Who are Kurds and What they are Fighting For?

YPJ Fighters: Kurdish Female-Only Brigade

By: Azhar Azam

Following a conversation between Donald Trump and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the United States announced the withdrawal of entire about 2,000 troops from Syria – revoking its support for Kurds in Syria and handing over their future to Turkey.

Turkish armed forces are preparing to march into Syria to drive Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) militias out of Rojawa (Western Kurdistan) in northern Syria. As of now, SDF controls one-third of Syria, known as Kurdish region in Syria.

After US abrupt betrayal, the Kurdistan administration in northern Syria is looking at Russia to press Bashar al-Assad to protect their territory from fast-approaching Turkish offensive. Last week, a Kurdish delegation also visited Moscow to seek Russian support.

WHO ARE KURDS?

Kurds are the largest stateless nation in the world and fourth-largest ethnic group in the Middle East. Kurdish ethnic domains rim on the territories of other three major ethnic groups in the region – the Arabs to the south; the Persian to the east; and the Turks to the west.

In the absence of an independent state, Kurdistan is defined as the areas in which Kurds constitute an ethnic majority. There are about 35-40 million Kurds, who originate from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Armenia, and Turkey as well as located all around the world.

Akin to Arabs – Kurds are an ethnic group, not a distinct religious sect in Islam. The majority of the Kurds are Sunni Muslim, with a small minority of Shia Muslim and some non-Muslim such as Christians, Jewish, and Yezidi communities.

All three ethnic and religious groups – Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, and Shia Arabs – share core religious beliefs in Allah and Prophet Mohammad ﷺ. More than 90% in each group said that they fast in the holy month of Ramadan.

KURDS IN SYRIA

SDF is an alliance of largely Kurdish and other Arab, Turkmen, Assyrian, and Armenian militias fighting against Islamic State, Al-Nusra Front, and other Jihadi groups in the Syrian Civil War. Its objective is to establish and protect the federal region, Rojawa.

Partiya Yekîtiya Demokrat (PYD) or Democratic Union Party is the crux of the SDF. It is a branch of Turkey’s Kurdistan worker’s Party (PKK) and operates two armed wings in Syria – People’s Protection Units (YPG) and Women’s Protection Units (YPJ).

YPG surfaced on the world arena in 2012 after it forced Syrian Arab Army out of the Kurdish populated regions. After the siege of Kobanî by ISIS in September 2014, it demonstrated sensational and determined resistance against the DAESH.

With the help of US-led coalition airstrikes and Free Syrian Army (FSA), the YPG eventually defeated the Islamic State and recaptured Kobanî in January 2015. The battle of Kobanî is considered a turning point in the war against Islamic State.

PYD’s YPJ is a female-only brigade, which accounts for about 40% of total Kurdish fighters. Grown through the Kurdish military campaign, the YPG played a crucial role to take back the control of Kobanî from Islamic State. It has around 10,000 volunteer female fighters.

KURDS IN TURKEY

The founding of PYD dates back to the banning of Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (PKK) or Kurdistan Worker’s Party in Turkey, after which many PKK-sympathetic Kurds emigrated to Rojawa and formed a Kurdish organization (PYD) in Syria.

Imprisoned in Turkey, Abdullah Öcalan is the founding member of PKK, which was instituted in 1978. Revered as ideological leader of Kurds across the region (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria) – Öcalan called for independent state in Turkey.

Widely referred as Apo – Uncle – he has been launching attacks in Turkey from Syria in late 1980s and 1990s. He was forced to flee Syria after Turkey responded with intensive counter-insurgency backlashes and was arrested from Kenya – and was latter extradited to Turkey for prosecution.

KCK (Koma Civakên Kurdistan) or Kurdistan Communities Union is the political arm of PKK in Turkey and has offshoots and affiliates in Syria (PYD/YPG/YPJ); Iran (PJAK or Kurdistan Free Life Party); and Iraq (Tawgari Azadi).

About half of the Kurds in the Middle East live in Turkey – where they are 20% of the total Turkish Population. As the constitution of Modern Turkey rebuffs the existences of any ethnic sub-groups in the country, the Kurds perceive thorough suppression.

Therefore, Ankara has consistently shut down any Kurdish effort to politically organize in the country – designating any act of Kurdish nationalism a punishable offense to imprisonment. It outlawed Kurdish in Turkey language until 1991.

Turkey declares PKK a terrorist organization – accusing its ideology based on revolutionary Marxist-Leninism and separatist ethno-nationalist. It also charges PKK for the killings of more than 40,000 people since its military insurgency began in 1984.

On the other hand, Kurds believe that they have been politically marginalized and persecuted particularly by Turkey and Iraq. Kurds in Syria are seeking a greater autonomy or completely independent Kurdish state.

KURDS IN IRAQ

After the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi Kurds succeeded to achieve establish an autonomous state – Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) – in 1992, with autonomy in three provinces. In 2005, KRG gained increased privileges including maintaining their own army on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Turkey.

The Kurdish region in Iraq now houses 5.2 million population and four governorates – Erbil, Slemani, Duhok, and Halabja – comprising 40,000 square kilometers. KRG is larger than the Netherlands and four-times of the Lebanese area.

However, the Kurds of Iraq they are yet to declare independence – shouldering that such an action would enrage Turkey that would not accept an independent Kurdish state in the neighborhood and might scratch the strong Kurdish nationalist movement in Turkey as well.

Additionally, Iraqi-Kurdistan is also landlocked and has to rely on Iranian, Syrian, and Turkish for land and air communication – one of the most important factors preventing them to declare independence, especially if the Arab Iraq adopts a more hostile line toward the new state.

Marc Lamont Hill is not the Only American Who Pans Israel for Repressing Palestinians

By: Azhar Azam

In his gripping speech at the on November 28, Marc Lamont Hill – CNN Commentator and Professor at Temple University – roasted Israel for restricting freedom and impairing equality for Israeli Palestinians as well as those in West Bank and Gaza.

While commemorating the International Day of Solidarity with Palestinian people, he said that there are more than sixty Israeli laws that deny Palestinians access to full citizenship rights simply because they are not Jewish.

‘Palestinians continue to be physically and psychologically tortured by Israeli criminal judicial system, a term I can only use with irony.’ Hill also slated Israel for routinely keeping Palestinians in solitary confinements and indefinite detentions.

Talking about Nakba – the great catastrophe in May 1948 that resulted in the expulsion, murder, and permanent dislocation of over a million Palestinians – Hill criticized international community for depriving Palestinians the most of fundamental human rights.

He also panned American presidents including Trump for not taking principled and actionable position in defense of Palestinian rights and voiced ‘as an American, I am embarrassed that my tax dollars contribute to this reality’.

‘Solidarity from the international community demands that we embrace boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) as a critical means by which to hold Israel accountable for its treatment of Palestinian people.’

Hill concluded that the international community has the opportunity to take political, grassroots, local, and international action that is what justice requires – ‘and that is a free Palestine from river to the sea’.

The statement ‘a free Palestine from river to the sea’ – often associated with Hamas and refers to extending Palestine borders from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – was deliberated as anti-Semitic or against the Jews.

As a result, he was fired by the US cable news network (CNN) within next 24 hours.

Hill responded on twitter ‘I support Palestinian freedom. I support Palestinian self-determination. I am deeply critical of Israeli policy and practice. I do not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people or any of the other things attributed to my speech’.

The sacking of Hill as a CNN contributor after his oration in the United Nations triggered a widespread debate in the United States about the limitation of freedom of speech, when it comes to Israel or anti-Semitism.

Hill is not the only American who has shown his laments toward Israeli tyranny on Palestinians and criticized US presidents’ profound silence on Israeli atrocities on Palestinians. They are increasing number of Americans who maintain the same opinion.

In a recent University of Maryland’s Critical Issues Poll, American Views of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, fielded by Nielson Scarborough – 38% of the all adult surveyed Americans (including 55% of Democrats and 19% Republicans) believed that Israeli government has ‘too much influence’ on American politics and policies.

Only 9% of the online survey participants thought that Israelis have ‘too little influence’, while 48% (including 69% Republicans and 31% Democrats) of the Americans termed it ‘about the right level of influence’.

The younger Americans (aged 18-34 years) – 44% – were more convinced that Israeli government has ‘too much influence’ on American politics and policies, as compared to 35+ years aged people, who considered it to be 36%.

When asked about Trump administration role in mediating Israeli-Palestine conflict, 62% of all Americans (including 67% youths) suggested that it should ‘lean toward neither side’; an increase of 3% from 2017 poll that found 59% Americans had the same view.

Americans were almost tied when quizzed about ‘a two-state solution’ or ‘one-state solution’. 36% supported a two-state solution: Israel and Palestine side by side and Palestine would be established on the territories that Israel occupied in 1967.

35% of the all Americans opined for one-state solution: a single democratic state – covering all of what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories – with full and equal citizenship rights for both Jews and Arabs.

On the constructions of illegal Israeli settlements after 1967, the poll showed that 40% Americans believed to either impose some economic sanctions through the UN or unilaterally or take more serious action against Israel.

An overwhelming majority of Democrats (56%) supported such intensive measures against the government of Israel; 26% Republicans endorsed the Democrats also for sanctions on Israel, despite having little awareness on Hill’s backed BDS movement.

Reacting in a podcast last week over his dismissal from CNN on November 29 – Hill said ‘I think it was a hasty decision (by CNN). I disagree with the decision. And the history will vindicate that the claims I made’.

Quite a few other people came out to defend Hill and blasted the cable network for providing much airtime to the racists, the white supremacists, and the climate change deniers but firing Hill in no time.

Former CNN host Soledad O’Brien was also one of those. She tweeted “this exactly – they give a platform – and their credibility – to racists/white supremacists, all in the name of ‘hearing them out’ (which is rating plot btw)”.

Temple University, that employs Hill as Professor of Media Studies and Urban Education, also came under pressure to fire him, but Pennsylvania-based institution avoided any such act – recognizing his First Amendment rights.

On December 11, Temple University released a bamboozled statement that condemned Hill’s remarks in the UN – ‘disappointment, displeasure, and disagreement’ – while at the same time, supporting his Constitutional right to speak as a private individual.

Albeit all psychosomatic stabbings and detrimental career-ending tactics, Professor Marc Lamont Hill still stands by his stance on supporting Palestine and knocking Israel.

‘I am OK, profoundly OK’, the academic says.

Arms Industry: Bombing East to Securing Peace

By: Azhar Azam

Folks around the world should not be stumped by SIPRI’s fieriest data which bares that the sales of top-100 arms producing and military services providing conglomerates (excluding China) soared by 2.5% to $398.2 billion in 2017.

The massive spending on arms is essentially the value that is a part of the larger national arms procurement plans of several countries to support their native arms industry, in the name of modernizing their armed forces.

Ironically, either the state-controlled and arms manufacturers-influenced media represents it as arms exports or international arms sales to mask the massive arms spending, which is fueled by overseas military operations such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

According to the independent think tank on global arms transfers, the arms sales worldwide totaled $376.2 billion and $372.4 billion in 2016 and 2015 respectively. The arms sales peaked to $420.4 billion in 2010.

Courting back to US Congressional Research Service (CSR) December 2016’s report (p. 66) on arms transfers, the global arms deliveries equaled $46.2 billion in 2015 – just a fraction of $372.4 billion (2015) of arms sale worldwide.

The United States ($16.9bn); Russia ($7.2bn), France ($7.0bn), and China ($2.9bn) were the largest arms suppliers to the world in 2015, the CRS report noted. SIPRI’s third-largest arms producer, the United Kingdom, could export just $1.3bn of arms.

Based on SIPRI global arms sales and CSR global arms deliveries in 2015, there is a substantial difference of $326.2bn – echoing the fact that these arms were procured from domestic arms suppliers to spur international and regional conflicts.

Furthermore, SIPRI global arms production statistics mirrors that countries such as – the United States, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and India – have increased their spending on domestic arms procurement to support native arms industry.

Subsequently, the domestic arms companies of these countries have to be the inevitable winners in this deadly arms race – a regimen set by the United States and was followed by the rest in succeeding years.

SIPRI said that the arms sales of 42-US companies totaled $226.6 billion or 57% of the aggregate top-100 arms sales, implying that the US continues to spend more on arms procurement from its domestic arms manufacturers to seek global supremacy.

While the United States’ annual arms exports, at $16.9 billion, is only a fraction of its annual arms production – about 355.5 billion was empathetically spent on procuring arms and military services from US-based companies in 2015.

Lockheed Martin ($44.9bn); Boeing ($26.9bn), and Raytheon ($23.9bn) were the largest cash recipients of the US arms purchases in 2017. As much as, five US companies made to top-10 and eight to top-15 to SIPRI’s largest arms producers.

This year, Russian arms suppliers dethroned the counterparts from the United Kingdom to claim the second slot in the listing – producing $37.7 billion in arms sales behind the United States, accounting for 9.5% of global arms sales.

But again, CSR says that Russian worldwide arms deliveries amounted to $7.2 billion in 2015 against SIPRI’s Russian arms production of $33.5 billion for the same year – the remainder $26.3 billion was procured to counter the US global dominance.

A total of 10 Russian companies made to the SIPRI top-100. Just as the US, Russian arms suppliers also greatly fruited from the Kremlin’s increased outlay on arms ordering to modernize its armed forces, SIPRI senior researcher confirmed.

Almaz-Antey ($8.6bn), United Aircraft Corporation ($6.4bn), and United Shipbuilding Corporation ($5.0bn) have been ranked 10th, 14th, and 15th respectively in global arms production listing for 2017 by SIPRI.

Four Indian arms manufacturing companies are also included in top-100, with total arms sales of $7.5 billion – Indian Ordinance Factories ($2.7bn), Hindustan Aeronautics (2.6bn), Bharat Electronics ($1.4bn); and Bharat Dynamics ($880mn).

Although Indian media has been rejoicing India’s inclusion in top-100 but the fact remains that it historically has a very poor record in arms exports. To date, India has exported only small military articles such as light weapons, army uniforms, trucks etc.

Indian arms exports have still been hovering around only $400 million while it needs to import most of the components for its arms exports. The BrahMos Indian missile is made up of 65% imported components.

Last year, Indian army rejected an Indian-made riffle for a second consecutive year, after it failed the quality tests. Other Indian-made defense equipment like Arjun tanks, light combat aircrafts, and even bullet-proof jackets are inferior enough to castoff.

Nevertheless, India was the largest importer of major arms in 2013-17, accounting for 12% of global arms imports. Its arms imports had increased by 24% between 2008-12 and 2013-17, according to SIPRI.

Consequently, whether it is arms production or arms trade – it could be manifested that every year, about $400 billion of arms are bombed to kill millions by breeding conflicts and wars for global military and economic hegemony.

And South Asia, Middle East, and parts of Africa are the heart of this dirty game of the transnational powers, with the help of some regional allies – ensuring a peaceful West and an invariably destabilized East.

Stunting, Wasting Hits more than 200 million Children

By: Azhar Azam

Stunting or chronic undernutrition is impaired growth in children under five years of age due to limited access to food, health, and care.

Wasting or acute malnutrition is attributed to the children who are thin for their height because of acute food shortages and disease.

According to the Global Nutrition Report 2018 – 150.8 million children across the world are stunted; 50.5 million are wasted; and 38.3 million are overweight. In addition, about 20 million babies are born of low birth weight every year.

No less than 15.95 million children are affected by twin-burden, stunting and wasting – elevating the risk of child mortality. At the same time, 8.23 million children are encountered by another dual-effect of stunting and overweight.

Even though, stunting has declined in Asia from 38.1% in 2000 to 23.2% in 2017; still South Asia has the largest number of stunted children – 38.9%. WHO says that as of October 2018, 55% of stunted children globally are living in Asia and 39% are living in Africa.

Moreover, out of total of 50.5 million wasted children, more than half or 26.9 million children live in South Asia. According to WHO, a child that is wasted is 11 time more likely to die than a healthy child whereas wasting is currently killing 2 million children annually.

The study found that India as the country with the largest number of stunted children around the world – 46.6 million children – accounting for one third or close to 31% of global stunted children below the age of 5 years.

Nigeria (13.9 million) and Pakistan (10.7 million) are the next two countries, which are housing the largest stunted children. India (25.5 million), Nigeria (3.4 million), and Indonesia (3.3 million) are also the home of wasted children.

More than one-fifth of all overweight children are located in Ukraine, Albania, Libya, and Montenegro. Countries such as China, Indonesia, India, Egypt, the United States, Brazil, and Pakistan also host more than a million overweight children.

The paper further noted that anemia – deficiency in the number and quality of red blood cells or lower hemoglobin – prevails in one third of all the teenage girls and women under the reproductive age. Millions of women are still underweight.

While, the anemia problem in girls and women aged 15 to 49 years seems intractable at 32.8%, no country is on a track to achieve the anemia target, it said. Instead, 41% of the countries with high rate of anemia have no anemia target.

Only 5 countries are on track for 4 targets, 10 for 3 targets, and 44 for 1 target – out of 9 targets such as child overweight, child stunting, child wasting, exclusive breastfeeding, diabetes among women, diabetes among men, anemia in women of reproductive age, obesity among women, and obesity among men.

Outrageously, 100 out of 194 countries assessed including – the United States, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and UAE – are on track for 0 targets.

As much as 41 countries face significant multiple forms of malnutrition termed as ‘Triple Burden’ – childhood stunting, anemia (in adult women), and overweight (in adult women). Pakistan and India coexists in 26 countries with stunting and anemia while 54 countries are burdened by anemia and overweight.

In non-communicable diseases (NCDs), an alarming 422 million people are suffering from diabetes and 1.1 billion people have blood pressure. Shockingly, NCDs were responsible for 41 million deaths (71%) of total 57 million deaths in world in 2016.

Global Nutrition Targets 2025 of World Health Organization (WHO) aims at reduction of 40% stunting in children, 50% reduction in anemia, 30% reduction in low birth weight, freezing childhood overweight, at least 50% increase in the rate extensive breastfeeding, and maintain or 5% reduction in childhood wasting.

UN estimates that only $30 billion can eradicate hunger from the world and another $175 billion could end the extreme poverty from the entire planet in 20-years; the 2,043 richest holding $7.6 trillion in net wealth should come up to save our next generations.

US Intelligence on Pakistan: Smart, Silly, or Scheme(y)?

By: Azhar Azam

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is the premier US National Intelligence (NI), which serves as the head of the US intelligence community. It also oversees and directs implementation of the National Intelligence Program.

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) acts as principal advisor to the President of the United States, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council on intelligence affairs, related to national security.

DNI, with the advice and consent of the Senate, is directly appointed by the President – who works closely with the President and the Senate nominated Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence to protect US national security interests.

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) is one of the ODNI’s six centers, which functions as the US intelligence community (IC)’s center for long-term strategic analysis. It draws National Intelligence officers from government, academia, and the private sector.

Every four year since 1997, the National Intelligence Council is publishing an unclassified strategic assessment – Global Trends (GT) – of how key trends and uncertainties might shape the world over the next 15-20 years.

‘GLOBAL TRENDS 2015’ – RELEASED IN DECEMBER 2000

In its December 2000's report ‘Global Trends 2015’, the NIC forecasted that Pakistan will be more fractious, isolated, and dependent on international financial assistance by 2015.

(Regional Trends – South Asia; p. 64)

The connivers of the mission determined that Pakistan will not recover from the decades-stretched political and economic mismanagement, disruptive politics, lawlessness, corruption, and ethnic friction.

Further domestic decline would benefit Islamic political activists, who may significantly increase their role in national politics and alter the makeup and cohesive of the military – once Pakistan’s most capable institution.

In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the central government’s control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi.

(Pakistan in 2015; p. 66)

Developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan will threaten regional stability.
(Regional Trends – Central Asia; p. 69)

MAPPING THE GLOBAL FUTURE: 2020 PROJECT – RELEASED IN DECEMBER 2004

The next NIC’s ‘Mapping the Global Future-2020 Project’ anticipated that a Shia-dominated Iraq is likely to encourage activism by Shia minorities in other Middle Eastern nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
(Radical Islam; p. 82)

With advances in the design of simplified nuclear weapons, terrorists will continue to seek to acquire fissile material in order to construct a nuclear weapon. Concurrently, they can be expected to continue attempting to purchase or steal a weapon, particularly in Russia or Pakistan.

Given the possibility that terrorists could acquire nuclear weapons, the use of such weapons by extremists before 2020 cannot be ruled out.
(Weapons, Tactics, and Targets; p.95)

India and Pakistan appear to understand the likely prices to be paid by triggering a conflict. But nationalistic feelings run high and are not likely to abate.

Under plausible scenarios Pakistan might use nuclear weapons to counter success by the larger Indian conventional forces, particularly given Pakistan’s lack of strategic depth.
(Rising Powers: Tinder for Conflict; p. 98)

GLOBAL TRENDS 2025: A TRANSFORMED WORLD – RELEASED IN NOVEMBER 2008

The succeeding NIC’s ‘Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World’ assumed that the developing countries have been hurt; several, such as Pakistan with its large current account deficit, are at considerable risk.
(Globalization at Risk with the 2008 Financial Crisis? p.10)

Pivotal yet problem-beset countries, such as Pakistan, will be at risk of state failure.
(The Geopolitics of Energy; p. 45)

Even as some states may liberalize, others may fail: youth bulges, deeply rooted conflicts, and limited economic prospects are likely to keep Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others in the high-risk category.
(Middle East/North Africa: Economics Drives Change, but Major Risk of Turmoil; p. 64, 65)

Developments in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan will critically affect regional stability, if not the global order. In 2025, Afghanistan may still evince significant patterns of tribal interaction and conflict.

With the exception of the Taliban interlude, Afghanistan has not experienced strong central authority; centrifugal forces are likely to remain strong even if Kabul increases its sway.

The future of Pakistan is a wildcard in considering the trajectory of the neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and tribal areas probably will continue to be poorly governed and the source or supporter of cross-border instability.

If Pakistan is unable to hold together until 2025, a broader coalescence of Pashtun tribes is likely to emerge and act together to erase the Durand Line, maximizing Pashtun space at the expense of Punjabis in Pakistan and Tajiks and others in Afghanistan.

Alternatively, the Taliban and other Islamist activists might prove able to overawe at least some tribal politics.

Salafi trend of Islam is likely to gain traction in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Yemen due to youth bulges and weak economic underpinnings.
(End of Ideology? p. 73)

Societies most hostile to the United States are found in the Islamic Middle East, as well as Pakistan and North Africa. India is an important exception.
(Near East/South Asia; p. 95)

GLOBAL TREND 2030: ALTERNATIVE WORLDS – RELEASED IN DECEMBER 2012

The report ‘Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds’ said that a number of our interlocutors believe that Iran will stop short of developing a nuclear weapon – but will retain the ability to develop such a weapon.

In this scenario, a breakdown of the nonproliferation system would be inevitable, with Saudi Arabia obtaining nuclear weapons or capabilities from Pakistan.
(Game-Changers; The Middle East: At A Tipping Point; p. 75)

Like the Middle East, South Asia including Pakistan and Afghanistan, faces a series of internal and external shocks during next 15-20 years.

Afghanistan could become the focus of future Indian-Pakistani competition, particularly after the drawdown of US NATO forces post-2014, each country to deny other the strategic advantage in the region.
(Game-Changers; South Asia: Shocks on the Horizon; p. 78)

Over several decades, Pakistan would grow into a relatively stable economy, no longer requiring foreign assistance and IMF tutelage.

In an Islamistan scenario, the influence of radical Islamists in Pakistan and Taliban in Afghanistan would grow. In Pakistan, a weak government would continue to lose ground over the next decade.

A symbiotic relationship would deepen between the military and the Islamists. As Pakistan became Islamicized, the army would become more sympathetic to the Islamic cause.

Consequently, the military would likely cede control of territory to Islamist insurgents and would be more willing to engage in negotiations with these Islamists.
(Game-Changers; South Asia: Shocks on the Horizon; p. 79)

India worries a lot about its influence in Central Asia. A recent Taliban coup occurred in which all the other factions – which had formed the government – were brutally suppressed. India, which blames Pakistan, sought Western help but was largely rebuffed.
(WORLDCORP Strategic Vision Group; p. 115)

GLOBAL TRENDS: PARADOX OF PROGRESS (2035) – RELEASED IN JANUARY 2017

The last of NIC publication ‘Global Trends: Paradox of Progress’ stated that governance shortfalls will drive threat perceptions and insecurity in countries such as Pakistan and North Korea.
(Near Future: Tensions Are Rising; p. 31)

Violent extremism, terrorism, and instability will continue to hang over Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the region’s fragile communal relations.

The threat of terrorism, from Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LET), Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and al-Qa‘ida and its affiliates—as well as ISIL’s expansion and sympathy for associated ideology—will remain prominent in the region.

Militant Christianity and Islam in central Africa, militant Buddhism in Burma, and violent Hindutva in India will all continue to fuel terror and conflict.

At-sea deployments of nuclear weapons by India, Pakistan, and perhaps China, would increasingly nuclearize the Indian Ocean during the next two decades.
(South Asia; p. 41, 42)

NIC goes on to predict an Indo-Pakistan war in 2028 saying more importantly, however, the Indo-Pakistani war of 2028 reminded all the major powers of the dangerous game we were playing.
(Orbits; p. 56)

South Asia also will face continuing challenges from political turmoil—particularly Pakistan’s struggle to maintain stability—as well as violent extremism, sectarian divisions, governance shortfalls, terrorism, identity politics, mounting environmental concerns, weak health systems, gender inequality, and demographic pressures.

Geopolitically, the region’s greatest hope is India’s ability to use its economic and human potential to drive regional trade and development.

At the same time, Afghanistan’s uncertain prospects, extremism and violence in Pakistan, and the ever-present risk of war between India and Pakistan probably represent the greatest challenge to unlocking the region’s potential.

The threat of terrorism from groups such as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and al-Qa`ida and its affiliates—as well as ISIL expansion and sympathy for associated ideology—will remain key drivers of insecurity in the region.
(South Asia; p. 103)

Moreover, Pakistan, unable to match India’s economic prowess, will seek other methods to maintain even a semblance of balance.

It will seek to maintain a diverse set of foreign partners, from which it can draw economic and security assistance, and to develop a credible nuclear deterrent by expanding its nuclear arsenal and delivery means, including “battlefield” nuclear weapons and sea-based options.

In its efforts to curtail militancy, Islamabad will also face multiple internal security threats, as well as a gradual degradation of equipment used in these operations, declining financial resources, and a debate over changes needed to reduce the space for extremism.

While violent extremism is unlikely to present an existential threat to Pakistan during this period, it will have negative implications for regional stability.
(South Asia; p. 104)

India is projected to surpass Indonesia as having the world’s largest Muslim population in 2050, raising questions about stability in the face of sectarian mistrust.

India’s largest political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, increasingly is leading the government to incorporate Hindutva into policy, sparking increased tension in the current sizable Muslim minority as well as with Muslim-majority Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Climate change could lead to a faster-than-expected melting of the glaciers in the Pamir Knot, which feed the northern rivers of Pakistan and India.

Tropical storm surges on top of even a modest sea level rise could reduce the already-sparse landmass of Bangladesh, spoiling freshwater resources and pushing people into India and Burma, exacerbating ethnic and regional conflicts.
(South Asia; p. 105)

Pakistan has introduced short-range, “battlefield” nuclear weapons that it has threatened to use against Indian conventional incursions, which lower the threshold for nuclear use.
(How People Fight…; p. 219)

Pakistan has Phenomenal Terrorists’ Killing Rate

By: Azhar Azam

Pakistan armed forces have achieved a remarkable success in war on terror – killing 3.7 terrorists for each casualty of its national and military police troop – a recent study by US-based Costs of War Project showed.

Extremists’ killing ratio by Pakistan is much taller than the quotient achieved by highly resourced NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan and Iraq – 0.7 and 0.8 – extensively supported by the US military and other allied troops.

The death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq excludes US military, US contractors, and other allied troops – which totaled 7,479 and 8,666 for October 2001 to October 2018 and March 2003 to October 2018 respectively.

It is very rare that the armed forces of an economically trailing country have unilaterally made such exceptional realizations on the battlefield, where multilateral US-led international military missions lagged.

As of FY 2018, the United States has spent an estimated of 1,523 billion in global wars on terror (GWOT), including 753 billion in Afghanistan and $770 billion in Iraq – according to a report by Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).

On the contrary, the US has paid Pakistan only $9.9 billion during 16 years of war on terror. The other disbursements are on account of Coalition Support Fund (CSF) for military operations conducted by Pakistan on behalf of the United States.

Pakistan has also witnessed the occurrence of at least refugees (130,000), internally displaced people (170,000), and asylum seekers (8,000) as compared to higher proportions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

In addition, the battle-hardened country has housed the largest of Afghan refugees – about half or 1.3 million, the report said.

Headed by Prof. Neta C. Crawford of Brown University’s Watson Institute, the paper further underscores that since 9/11, the United States’ wars on terror have directly killed 480,000 to 507,000 people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.

The death toll has increased by a shocking 110,000 to 137,000 deaths than the previous count of 370,000 by 35-membered groups of scholars, legal experts, human rights activists, and physicians.

A chair of Boston University’s Political Sciences Department additionally estimates that the direct deaths caused by war violence in Syria, ragged in 2011 and joined by the United States in 2014, have also killed more than 500,000 people.

Between October 2001 to October 2018, the US-GWOT have dined as many as 147,000 people in Afghanistan; 65,000 people in Pakistan; and 268,000 to 295,000 people in Iraq (March 2002 to October 2018).

Civilians in all the three countries were the prime victims of these endless wars on terror, whose deaths altogether accounted for more than 50% of the total death toll or 244,124 to 266,427 deaths.

Afghanistan – 147,000 Deaths

Between October 2001 and October 2008 – 58,696 Afghan military and policemen, 38,480 civilians, 42,100 opposition fighters, and 7,479 US military, US contactors, and other allied forces have lost their lives.

6 US DOD civilians, 63 journalists/media personnel, and 409 humanitarian workers have also been killed in the war-torn country during 15 years of war.

Pakistan – 65,000 Deaths

Since October 2001 – 8,832 Pakistani troops and civil armed forces, 23,372 civilians, and 32,490 militants have been killed in war on terror. Other deaths include US contractors (90), media (63), and humanitarian workers (95).

Iraq – 267,792 to 295,170 Deaths

Iraq, by far, is the largest victim of war on terror. Since March 2003, an estimated of 41,726 national military and police, 182,272 to 204,575 civilians, and 34,806 to 39,881 fighters of opposition factions have died.

The deaths attributable to US military (4,550), US contractors (3,793), US DOD civilians (15), and other allied troops (323) in Iraq are estimated at 8,681. A total of 245 people media men and 62 humanitarian works have also died so far.

The data compiled by the independent think tank distinctly illustrates that Pakistan armed forces have played a crucial role in building forming a more secure and more peaceful world – bullying its economy, civilians, and military and policemen.

But unfortunately, the US-dominated international community is knowingly ignoring Pakistan’s contributions in war on terror – which will only jeopardize the global efforts to trounce the menace of terrorism.

The global community needs to understand that a peaceful and militarily and economically stronger Pakistan is in the interest of the sustainable and durable peace throughout the entire world.

And therefore should learn from Pakistan’s vital experiences in the war of terror, instead of unduly pressurizing it – which will only be helping the common mutual goal, to eradicate terrorism for much safer and securer world.

CIIE 2018: Flying Car, Diamond-Crusted Shoes and Much More

By: Azhar Azam

A Slovakian startup, AeroMobil, is making its debut in the trendsetting China International Import Expo (CIIE) – showcasing its electric hybrid 4.0 STOL (short take-off and landing) Flying Car during a 6-day trade fair. 

The all-weather AeroMobil offers both the aerial and earthbound features, that a car and an air plane has to offer and can be fully transformed into the flight mode within three minutes. It will go on sale at some time in 2020 or 2021. 

Genavant, the luxury shoemaker company founded by London-based Malaysian Professor Jimmy Choo Yeang Keat OBE Keat and his godson Reggie Hung, are parading the latest collection of their diamond-crusted shoes in the exhibition.

Priced at $4.35 million for a pair, the luxury shoes are adorned with pink and white diamonds and are being displayed with other bejeweled shoes. ‘We spent almost one year one it’, the 70-years old Choo said.

More than 3,000 enterprises from over 130 countries and regions are slated to showcase their products and technologies in the pioneer China International import Expo (CIIE), inaugurated on November 5 in Shanghai.

Volunteered by nearly 5,000 coworkers, a large exhibition area of 270,000 square meters is sauntered by nearly 300,000 visitors, who could shop everything from Russian ice cream, Persian carpets, Turkish handicrafts, to Egyptian dates.

Leonardo helicopters, Medtronic’s world’s smallest heart peacemaker, Honeywell’s logistics technologies, UPS’ wood-based renewable diesel BioVerna eco-friendly car, Westcom’s bio-toilets to turn waste into fertilizer, and Nannini’s presbyopic foldable glasses are some of innovative products and services being displayed in the expo.

In May, Chinese President Xi Jinping had announced at the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation that China will host the first-ever import exhibition, scheduled from November 5 to November 10.

With the help of CIIE 2018, China is pursuing to expand a strong competitive base to its imports, which are expected to exceed $10 trillion in the next three years.

In the first nine months of 2019, China’s exports have increased by 20%, to $1.6 trillion. Nevertheless, it is still maintaining an aggregate trade surplus of $223 billion as its exports also rose by 12.2% for the same period.

The expo is also marked with a watchword ‘New Era, Shared Future’ – warbling it as a Chinese endeavor to inject vitality in the global economic growth by pushing the trade liberalization and facilitation worldwide.

CIIE 2018 is supported by international trade and industrial corpora such as The World Trade Organization (WTO), UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).

Municipality government of Shanghai has approved 30 year-round platforms for exhibitions and trade of imported goods, which will be available to the business on permanent basis even after the expo closes.

The Greenland Global Commodity Hub, a platform provided for foreign firms to demonstrate their products, will provide services to help introduce exotic products to channels like the high-end markets of G-Super.

The hub will host an African pavilion of 10 countries including South Africa, Morocco, Angola, Senegal, and Ghana. The expo will facilitate more than 110 companies from over 40 countries to reaching their foreign imports in China.

However, the show is much smaller to the Canton Fair, the other biannual China’s import and export fair, being held in Guangdong since 1957. Ended on Sunday, 636 foreign companies from 34 countries and regions participated in the trade gala this year.

Underscoring the close friendship with Pakistan, China has given Pakistan the status of ‘Guest of Honor’ and has provided free of cost space in the exhibition.

Some 40 businessmen from Pakistan are also participating in the historic expo, providing them the much-needed international platform to demonstrate their products and to shore-up the country’s exports.

Pakistan is one of the largest agro-based economies while at the same time, China is the world’s biggest destination of agriculture products such as rice, grains, cotton, meat, sugar, and milk. Rice makes one-third of the country’s total agriculture exports.

Not long ago, Pakistan was the second-largest exporter of non-basmati rice to China but over the time, it lost its crucial market. Now with the change in Pakistani government, China has signaled to give Pakistan a preferential treatment for exports.

Saudi Clerics incl. Imam-e-Kaaba under Detention, Trial

By: Azhar Azam

Some notable religious scholars including Imam of al-Masjid al-Haraam have been detained by Saudi Arabia, according to Prisoners of Conscience (POC) – a social media advocacy group, which monitors and documents arrests in Saudi Arabia.

Democracies and kingdoms share responsibility of Gaza massacre (Click to read)

 

Since September 2017, Saudi Arabia has arrested scores of religious clerics, jurists, and activists due to their religious and political spats with the Kingdom. This significant policy shift is mainly ascribed to Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS).

Sheihk Dr. Bandar ibne Abdulaziz Baleela

In a recent crackdown, Imam Haram – Sheihk Bandar Abdulaziz Baleela – who also serves as Assistant Professor in University of Taif, was arrested by the Saudi authorities for slamming the mixed gatherings in entertainment events.

The activist group claimed that the Sheikh Baleela was detained in an ‘abusive way’ that does not fit with the status of the Sheikh. He was arbitrarily detained on September 11 for four days in a Saudi prison under inhuman conditions before he was released. 

Sheikh Dr. Saleh al Talib

In August this year, another Imam of Haram and a judge in District Court of Makkah – Sheikh Dr. Saleh al Talib – was also arrested over his outcry to speak against doing evil and the duty in Islam to deny that in public. 

In his sermon, Sheikh Talib roasted the Entertainment Agency of Saudi Arabia for propagation and hosting men and women in concerts and other events. The Kingdom is yet to confirm or deny his detention.

Sheikh Khaled bin Ali al Ghamdi

In its tweet on September 14, POC confirmed that – Sheikh Khaled bin Ali al Ghamdi – was banned from teaching at the University of Umm Al-Qura in Makkh. POC preludes that it could end in suspension of his career after suspension from preaching.

Born in the holy city of Makkah, al Ghamdi has been an Imam in the Grand Mosque since 2008. During his first prayer (Isha’a), he cried profoundly as his voice echoed around the Masjid-e-Haraam. 

Sheikh Faisal bin Jameel al Ghazzawi

Same day, the POC also confirmed the banning of – Sheikh Faisal bin Jameel al Ghazzawi – the Imam and preacher of al-Haram al-Makki. He was also born in Makkah and was appointed as Imam of Grand Mosque together with Sheikh al Ghamdi.

Sheikh Ibrahim Haiyel al Yamani

The detainees also include – Sheikh Ibrahim Haiyel al Yamani – who has been a Mufti in the al-Masjid an-Nabawi (Prophet’s Mosque). Detained in September 2017, He has been trialed over a series of charges against him. 

Sheikh Nasser al Omar

The independent human rights organization also revealed that in the month of August – Sheikh Nasser al Omar – has also been arrested by the Saudi authorities. In September 2017, he was advised to refrain from discussing political issues. 

The Twitter post added that Saudi officials had previously imposed travel ban on the academic. Sheikh Al Omar is known for rejecting the US military bases in Arabian Peninsula.

Sheikh Muhammad Saleh al Munajjid

According to the rights group, Sheikh Muhammad Saleh al Munajjid – an eminent Saudi scholar of Syrian heritage and the founder of the world’s most popular Islamic website – was also detained in September 2017.

Al Munajjid learnt the most from Sheikh Abdul Rahman ibne Nasser al Barrak and also through question-and-answer sessions of Sheikh Abdulaziz ibne Abdullah ibne Baaz. He also attended the study circles of Sheikh Muhammad ibne Saleh al Uthaymeen and Sheikh Abdullah Abdul Rahman al Jibreen.

Set up in 1996, his landmark religious verdict website islamqa.info is still running and developing services in various languages. In 2015, the site was ranked as most popular website on the topic of Islam by Alexa. 

 Sheikh Salman al Ouda

Sheikh Awad al Qarni

POC has further claimed that the Saudi prosecutor has demanded the death sentence for the famous Saudi clerics – Sheikh Salman al Ouda and Sheikh Awad al Qarni – for opposing MBS policy on Qatar. 

Both the scholars were the active part of the Sahwa (awakening) movement in early 1990s, which criticized the Kingdom’s decision to allow US military bases on the holy soil from a potential threat of Iraqi invasion. 

Sheikh Safar al Hawali

On July 12, the authority also detained – Sheikh Safar al Hawali – a leading Sahwa reformist movement figure, a prominent preacher and a strong critic of American influence in the Saudi Arabia.

Last month, the online activist group had confirmed that al Hawali was taken to the hospital after he suffered from a stroke, broken pelvis, and renal failure. His arrest came in the backdrop of his harsh criticism on Saudi pro-US and anti-Qatar policies.

There are unconfirmed reports of al Hawali’s death over deterioration of health as well.

Sheikh Suleiman al Dweesh

In August 2018, POC confirmed the death of another prominent Saudi scholar – Sheikh Suleiman al Dweesh due to torture in a secret prison. He was arrested within a day after posting criticism substance against MBS on social media.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz al Tarifi

Although there were reports about the release of a well-known Saudi preacher – Sheikh Abdul Aziz al Tarifi – in August last year, however the human rights organization is yet to confirm, revealing that Sheikh was transferred to hospital over poor health.

Al Tarifi was detained in April 2016 after his Tweet on Saudi regime ‘There are some rulers who think that renouncing their religion to satisfy infidels will put an end to the pressures on them, the more they push them’. 

Sheikh Nayef al Sahafi

Arbitrarily detained since September 2017 – Sheikh Nayef al Sahafi – is also undergoing a secret trial. Sheikh al Sahafi is a well-known preacher who conducts religious programs with Sheikh Mansour al Salimi. 

Sheikh Dr. Abl al Aziz al Fawzan

According to POC, More than 15 members of the Teacher’s Board at al Imam University are now under arbitrary detection, the latest of whom is – Sheikh Dr. Abl al Aziz al Fawzan – after he expressed his concern on the suppression of sheikhs and preachers. 

He tweeted “The war between the friends of the Most Merciful (Allah) and the devil has been on-going since Adam and Iblees’ landing on earth. And its enemies from amongst the disbelievers and hypocrites have since been waging a war on our religion, values, and nations with everything at their disposal and at all levels. It is as Allah says: ‘They will not stop fighting you until they make you revert from your religion, if they are able.’ (Quran 2:217)”.

Here are some of the other clerics and preachers who have been detained by the Saudi authority, according to Prisoners of Conscience:

Sheikh Dr. Abdul Aziz al Abdul Latif

Sheikh Muhammad al Shinnar

Sheikh Dr. Muhammad al Arifi

Sheikh Muhammad bin Saleh al Migbil

Sheikh Abdullah Zugail

Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Mosa al Shareef

Sheikh Dr. Muhammad al Halabdan

Dr. Mosa al Qarni

Sheikh Mamdouh al Harabi

Sheikh Dr. Mokhtar al Hashmi

Sheikh Sulieman al Alwan

Sheikh Dr. Khalid al Ajimi

Sheikh Musaed al Tayyar

Sheikh Ali bin Saeed al Hajjaj al Ghamdi

Sheikh Abdul Rahman al Lihyani

Trump: Make America Trail Again

By: Azhar Azam

China’s strict trade policies – to enforce foreign companies to set up factories in and transfer technology in China – is the real point of tiff between the largest developed and largest developing countries of the world.

Trump administration accuses these China’s acts as theft of American intellectual property and forced transfer of American technology – hence it oozed several punitive steps that cuff additional tariffs on imports from China.

In a White House statement, Trump warned China if it takes retaliatory actions against our farmers and other industries, we shall immediately pursue Phase-III, which to tariff on approximately $267 of additional imports.

But China didn’t dither to hit back and enacted tariffs on goods imports from the United States.

For the first seven months of 2018, the United States trade deficit in goods with China averaged $31.8 billion per month to $222.6 billion, largest-ever as compared to per monthly trade deficit of $31.3 billion in 2017, to $375.6 billion.

The trade war between the two economic powerhouses is getting stiffer and trickier after the imposition of US sanctions on China over purchase of Russia Su-35 fighter jets and S-400 air missile defense systems.

United States plugged the sanctions on the Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission of China in violation to ‘Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

Chinese military intoned its ‘strong indignation and resolute opposition’ on sanctions and demanded the United States ‘to immediately correct its wrongdoing and withdraw the so-called sanctions’ or ‘must bear the consequences’.

The burly China’s response is unusual. It normally circumvents using such a rude tongue on international diplomatic forums or even to its contenders. So, the Chinese tough-tone is clearly an indication that it is prepared for trade war escalation.

On the other hand, the United States has entirely or partially sanctioned a number of economic or military giants such as China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. It is also threatening to impose sanctions on oil-rich Venezuela.

This unprecedented American global supremacy is driven by its enormous economic and military strength and most importantly by the broad acceptance of its currency – US dollar – as world’s leading reserve currency.

For many years, the US dollar is shouldering the largest share in IMF’s international currency basket – COFER. It currently forms 62.48% or about $6.5 trillion of the allocated global official foreign exchange reserves.

Nevertheless, the share of US dollar has slid to four-year low, from peak 65.97% in 2015. At the same time, the other major currencies such as euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling, and Chinese renminbi/yuan have bettered their shares.

While the economic US ‘titanic’ is also holed by massive military spending and overseas operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria – the ‘victimized’ countries are targeting the trademark US$ currency.

In order to end their reliance and end the global supremacy of US dollar, the aggrieved countries are now running anti-dollar campaign, encouraging the use of local currencies in international trade.

Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and China Development Bank (CDB) are closely coordinating to increase the ruble-yuan trade between the two countries, in defiance to hegemony of US dollar.

The first deals (in national currencies) will transpire in the start of the next year in Chinese yuan worth $10 billion. The initiative would be milestone in $100 billion bilateral trade – potential to reach $200 billion – between the two countries.

China is the world’s largest oil importer and also is the largest Russia’s oil buyer. Russia has agreed to accept Chinese yuan against oil supply instead of petrodollar. So, both China and Russia are set to disrupt the $1.7 trillion petrodollar market.

Furthermore, China is pushing its other oil trade partners – Saudi Arabia, Angola, and Iran – to trade oil for yuan. The ‘petroyuan’ contracts are expected to surge as soon as American sanctions continue to take effect on China.

Turkey too is aggressively pursuing for non-dollar transactions in trade and investment with Russia and other countries after Turkish lira shed by 40% in this year over strenuous Turkey-US relations.

The ties between the United States and Turkey hit all-time low, following Trump imposed extortionate sanctions on Turkish steel and aluminum over detention of an American pastor on terrorism charges.

US Senate showed great resentments against Turkey and passed a bill to stop the supply of F-25 jets on the Turkish announcement of purchasing S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia.

Erdogan responded averring that Turkey does not need permission from anyone to guard its territory.

He further said that the United States was behaving like ‘wild wolves’ and urged the need to gradually end the monopoly of American dollars once for all. Turkey is now in negotiations with Russia to layover the use of US dollar in bilateral trade.

In addition to these local currency swaps, China might consider to pull out its substantial holdings in the US treasury. As of July, China retains roughly 20 percent of the total US foreign debt of $6.251 trillion.

It has not made any new purchases for some years now, instead China holdings in US treasury have plunged to six-month low of $1.17 trillion. The occasional rise in China holding is due to interest payments, it has accumulated over the years.

If China decides to sell off its holdings, it would make an impact on interest rates and bond prices. The US government will be forced to issue bonds on higher interest rates to borrowers to meet the dearth that would eventually slowdown the US economy.

Till December 2017, Russia also was one of the top foreign investors in US treasury with $102.2 billion. As its tussle grew with the United States, it sold out its most of its treasuries and now maintains only $14.9 billion in US treasury.

The economies, which are subject to shakeup on US sanctions, are developing their own payment system, as an alternative to SWIFT.

Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) is the world’s largest interbank communication network that enables financial institutions to send and receive reliable, safe, and quick information about financial transactions.

As SWIFT is controlled by the United States, the countries such as China, Russia, France, and Germany are evolving their own international payments system to ensure their autonomy and sovereignty in trade, beyond US control.

China introduced its indigenous international payment system, Cross-border Inter-bank Payment System (CIPS), in October 2015 to provide safe, easy, and efficient settlement services to international financial institutions doing transactions in yuan.

The second phase of CIPS became fully operation in May 2018 and its actual business scope was extended to 148 countries and regions. According to central bank of China, RMB CIPS handled 89.4 billion yuan in the first quarter of 2018.

Russia is toiling on its domestic interbank payment system too – System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) – smelling the potential shutdown of SWIFT from tougher US sanctions. It may consider euro-yuan based alternatives to SWIFT as well.

Earlier this month, France and Germany announced their own international payment system. French finance minister said ‘with Germany, we are determined to work on an independent European or Franco-German financing tool which would allow us to avoid being the collateral victims of US extra-territorial sanction’.

The United Kingdom, Germany, France, China, and Russia have lately agreed on special payment system on Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal. The payment channel would be analogue to SWIFT for making oil payments to Iran.

All these episodes are ensuing on fast-track and are in retaliation to Trump’s cursory measures to ditch every country to ‘Make America Great Again’ but the in doing so, he could very well ‘Make America Trail Again’.

How India is Caught-up between its New and Old Allies?

By: Azhar Azam

Last week, the defense and foreign ministers of India and the United States signed a new pact – Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) – on the sidelines of the 2+2 dialogue.

Washington describes COMCASA as one of the three routine foundational agreements which it has signed with a number of its allies to facilitate the interoperability between the respective militaries.

Through COMCASA, India will get an access to a more secure communication network system – Combined Enterprise Regional Information Exchange System (CENTRIXS) – which would allow its marine and aerial platforms to get real time location of hostile naval assets deployment in Indo-pacific region.

The bilateral accord has previously been postponed twice after the Trump administration had refused to give India any preferential treatment in its tariff row against various countries. Both the countries also have differences on market access and intellectual property also.

COMCASA is being deliberated as a milestone gait in Indo-US relations but at the same time, it is subject to criticism to many diplomats and experts in India and abroad.

Although it would provide India with the contemporary military information and communication equipment but India remains concerned about revelation of its military assets to Pakistan or other countries, since Washington could monitor Indian communications in operations.

Over the past few years, India has been ambitiously embracing the United States to abate Beijing and Islamabad and to strengthen its ‘unnatural bonds’ with Kabul, without weathering any detriments to its economic, strategic, and trade interests.

The United States apparently has been very supportive in helping India to achieve its strategic goals nevertheless, is seeking some ‘paybacks’ in return while is disinclined to give any waiver to India either on Iran or Russia.

For the past few months, it has been pursuing India to kneel down to its new federal law – Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) – which maps to impose sanctions including two of the Indian closest allies, Iran and Russia.

After Trump pulled out from P5+1 nuclear deal – Joint Comprehensive Plan on Action (JCPoA) – with Iran, the United States has obligated India to reduce oil imports from Iran down to zero by November 4; otherwise it could be exposed to sanctions.

At the conclusion of 2+2 dialogue with India the US foreign secretary Mike Pompeo emphasized that we have told Indians consistently that on November 4, the sanctions on Iranian crude oil will be enforced…or sanctions will be imposed.

Iranian oil is ideally priced for India and it supplements credit provisions too. India is Iran’s second-largest export market however on the back of these US sanctions, Iranian oil import by Indian companies have fallen by about one-third for the last month.

The CAASTA would also impede Indian durable strategic interests in Iran’s Chabahar port since the United States is not willing to give any concession to India on this crucial Indian $500 million strategic investment.

Chabahar has a potential to provide India a new trade link to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan routes but the project has been delayed over negotiations on terms between Iran and India.

India has also committed $1.6 billion for a rail-link from Chabahar to Iranian city, Zahedan.

If India fails to get a US waiver for Chabahar port, it would have to sip a more forceful blow to its Afghanistan-China-Pakistan strategic campaigns. And if it flouts the US federal law, it would risk its emergent relations with the United States.

Under CAATSA, any country that is involved in significant transaction with Russia or its intelligence and defense sectors can be imposed five or more of sanctions, described in section 235 of the Act, by the President of the US.

So, the implementation of CAATSA could also jeopardize India’s purchase of S-400 air missile defense systems from Russia. As more than 60% of Indian military equipment is Russian supplied, any sanctions on Russia could terribly affect Indian national security.

The United States is also recapping India the trade surplus, it has been relishing for years. For the last four years, the United States sustained trade deficit of $23.9 billion, $23.4 billion, $24.4 billion, and $22.9 billion with India.

The Trump administration is compelling India to curtail this trade deficit by supplying its oil, gas, and military equipment.

Trump administration has also accused India’s ‘trade-distorting policy’ of providing massive subsidies to its rice and wheat farmers. ‘Every rice or wheat producing country should be concerned about the trade effects of India’s distorting domestic support’, a USTR official told Congress.

So, the US is using its conventional tool of ‘carrot and stick’ policy for India as well where initially it used more carrots to allure India and now gradually mixing some ‘sticks’ to terrify India.

The United States will carry on this policy to gain from massive Indian market and to reinforce India as its proxy against China and Pakistan’s substitute in Afghanistan, so the volume of ‘carrots’ will invariably be more than ‘sticks’.

On the other hand, India is neatly tugged into a place by the US where neither it can annoy America nor can it backtrack to its old allies.

It can neither completely end its reliance on Iranian oil nor can it surrender its strategic interests at Chabahar port. Similarly neither it can abruptly replace its Russian military stockpile nor can it completely end its long-term defense ties with Russia.

As a result, India is caught up between its new – the United States – and old allies – Iran and Russia.