Afghan imbroglio

By S P SETH

Some of the recent events in Afghanistan might as well be the script for a horror movie. We have the spectacle of US soldiers urinating on corpses of their Taliban enemy, burning copies of Koran and, the most recent dastardly act of, an American soldier systematically breaking into some Afghan homes and killing family members, including women and children, without any rhyme or reason. The killings are said to be the random acts of a lone US soldier. But try telling this to the Afghan people who detect a pattern in US cruelty with no respect for Afghan lives.

Whatever the explanation, the damage is done with the US headed for exit from Afghanistan, sooner rather than later. The US, in any case, was already looking for a dignified exit by 2014 but that might not be happening now. The Taliban has suspended its tenuous contacts with the US in Qatar, with no new interlocutors in sight in such a charged atmosphere. And Karzai has asked the US to confine its troops to major bases, with a corresponding lull in counter-insurgency operations and nation building tasks for the period ahead. Of course, Karzai doesn’t want to be left behind the Taliban in voicing displeasure and frustration with the US. It is increasingly becoming an untenable situation for the US and NATO military presence in Afghanistan, and how it is sorted out would remain to be seen.

If history is any guide, the British had an awful time in the 19^th century with their recurrent military expeditions into Afghanistan. In 1841, its entire force of 16,500 perished but for one soldier. The Soviet Union’s experience in 1980s was equally ignominious, eventually leading to a humiliating withdrawal after many casualties and lost morale. With some luck the US might stage a more orderly withdrawal and without total humiliation.

Ever since the US surge of 2009 with some initial successes, the military operations in Afghanistan have largely been a holding operation to contain the Taliban. The other two elements of the US strategy---to secure the interior and foster nation building ---have not made much headway. The Taliban were always around, making tactical retreat here and there, with people collaborating with them either out of fear or loyalty. As for raising the new Afghan national army and police forces with funding and training from the US and allies, they are proving highly porous riddled with Taliban influence and volunteers.

Since the US hasn’t really succeeded in creating a popular national Afghan counter-force to the Taliban, the prognosis for the country is for more chaos and bloodshed after the US withdrawal. Because of the Karzai government’s virtually total dependence on US armed presence and funding, it might not take long for the entire edifice to collapse with the new Afghan army splintering into groups fighting for competing power contenders or operating free-lance.

The Karzai government has very little popular support in the country for two good reasons. First: it is seen as American creation and imposition. And second: it is corrupt to the bone. And no matter what Karzai does, now and then, to attack US acts and behavior in Afghanistan, he lacks credibility. And the time is coming when his contradictory, but ineffectual politics of playing all sides of the game, might land him in an awful lot of trouble with no escape hatch.

On surface it might seem that the Taliban will be able to reclaim their lost kingdom in Afghanistan. Earlier they had come on top in the civil war that ensued after the Soviet withdrawal. They had three advantages at that time. First: they had, by and large, a clean image as being free of corruption. Second: after the mayhem of the civil war and lawlessness, their commitment to enforce strict Islamic rule found favor with many Afghans. And third: they had Pakistan’s support for its own strategic reasons, particularly to have a dependent and reliable Afghan regime for, what came to be known, as “defense in depth” against India.

Let us see how far these factors still favor the Taliban. They still are relatively clean compared to the Karzai regime that has become synonymous with corruption. They are likely to have a problem, though, with enforcing strict Islamic rule after the relatively liberal social mores that have developed in some cities, even if they are benefitting only a small class. The limited start to the education of girls is one example. There is also some relaxation of restrictions on entertainment, as with music, films and television. All this is counter to the Taliban precepts and practice, though they are capable of brutal repression.

They still have Pakistan’s support, with their leadership reportedly sheltering in Pakistan. Whether they will do Pakistan’s bidding, when in power, is another thing. It would seem that their rise to power in Afghanistan, after the Soviet withdrawal, did more harm to Pakistan than any good. For one, Pakistani Taliban have been an outgrowth of the Taliban in Afghanistan, with disastrous consequences for the country. Second, their sheltering and support of the al Qaeda leadership, blamed for the 9/11 bombing of the US targets, made Pakistan the witting or unwitting theatre of the US war against Afghanistan. The consequences for Pakistan of all this are still playing out.

In any case, any possible Taliban ascendancy in the post-US Afghanistan is unlikely to bring lasting peace and unity to Afghanistan and, by implication, to Pakistan. At best the Taliban might become dominant in the Pushtun region of the country, setting in motion another civil war against other ethnic and sectarian communities. The Pashtuns, the largest community at 42 per cent, are not the majority. And the Taliban have virtually no support among other sizeable groups of Afghans. The Tajiks are reportedly the second biggest at 27 per cent, followed by Hazaras and Uzbeks at 9 per cent each, with small communities of Aimak (4 per cent), Turkmens (3 per cent) and Baloch (2 percent).

When Afghanistan had some stability under King Zahir Shah, it functioned as a loose coalition of diverse tribes, clans, sects and ethnic groups operating basically as autonomous groups. The overthrow of the King in 1973 by his cousin, Prince Daud, started a chain of events that has meant a continuing state of instability and warfare to this day. Which doesn’t mean that the solution lies in bringing back monarchy. What it means is that any system that tends to centralize authority in Kabul, be it under the Taliban or whatever, will simply prolong Afghan agony. There is need for a flexible and accommodative political dispensation with tolerance in diversity. The Taliban are hardly the kind for a process of national reconciliation and unity, with their ideological and religious rigidity. Not only will they prove divisive in Afghanistan but are likely to plunge even Pakistan further into confusion and chaos.

Note: This article was first published in the daily Times.

China’s race to become superpower

By S.P.SETH

China is in a hurry to become the world’s superpower. It is now the world’s second largest economy and might overtake the US in a decade or two. It will, however, still lag behind the US in terms of per capita GDP for a long while yet. In other words, many of its people will still struggle to make a decent living.

China is now also a major military power, with enough deterrence to discourage any threat to its national security. But it still finds its ambition to do what it likes constrained for a number of reasons.

The main obstacle being that the US is not facilitating its unilateral claims over South China Sea and its island chains. Washington is also not terribly keen on conceding Asia-Pacific region as China’s strategic space.

Beijing realizes that without US understanding, if not support, of its “core” interests and strategic concerns, China will feel thwarted in its primacy over the region. Not surprisingly then, China’s vice-president and leader-in-waiting, Xi Jinping, said in Beijing, just before his US visit, that he hoped “the US can view China’s strategic intentions… in a sensible and objective way…”

And he emphasized that: “Ultimate caution should be given to major and sensitive issues that concern each country’s core interests to avoid any distraction and setbacks in China-US relations.” Apparently, he didn’t succeed in this respect during his recent US visit.

Beijing is angry that the US is increasing its military muscle in the region. Reacting to President Obama’s recent announcement that the US would be prioritizing Asia-Pacific as part of its new strategic direction, Xinhua warned that, “If the US indiscreetly applies militarism in the region, it will be like a bull in a china shop [literally and figuratively], and endanger peace instead of enhancing regional stability.”

Another problem is that China’s neighbors, though duly impressed with its growing power, are not willing to give up their core interests. For instance, China’s sovereignty claims over regional waters and island chains are strongly contested by several South East countries, as well as Japan in the East China Sea.

And some of these neighbors have close strategic ties with the United States. Australia, for instance, feels that China’s growing power will destabilize the region, thus posing a security threat.

There are two ways for China to deal with these constraints. The first is to persuade the US to let China sort out its problems with its neighbors, without Washington’s overt or covert backing for them. If this were to happen, Beijing might not have much problem “persuading” its neighbors to see things China’s way.

However, this is unlikely. Therefore, there is no way for China to test this hypothesis since the US is not vacating the region for China’s power games.

The second way is to tell its neighbors, in no uncertain terms, that contesting China’s sovereignty claims might mean exclusion from beneficial economic relations with China. Their strategic tilt against China, as part of closer ties and/or security alliance with the US might, therefore, cost them dearly.

Australia has clearly received this message. In a recent editorial, the Sydney Morning Herald wrote: “Cui Liru, the head of the Institute of Contemporary International Relations in Beijing, warned that the economic relationship could not mask the strategic divide with China.”

It opined, “The underlying message was that Australia would have to catch up with the reality of growing Chinese power.”

No doubt, similar messages are being conveyed overtly and covertly to other regional countries that are cozying up to the United States.

Will it work? It is hard to say. But so far it is having the opposite effect. China’s flexing of muscles lately has had the effect of pushing some of these countries into a tighter US embrace, as well as creating bilateral and regional linkages.

Xi Jinping’s visit was intended to soften China’s image regarding its regional ambitions. But the differences with the US remain, because it refuses to acknowledge China’s privileged position in the Pacific.

For instance, on Taiwan, the US is continuing to sell defensive weapons despite China’s insistent pressure against it.

And that applies to the Korean peninsula too, with the US committed to its alliance with South Korea.

In a sense, China wants to enforce its own Monroe doctrine in the Pacific area.

If the US were to concede China’s sphere of influence in the region, China’s neighbors would feel vulnerable.

Obviously this is not going to happen, with all signs pointing to the US determination to become more active in the Asia-Pacific region.

According to Aaron L. Friedberg, in his book A Contest for Supremacy… , China’s goal is “to displace the United States as the dominant player in East Asia, and perhaps to extrude it from the region altogether.”

As for any common ground on international issues, the currently hot issues of Iran and Syria are a matter of contention. While supportive of nuclear non-proliferation, China is not keen on becoming part of the US-sponsored strict regime of comprehensive economic sanctions.

On Syria, China, along with Russia, has vetoed the UN Security Council resolution to condemn the regime’s bloodbath of its own people.

Another issue clouding their relationship is North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. There is some hope that Pyongyang might put a moratorium on its nuclear program in exchange for US food aid.

China has been playing a helpful role with its Beijing-sponsored on–off six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue but has resisted putting decisive pressure on its North Korean ally.

At the global level, China lacks commensurate clout in the existing international order designed and shaped, after WW11, by the United States and its western allies.

However, over the last few years, due to global financial crisis, the United States is starting to appear a bit wobbly giving China, as its major creditor, a lift in its global ranking.

At the same time, Europe is limping with the euro zone racked with debts.

With US and Europe in economic difficulties, China will seek to change international economic institutions to its advantage, with its financial power.

But it is still a long way to go for China.

For instance, even with all US’ economic problems, the US dollar still remains the world’s reserve currency. And when the economic news is bad, there is still a rush on US dollar as a dependable asset.

Even China is heavily invested in US bonds and treasury notes.

Therefore, it is too early to say that China will replace the US as the world’s superpower.

And considering the rising social unrest and other domestic problems, including its slowing economy, it might take a long time for China, if at all, to become the world’s top dog.

Iranian Nuclear Threat?

By S P SETH

Every country has its demons and they are particularly handy when rallying people against an enemy. Iran is such a demon with Israel, the US and the west. It even sprung up at a recent forum on Australian TV, when Iran’s perceived nuclear threat was the subject of a discussion among the participants. Some high profiled Israeli participants argued that it was not only a threat to Israel but also the world at large. The general argument, spoken or unspoken, is that the “mad mullahs” ruling Iran have no respect for human rights and hence not subject to any rational concern for humanity. They will, therefore do anything to advance their agenda. Of course, the threat to Israel from Iran’s nuclear program, the argument goes, is the greatest as it has threatened to wipe out Israel from existence. Though Tony Judt, a “self-hating Jew” as his fellow Jews would call him, questioned this Israeli formulation. He reportedly said that “the fear that Israel could be wiped off the face of the earth…” is not a genuine fear. In his view, it is politically calculated rhetorical strategy.

The question, though, is: how is Iran’s so far non-existent nuclear weapons a threat, when Israel has enough nuclear bombs to not only wipe out Iran but also all its Arab neighbors, if it chose to do so? But that is never the question. It is stated as a fact that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and it will hardly wait to wipe out Israel from the face of the earth. Therefore, before it might even happen Israel has to preemptively destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Letting Iran become a nuclear power is even more dangerous than the old cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union where nuclear threat was contained through mutual deterrence. Because, as Jonathan Freedland argues in a recent column in the Guradian: “But an Iran-Israel nuclear stand-off would not be like the US-Soviet containment of the cold war, with its lines of communication and negotiated military doctrines underpinning a stable detente. There is no such communication or mutual understanding between Iran and Israel.” Therefore, if Iran were to become a nuclear power: “ The Middle East and the world would be on a hair-trigger to nuclear war.”

These are self-serving arguments that portray Iran as a demon of sorts not bound by any notion of rationality and morality. Writing in the Guardian, Professor John Mueller, author of the book Atomic Obsession, observes, “Iran’s leadership, though unpleasant in many ways, is not a gaggle of suicidal lunatics.” And he warns that, “ If Iran wants to develop a nuclear weapon, the only way it can be effectively stopped is invasion and occupation, an undertaking that would make America’s costly war in Iraq look like child’s play…”

However, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has reportedly said, “We are not seeking nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic of Iran considers possession of nuclear weapons a sin…and believes that holding such weapons is useless, harmful and dangerous.”

The point to make, though, is that any country acquiring nuclear capability can graduate to making a bomb if it puts its mind and resources to it. But, even then, it is not an easy task spread over a number years involving miniaturization of weapons and the appropriate missile technology and capability. By any reckoning Iran is nowhere near it. The 20 per cent enrichment claim, recently made by Iran, even if true, falls way short of the required enrichment capacity of about 90 per cent.

The available intelligence, despite all the scaremongering, doesn’t support that Iran is moving to acquire nuclear bombs. Even the Obama administration, having first exaggerated the Iranian nuclear threat, is now seeking to dissuade Israel from its preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear installations. Indeed, as David Patrikarakos writes in the London Review of Books, “ While railing against the iniquity of international institutions [including the International Atomic Energy Agency], Iran… at no point has suggested that the system itself is wrong, merely that it is unfairly weighted against the developing world.” He adds: “The Islamic Republic does not seek to overthrow the international order but to be accorded what it believes is its proper place within it.” In other words, Iran refuses to be demonized or treated as a pariah state-- its fate since the 1979 revolution.

It is already under one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes designed to cripple its economy. And Israel is openly threatening that it will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the next couple of months if the present sanctions regime doesn’t work. Such Israeli bellicosity is even starting to worry the United States, even though it is in agreement with Israel about the dangers of a nuclear Iran and, as President Obama keeps saying that all US options are open to prevent Iran from doing this. In this US presidential election year, the Republican contenders are outdoing each other in espousing Israeli hard line against Iran.

But the Obama administration and the US military brass are now urging and pleading with Israel not to light the fuse lest it all goes haywire. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff recently warned that an Israeli “strike [on Iran] at this time would be destabilizing”, a euphemism to denote that things could get out of control. Indeed, the view in the US intelligence and military community, is that bombing Iran, as Lieutenant General David Deptula (retired) has said “ain’t going to be that easy.” The New York Times also quotes Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, as saying that air strikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program are “beyond the capacity” of Israel.

The Israeli Government will be fully aware of these limitations, as it has even been warned against this course by some of its former top intelligence operatives. But the entire stratagem seems meant to create a situation where the US would have no option but to be sucked into another war in the Middle East started by Israel. If that were to happen, the US might find itself facing a situation worse than its ill-fated military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. In its present weakened economic situation, with hefty cuts in defense expenditure over the next ten years, another military adventure will be disastrous for the United States, not to speak of the misery it will inflict on Iranian people. As for Israel, with a progressively weakened US strategic shield, its Iranian adventure might be a case of one adventure too many.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.