts to Pakistan with the weakening of the Republicans under Bush. If elected to the White House, the Democrats may withdraw from Afghanistan and take a much tougher stance against Pakistan by using India to apply pressure from afar. The US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Co-operation Act, signed under the Clinton administration, was already a step in this direction. An important implication of this US-India deal is a reference to integrating Non-Proliferation Treaty outliers like India and Pakistan into the mainstream through a Regional Non Proliferation Regime to prevent export of nuclear technology to other non-nuclear states. The implications of this attempt for Pakistan have yet to become overt. Nonetheless, besides increasing Indian nuclear energy outputs, US support will also lead to increased Indian access to technology in other spheres, which Pakistan will be increasingly wary of.
Pakistan is thus keen on developing even closer ties with China. Ignored by the US, Pakistan is now undertaking nuclear energy cooperation with China. There are plans to build six more nuclear reactors, besides the one already built with Chinese help in Chasma. China has helped Pakistan build the Gawadar deep-sea port as well. For Pakistan, Gwadarââ¬â¢s distance from India is of strategic importance. Gwadar also provides China a foothold in the Arabian Sea, which heightens Indiaââ¬â¢s feeling of encirclement by China. But China is currently more interested in getting a strategic foothold near the Persian Gulf region, vis-à-vis the US. China is in fact on a path of rapprochement with India, but unlike the US it remains more cautious about not sidelining Pakistan in this process.
There are internal compulsions requiring greater cooperation despite the lingering tensions between previously hostile neighbours. Cooperation in the energy sector to fuel economic growth is one such example, although this example is not free of contentions either. One of the proposed projects is a gas pipeline between Pakistan, Iran and India, and Turkmenistan, India and Afghanistan, respectively. Many experts have opined that there is no evidence of huge quantities of gas in Turkmenistan to justify the laying of a pipeline. Besides, the government in Kabul is in no position to guarantee the security of such a pipeline. Moreover, it would be difficult to raise finances for such a risky project in Western financial markets, even though the US is more in favour of this pipeline than one going through Iran.
Besides an escalation of violence in Afghanistan and creating more turmoil in Pakistan, another immediate consequence of a strike on Iran as part of a broadening of the US ââ¬Ëwar against terrorââ¬â¢ would be a humanitarian crisis in terms of the movement of refugees into the Herat, Farah and Nimruz provinces of Afghanistan, and towards Balochistan in Pakistan. An influx of Irani refugees into Afghanistan would no doubt destablise an already fragile Afghan government. Already, Pakistan has announced that all 2.4 million Afghan refugees must return home by 2009, despite the Afghan governmentââ¬â¢s inability to ensure their adequate resettlement.
Many future developments in this region are therefore inextricably tied to larger geo-strategic realities. Change in one country invariably affects the others. Such are the realities of the new world order; dismissing them just leads to over-simplification and a much less nuanced understanding of the part of the world that we live in.
The writer is a researcher. He can be contacted at ali@policy.hu
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\27\story_27-3-2007_pg3_5
:flag:
