The Hokus Pokus About The Quad and AUKUS

The Hokus Pokus About The Quad and AUKUS

                                                                                  Saeed Naqvi

 

Robert Blackwill, US ambassador at the time of anti terror fireworks over Afghanistan, had established a tradition of seating guests at lunch around a circular table, where he grandly held forth, initiating a discussion. “Imagine I am Henry Kissinger” would be one of his opening gambits. An idea was tossed up. A discussion followed. The one who spoke the most, ate the least, because all plates were removed in one swoop.

On one such occasion, before soup was served, the ambassador announced with considerable satisfaction that Pakistan’s President Musharraf had decided to join the global war on terror as the frontline state.

Seated to my right the late Pranab Mukherjee, was agitated. He whispered his anger to me. It was uncanny. What he whispered was exactly the question shaping up in my mind. I raised my hand: “You are aware that New Delhi had complained consistently about cross border terrorism from Pakistan particularly since 1989.” Pranab Da (as Mukherjee was affectionately addressed) completed my question in his typical arrangement of words: “It is most worrying no doubt – you now have Pakistan as the frontline state in your war against terror?” pause. “They perpetrate terror against this county.”

Blackwill spoke volumes in two brief sentences:

“Musharraf has joined us in our global war on terror. What you are talking about is your old regional quarrel.” Juxtapose this with the Quad-AUKUS equation.

Atal Behari Vajpayee, as Prime Minister, had hosted President Bill Clinton for full five days in January 2000, just the previous year. Clinton spent just five hours in Islamabad, mostly chastising Musharraf for disrupting regional peace since Kargil. New Delhi was in seventh heaven. Terms of endearment with Washington had radically altered.

In a little over a year, had George W Bush, reversed that equation? Pakistan was incorporate into the global war on terror even as New Delhi cried foul. Pakistan was in the “A” team against terror; we were not.

Likewise, there is this idea of Quad in which New Delhi is such an enthusiastic participant. Australians and the Japanese did, frequently, vent their skepticism, invested as they were in the Chinese economy. After the American debacle in Kabul, however, Tokyo’s misgiving on Quad were all over the Japanese media. The hemorrhage had to be forestalled.

With the suddenness of revelation came the announcement of AUKUS (Australia, UK, US), the powerful military alliance in Indo-Pacific of which India alas, is not a partner. So New Delhi is trying to pack content into an abruptly devalued Quad. Did Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s photograph with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on the margins of the UNGA, flatter New Delhi? Pardon my complexes, does not a leader wearing AUKUS plus Quad badges dwarf the one with a frayed Quad pinned to the lapel? I would not go as far as the wag who takes the uncharitable view that the US takes India for granted exactly as secular political parties regard the Muslim vote: where else can they go?

AUKUS must have been in the works for some time but it was sprung upon the world when the US felt the earth move from beneath its feet in Kabul. The furious response from France only disguises anger in the EU which is talking of security outside NATO. That AUKUS is a purely Anglophone grouping should not be a surprise. Games have been played before to keep some clubs racially segregated.

For instance, when the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 placed a question mark on the need for NATO, Margaret Thatcher, then on a trip to Helsinki, was asked by a reporter: Now that the Soviet threat has gone, what was the justification for Britain’s nuclear deterrent?

Thatcher shot back “We still have a problem in the Middle East.” Thereafter, along with George Bush the senior, she began to put together “a coalition of the willing” ostensibly to oust Saddam Hussain from Kuwait. Saddam-in-Kuwait was the ignition point, not the larger perspective against which Operation Desert Storm of 1991 was designed.

Anglophone dominance of the world order since World War II, faced a challenge. Soviet collapse had brought about a reunification of Germany. This at a time when the Japanese economy was booming. It was easy to raise the spectre of AXIS, without actually mentioning the “A” word.

France, always ready with its own compass to navigate world affairs, initially dragged its feet on the coalition led by US and UK. President Francoise Mitterand was among the last to join the “coalition of the willing”. It was the biggest military coalition since 1945 – a grouping of 39 countries. Given their obsession, Pundits may be interested to know that Pakistan was part of that coalition.

As one who covered the story from Baghdad, I am possibly the only Indian witness who can confirm that the show was run exclusively by US and Britain. There were two separate press briefings, for the US and British media by their respective spokesmen. French journalists, like the lonesome me, were on the outside. It may be added in parenthesis, that the British media on this occasion were the poor cousins. From the terrace of the Al Rashied hotel, Peter Arnett of the CNN inaugurated what came to be known as the global media. The war was brought live into the world’s drawing rooms. John Simpson of the BBC, by comparison, cut a sorry figure, walking around with a satellite telephone. It was only after being beaten by the CNN during Operation Desert Storm that the BBC World Service TV was launched.

To revert to AUKUS, yes the French fury is understandable. Not only was a $90 billion submarine order being stolen, but an Anglophone dominated world order was being perpetuated. This is what infuriated President Emmanuel Macron. It just so happens that the turn of events has also provided Macron with an occasion to fall back on a de Gaulle style nationalism just when his ratings are plummeting and all manner of candidates are tossing their hats in the ring for the next elections.

#          #          #          #

Limits To Power: Taleban In Kabul, Jailbreak In Israel

Limits To Power: Taleban In Kabul, Jailbreak In Israel

                                                                                     Saeed Naqvi

 

What could possibly be common between the Taleban brandishing their weapons in Kabul and Palestinians twirling their spoons (yes, tea-spoons) with a flourish? Well, the latter were celebrating because six Palestinian prisoners had pulled off a seemingly impossible escape from the high security Gilboa prison in Northern Israel. Clearly an embarrassment for a state which flaunts national security as a marketable commodity. The spoon has become an emblem because the six used it as an implement to dig a hole in the toilet attached to their cell.

The prisoners, according to Israeli authorities, were affiliated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. According to the Times of Israel, the leader of the group, Zakaria Zubeidi, was “a former commander in Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.” That Zubeidi and three others (at the time of writing) have been arrested is a separate chapter. Kabul and Gilboa establish without any shadow of a doubt a reality all too common in history: limits to power. In this instance, the US globally and its ally Israel, regionally – particularly considering its stalemate with Arab militias like Hezbollah.

Massive intelligence failure attended both the events. True, a jailbreak cannot be compared with the reconquest of a country but that is not the way Palestinians see it. The Times of Israel reports: “the escape is considered a highly symbolic success for the terror groups. It is being celebrated with ‘euphoria’ among Palestinians.”

Taleban, likewise, in the initial flush are folk heroes in Afghanistan and beyond having done a David on Goliath. To bring out the irony in sharp focus on the US debacle in Afghanistan, recall the January 29, 2002, State of the Union address by President George W Bush. The President sketched in bold colours the “Axis of Evil.” Ironies upon ironies attend that speech. Bush welcomes Hamid Karzai as “leader of liberated Afghanistan.” Karzai is now under house arrest. Bush gloats “Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay.” There is a disconcerting update on this too. Not only have Taleban returned to power in Kabul, atleast five in the new Kabul power structure were released from Guantanamo Bay in 2015.

What does all this portend? Is a phase of Imperialism coming full circle? One cannot expect US President Joe Biden to say it in quite that language, but what else does one make of his promise to end “never ending” wars. American youth who are now 20 years of age, have never seen “America at peace.” Suicide rate among military veterans as high as 18 per day? Biden, clearly abhors this data.

The problem, ofcourse is, that Biden is only the President, not the system. Even so he is proceeding with some sense of the consensus he has forged around him. For him to declassify secret FBI report which reveals the connection of Saudi Nationals to 9/11, indicates a sharp departure from past practice. Remember the days of George W Bush and his buddy Saudi Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan, or Bandar Bush as he was called because of his chumminess with the President? Those days seem like ancient history, days when Israel and Saudi Arabia were equally sacrosanct. Both had to be protected from bad copy.

And now even military protection is being withdrawn. In recent weeks the US removed its most advanced missile defense system, and Patriot batteries from the Kingdom which faces attacks from, say, Houthis in Yemen. Troop reductions from Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan have also been confirmed by the Pentagon. Departure from Afghanistan will remain vivid in our minds for years. Despite these stories every American strategist will tell you “the Middle East is not being abandoned.” There is that “over the horizon” capability which includes updated drones. British premier Boris Johnson calls it “outside-in” ability.

Israel, which is busy adjusting to limits on its power as a concept, must place in its calculus the US distancing itself from the Arab theatre. Yes, support for Israel in the US remains durable – Jewish control of banks, media, institutes of learning, election, finance. What is not so well known is what Noam Chomsky describes as much the most powerful support for Israel – Christian Zionism. Former Israeli Ambassador in the US, Ron Dermer, has urged Israel to prioritize maintaining the support of the American evangelical Christian. It must be assiduously wooed. “People must understand that the backbone of support for Israel in the US is the evangelical Christian.” The quote is from The Palestinian Policy Network, Al-Shabaka. Israel can breathe easy because there is no indication of Biden distancing himself from this line of thinking.

US thinning out from the region will accentuate popular perception of Israel’s exclusive support base inside the US. As Israel rolls its eyes around to size up the neighbourhood for subtle adjustments, it will find to its chagrin, Iran undiminished. Houthis in Yemen, Hashd al Shaabi in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, groups supportive of President Assad in Syria and increasing reports of Iranian role in Afghanistan, initiated by the late Quds Commander, Qasem Soleimani – all of these enhance Iran’s position in the region. The cookie in Afghanistan having crumbled the way it has, Iran’s role in this theatre may in the future be of interest to the US.

The launch of AUKUS (Australia, UK and US) an idea borrowed conceptually from ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand and US) against the Soviet Union shows the urgency Biden accords to what Barack Obama called “pivot to Asia”. The pivot was of much greater saliency. West Asia, though still important, had placed a disproportionate demand on Washington’s attention. The nuclear deal conferred on Tehran the kind of legitimacy that was to have enabled it to balance power in the region. This would be in concert with Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Turkey. The regional balance of power would then require less day to day attention, freeing Washington to pay greater attention to the pivot. That appears to be the route on Biden’s GPS.

#          #          #          #

Is Biden Ending Islamophobia? What Shall We Do Then?

Is Biden Ending Islamophobia? What Shall We Do Then?

                                                                                Saeed Naqvi

Our media has been pegging away, at a nagging length, on the “terrorists” in the Taleban cabinet and who are controlled by Pakistan. The information available to us would have been so much more reliable had our embassy not shut entirely. Our ambassador had to leave early because in the Taleban versus US-Ghani conflict we clearly sided with the losing side. Is the media campaign against an alleged Taleb-Pak compact part of our rearguard action? Considering that the first demonstration by women was against Pakistan interference in Kabul proves two things: that a demonstration can take place under Taleb rule and that Pakistan being the target is occasion for reflection: Indians are not unpopular at the street level, Pakistan is.

Consistency continued to define coordination with the defeated occupiers at the UN where, as rotational President of the Security Council, we navigated a resolution on Afghanistan on terms which caused Russia and China to abstain.

This does not mean we are not on talking terms with Moscow. In fact Nikolai Patrushev, Russian National Security Chief was in the capital on the same day as CIA Director William Burns. It may be too early to spot a pattern, but overt engagement by the NSA with his counterparts and a low key if not exactly covert contact with the Taleban by the MEA –– this seems to be the emerging pattern. The Shanghai Co-operation Organization sponsored regional conference on Afghanistan in Dushanbe on September 16-17 may clarify future approaches.

How long will the media froth in the mouth about Taleb-Pak perfidy? Supposing the Talebs consolidate themselves independent of Islamabad, will the media change? How will it make the summersault? The town criers have their difficulties. Having spread saffron with a sense of dedication over decades, they surely cannot be expected to abruptly put saffron back in the bottle.

The Modi regime’s requirement are not for short term Taleban bashing. It would like the “ogre” in public view at least until UP elections, February to March. What with the farmers agitation, joblessness, dipping economy, scary price rise, vaccine vacillations, Covid confusion, demoralizing Bengal defeat, courts finding their feet, all these and more can only be thwarted by a double fisted saffron punch. There is nothing else in the toolkit. Political fortunes would sink if, say, Yogi Adityanath were by some miraculous trick seen with a Taleban. In other words, all regional initiatives involving Talebs have to be kept on hold. In any case, Muslim bashing is almost a reflex action.

The recent controversy sought to be created on Naseeruddin Shah’s oracular sermon distancing Indian Muslims from Taleb celebrations in Kabul was a function of the majority community’s stereotype expectations of Muslim behaviour. Naseer, his supporters and detractors completely misread the Muslim reaction to the emergence of Taleb power in Kabul. Muslims are thrilled at the Americans being trounced, not Talebs coming to power. That the Talebs beat the mighty power entitles them to admiration, not their Islamism and the accompanying optics.

When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited President George W Bush, during his March 2006 visit to New Delhi, to address a joint session of Parliament, Muslims protested in such large numbers that Ramlila ground overflowed onto the roads. It was acute Muslim anger at Bush for having spread Islamophobia worldwide in the guise of the global war on terror. Bush’s address to the two Houses was called off. The President picnicked at the Old Fort instead. In other words, anti Americanism is all pervasive among Muslim for an obvious reason: US led war on terror indiscriminately cast them in unacceptable stereotypes.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi may know a thing or two about political profit from the war on terror. By an amazing configuration of stars. Modi was sworn in as Chief Minister of Gujarat on October 7, 2001, exactly the day when US began air strikes on Afghanistan. When the world’s most spectacular fireworks dominated TV screens 24X7, terrorism became the flavour of the season for our leaders. When I turned up at Godhra after the train carnage, Collector, Jayanti Ravi, was unable to give details because, she said, the case had been instantly handed over to Vijay Vipul, DIG anti terror squad even before preliminary inquiries had been made. The carnage was on act of terror: period.

The rise and rise of Modi was in an atmosphere of the global war on terror, the musical score taken to its crescendo by what Ravish Kumar calls the “godi” (to rhyme with Modi) or “lapdog” media. Deafening reverberations from that music predictably greets the arrival of Taleban too. The Modi regime’s political baptism took place when the world was in the grip of high decibel Islamophobia. Historical Hindu grievances were reinforced by the US war on terror. An anti Muslim edge now defines our DNA.

With the suddenness of revelation Joe Biden has announced an end to “never ending” wars on terror, a stance most disorienting for the rulers who cannot conceive life sans Islamophobia.

Taleban is not the only problem. All countries ringing Afghanistan are Muslim. The only non Muslim neighbour is China, which is worse. EAM Jaishankar has been meeting Iranian leaders in Tehran. He may be able to corroborate well known Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan who is convinced that the ferocity of the Taleban advance was not the only reason for victory. Covert help from Russia and Iran were too. One reason for eliminating the iconic Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani was the fact that he planned military strategy for Taleban, persuaded them to shed their anti Shiaism and convinced his regime that the Taleban was the only force with wide support among the country’s 18 million Pushtoon – they alone could forge a wider coalition to defeat America. He appointed Esmail Qaani as the Liaison Officer with the Taleban. Qaani is now Soleimani’s successor.

All of this should provide comfort. Pakistan may not be the only puppeteer pulling the strings.

#          #          #          #

US-Afghan: “A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma?”

US-Afghan: “A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma?”

                                                                                          Saeed Naqvi

 

The regional summit in Dushanbe, capital of Tajikistan, on September 16 and 17 under the auspices of the Shanghai Co-operative Organization, will search for greater clarity on whether or not the Taleban have begun to find their feet in Kabul.

There is undoubtedly more bounce in the tread of Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mohammad Qureshi as he touches capitals of countries sharing borders with Afghanistan. Such a summit would for Pakistan be what dreams are made of. China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan all have borders. But the Tajik border with Afghanistan is supervised by Russian troops. Even otherwise, as members of SCO, both Russia and India will qualify.

New Delhi, which had placed its eggs in the Ashraf Ghani’s basket in Kabul under US supervision, is now looking for new hatcheries. A quest for alternatives has been tentatively on for some time. Has New Delhi been nimble or are some of the others listed above spotted in the new situation an occasion to lessen New Delhi’s absolute dependence on Washington. The narrative that Washington has promoted Islamabad as a dominant player in Kabul, unsettles South Block. Which is why it is being whispered in New Delhi’s ears.

Reaching out to the Taleban or countries bordering Afghanistan, entails internal adjustments, toning down jingoism, a tricky proposition on the eve of elections in UP in 2022 or national elections in 2024. That is the Modi regime’s problem.

On Afghanistan, my mantra is: that which is, is not. Yes, on the face of it, United States has suffered a defeat as humiliating as the one in Vietnam in 1975. In the minds of the new-cons around George W Bush, all the reversals of the 70s and 80s (and there were many) would be forgotten in the post Soviet “full spectrum global dominance”, the “American century”. But alas there never was any restoration of the American élan after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008-09. It has been downhill since despite the town criers who have been allotted the facility of the global media.

This media and its backers will continue to pester Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. The optics must be horrible for a people who have never been aware of the untold destruction of some of the world’s oldest civilizations. It would make your hair stand if you realize the callousness of those who looted the Baghdad museum, watched Palmyra, bombed and Bamiyan Buddhas destroyed. Yes the last act was by Taleban, creatures reared in the hundreds of Madrasas on the Pakistan side of the border, financed by the Saudis, trained by the ISI and armed by the US. Never forget Zbigniew Brzezinski’s words. “We were not worried about some stirred up Muslims” he said. “Our purpose was to defeat the Soviet Union.” This mission was achieved, but in the process were created Mujahideen/Taleban, the next target for the Military Industrial Complex, breeding Islamophobia, the driving force for more Talebanization and worse.

Biden’s speech on Afghan withdrawal has to be read in full. He has already set into motion the mother of all debates on foreign policy. “Foreign policy that emphasizes military restraint and diplomatic engagement and co-operation with other nations will serve American interests and values better than policies that prioritize the maintenance of global dominance through military means.” The new debate initiated by the Quincy Institute, is on these lines.

The focus, Biden said, will now be on “competition” with China and Russia. “And there is nothing China or Russia would rather have, would want more in this competition than the United States to be bogged down on another decade in Afghanistan.”

His amplification of this decision is refreshing. “The decision is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.”

The figures Biden furnished were known but the break up was an eye opener: $300 million per day for 20 years? 20,774 American servicemen/women injured and 2,461 killed. “We’ve been a nation too long at war; if you’re 20 years old today, you have never known an America at peace.”

He cites what he rightly calls a “shocking and stunning statistic” for those who believe wars can be low risk or low cost: “18 veterans, on an average, die by suicide every single day in America.”

If Biden’s statement marks a sincere departure from recent American foreign excesses, America may well be on a path when it will recover its stature as a nation to be admired not feared. But those prone to dreaming such dreams too willingly must know how circumscribed a President’s power are. Barack Obama came to power swearing he would shut Guantanamo Bay as an “un American” facility. The facility till flourishes. A file for “eyes only” placed on the President’s table in the Oval office by the intelligence agencies will pulverize any President.

There is an expression in Persian: “Sahle mantane” which means incomprehensible in its simplicity. That is the kind of puzzle Afghanistan is today. On August 15, Taleban enter Kabul, an event touted as great victory over the US. On August 24, William Burns, CIA Director, is accorded a welcome by Taleban’s Abdul Ghani Baradar for “secret talks”. What on earth is going on? The existence of ISIS-K was known for years, why does military action take place only after 175 people including US servicemen have been killed by a suicide bomber outside Kabul airport?

Russia’s Permanent envoy to the UN Vassily Nebenzia was livid with US, UK, France, India for not accommodating his concerns about mass brain drain facilitated by the US airlift, and the freezing of Afghan assets. Is a scorched earth policy being pursued? Russia and China abstained from voting on the resolution on Afghanistan adopted by the UN Security Council.

Will the West squeeze the Taleban until the pips squeak? Another great game may well have begun at a time when Biden is singing a different tune. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma?

#          #          #          #