About Me

My photo
Strategic Thinkers, Social Science Researchers, writing on Geopolitics, International Affairs, Foreign Policy, Military Affairs. All views and opinions on the blog are personal. Follow Blog hawkeyereport.blogspot.in

November 29, 2016

Move over Strategic Culture Focus on Development-Indian Example

India is a powerful game player in South Asia. How India shapes its diplomatic policies and markets its strategic culture will determine or determines the strategic culture of South Asia. The United States is keen on building close strategic ties with India as a counterweight to China in the South Asian Region.

International Politics thrives on balance of power. In strategic culture power plays a very key role. Power determines wars and nature of conflict and post conflict transformation of societies. Diplomatic and military policies also determine power structure in International Politics. Without force there can be no strategic culture. Deployment of the armed forces is a natural corollary to safeguarding territorial boundaries and homeland security.
Indias strategic thought is largely determined by the currents and undercurrents of politics in Pakistan. The recent change of guard, Army Chief has added to the woes of Indian establishment trying to settle disputes, proxy wars and Pakistan backed terrorist activities on Indian Soil.
What is war or strategic culture?
Strategic culture in the words of Johnston is an integrated set of symbols (i.e. argumentation structures, languages, analogies, metaphors etc) that acts to establish pervasive and long lasting grand strategic preferences by formulating concepts of the role and efficacy of force in interstate political affairs and by clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the strategic preferences seem uniquely realistic and efficacious.
Karl von Clausewitz's argument that war 'is only a part of political intercourse, therefore by no means an independent thing in itself .war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other means'. This definition helps in understanding the broader setting in which war is located. Voices all across the academia has elicited the response that the entire spectrum of war or strategic culture has shifted inexorably from the traditional military dimension to areaslike political and economic warfare, psychological warfare, etc. War is the use of organised force between two human groups pursuing contradictory policies, each group seeking to impose its policies upon the other'. Malinowski defines war as an 'armed conflict between two independent political units, by means of organised military force, in pursuit of a tribal or national policy'.
Quincy Wright accepts that war is waged on the diplomatic, economic, and propaganda fronts as well as on the military front and that the art of war coordinates all these elements to the purpose of victory.
What is victory?
Was the recent cancellation of SAARC summit to be held in Islamabad a victory of the SAARC nations over Pakistan? Irrational use of resource, is it victory? The very purpose of the United Nations was to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Are UN sanctions victory?
Strategic culture is also piling up of nuclear weapons in the name of self defence. In a word torn apart by conflict this is a serious issue? The solution is nothing but economic development, trade and smart business investments development of smart cities etc. Addressing the issues of hunger poverty, malnourishment, child mortality rate, human rights violations, human trafficking, gender based violence are all important components of strategic culture. India is heading towards becoming a global power and in what appears to be a clear indication from the Indian establishment that one needs to develop deeper insights into understanding foreign relations with India’s neighbours all of them and form a common culture of strategic policy and diplomacy. Means rather than ends are important. And the means are economic empowerment and socio political development of the region. The Nehruvian policy that Pakistan can be dealt with dialogue is utopian now.


November 27, 2016

Does India Have a Foreign Policy?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s hard-line approach to project India as a superpower and as an upcoming power on global platform has received mixed reactions. The primary goal of any Indian establishment has been to maintain friendly relations with all the nations, cooperation on all grounds and even remaining non aligned with extreme ideology backed states.

Prime Minister Modi has been visiting nations across the globe to strengthen ties on all fronts including military partnerships. His “Make in India” programs to boost defence manufacturing in India and job creation was more than just a slogan or so believe many analysts. Indias first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his policies were directed towards projecting India as strong state post independence and till date the Congress Party holds on to ancient policies paying little heed to the changing dynamics of Indian Foreign Policy.

The concept of power plays a major role in the theoretical understanding of International Relations. It essentially means self reliance and freedom in deciding local and international matters or sovereignty so to speak. But India as a country is obsessed with hero worship. The Prime minister is not just an elected representative but the face of India hence sometimes policies dividing the nation go unnoticed as it happened in the recent demonetisation case.

India does not seem to have a blueprint of its foreign policy it seems. It focuses too much on the currents and undercurrents of politics and all stands maintained by the elites are directed towards immediate gains. The vision is lacking. The new buzz word is nuclear. In 1998 when India conducted nuclear tests it wanted to tell the world it’s no longer a weak state. Despite all efforts of Prime Minister Modi's Indias ambition to become a superpower remains largely unrealised.

India’s focus on South Asia has shifted the fulcrum of superpower status inexorably towards its traditional adversary Pakistan. The fact that India has still not been able to get a permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council suggests the blueprint has to be made and made soon.

Pakistan our traditional adversary can be handled only through diplomatic pressures. Indian institutional mechanisms need to be restructured, remodelled, and reequipped in this era of asymmetric threats and changing battlefields. The digital platform is flooded with memes telling India what it should and should not so. British Prime Minister Thatcher had once said by giving publicity to troublemakers through the media we are making them more powerful. The war game in realpolitick is really dirty.

Indian diplomacy went haywire back in 1947, when Jawaharlal Nehru who had no idea about military strategy, war games and diplomatic policies was made the first prime minister of a newly independent and partitioned India. Diplomacy essentially is a process by which a state negotiates with another, putting national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity on top of the agenda. Let’s take a look at the cultural isolation and “Aman ki Asha” (Desire for peace) moves which India has crafted time and again to improve its ties with Pakistan. Budge not says the Pakistani devil, budge says the Indian Angel. The situation our current leaders are in is no less than that of Launcelot gobo, Shakespeare comic character who could not decide on what he wanted to do with life. Does India lack curiosity that questions or may question Pakistani motives? Can we declare war on a nation just on the basis of intuition and instinct?

The Indian establishment needs to articulate its diplomatic policies in such a manner that the impacts of these are felt globally. Pathankot and Uri have acted as catalysts yet again and yet again the matter will fade away given the short shelf life of news stories today. On 2nd October India celebrated the birth anniversary of the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi, who all his life advocated non violence and here we are issuing alerts in several parts of India fearing more Pathankot’s and Uri’s. Is it intelligence failure? Was the timing of the Uri attack in favour of the attackers? Again conjectures. The larger question is can non violent principles be used as tools to settle territorial disputes with Pakistan? Will the K issue always remain the bone of contention or will there be an end of history a Fukuyama like complacency.


India and Pakistan’s strategic and military footprints are getting larger and larger every day. With the dragon raising its head now, and the United States using India in South Asia as a strategic partner, as a counterweight to the dragon, geopolitics is getting murkier than it already is. Will no first use policy by India stop Pakistan from going nuclear? All the above conjectural statements remain open to subjective interpretation, but in my view strong measures do not mean or refer to violent measures. International pressure through organisations such as the United Nations which was put in place to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war are already in place. India’s plan of action must be crystal. We cannot have the “Aman ki Asha” (Desire for Peace) if the grenade and bomb “tamasha” (drama) carries on endlessly.

Time is ripe but India’s on and off bumbling diplomatic, political and strategic policy towards Pakistan needs to be checked by men in uniform. They need to be included in the strategic decision making process. We cannot simply move our forces and pull them back at the whims and fancies of our ministers. This has a direct bearing on our national exchequer too. India cannot trust any other nation too because the rule of the game in geopolitics is that the “Might is always Right”



The Rise and Rise of Fidel Castro



The revenues of Cuban state-run companies are used exclusively for the benefit of the people, to whom they belong. No thieves, no traitors, no interventionists! This time the revolution is for real


Fidel Castro (1926-2016)

There are mixed reactions to the death of Cuban leader Fidel Castro who died on 25th November in Havana, Cuba. While Cuba is mourning the death of its revolutionary leader who was once quoted saying “I think that a man should not live beyond the age when he begins to deteriorate, when the flame that lighted the brightest moment of his life has weakened.” on the other hand the Cuban expatriates in Miami are celebrating.


Born on August 13, 1926, in Biran, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz ruled the Republic of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959-76 after ousting Batista, and then as President from 1976-2008. Castro was politically inclined towards the Marxist Leninist ideology and was a staunch nationalist; under his dispensation Cuba became a one party socialist state, with socialist reforms carried out on large scare and nationalisation of the economy made mandatory, which included nationalisation of business and trade. The leftist anti imperialist tendencies in Castro inspired revolutionaries like Argentine Ernesto Che Guevara to carry out movements against capitalist domination.






In the 1950’s when Castro was the President of the University Committee for Democracy in the Dominican Republic, he joined the strategic expedition that was planned to overthrow the right-wing military junta of Rafael Trujillo, a U.S. ally, in the Dominican Republic. Castro was the brain behind the group called “The Movement” which published the underground newspaper El Acusador. The group also armed and trained anti Batista recruits. Castro kept away from joining hands with the communist PSP as this step would serve to digress the political moderates from the main movement. Interestingly he was in close touch with his brother Raul Castro who was a PSP member.

In many ways Castro’s life story is an inspiring journey in itself. Between 1953-59 Castro was actively involved in the Cuban Revolution fighting for the overthrowing of Fulgencio Batista's military junta. In July 1953 after the failed attack on the Monacada barracks Castro was arrested and put on trial and it is during this time that his famous “History will absolve me” speech inspired millions. Castro was sentenced to fifteen years in Model Prison on the Isla De Pinos.

In a surprising move in 1953  Castro was pardoned by Batista and Castro along with Raul fled to Mexico where he met Argentine Marxist Leninist revolutionary Guevara and convinced him yet again into carrying out attacks to overthrow Batista. The tussle continued and attacked by Batista’s forces, Castro, Raul and Guevara fled to Sierra Maestra where he trained his supporters who were now close to 200 in guerrilla warfare and carried out well coordinated attacks against Batista.

Batista with his conventional style of war couldn’t match up to Castro’s relentless guerrilla tactics and his secret MR-26-7 took control of most of the areas in Sierra Maesta, Oriente and Las Villas. Briefly, Dominican Republic leader Eulogio Cantillo officially took charge of Cuba but was arrested by Castro. Guevara who fought alongside Castro, became the Minister for Industry following the victory of the Cuban revolution. In 1966 Guevara established a guerrilla base in Bolivia. Guevara was later captured and killed in 1967.(The Motorcycle Diaries)

Castro stated that the revolution was a dictatorship of the exploited against the exploiters. He said, “A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past; they talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America? I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating... because it causes war, hypocrisy and competition.”

Castro’s death has left a void in Cuba but his legacy will live on. History will absolve him as he rightly said. What Castro’s supporters saw as a great revolution his critics labelled as dictatorship. Castro stood against the US in the cold war era. The United States had cut ties with Cuba in 1961 amid rising Cold War tensions and imposed a strict economic embargo which largely remains in place more than half a century on. In 2015 the US relationship with Cuba improved, largely as a result of Raul’s overtures and diplomacy was restored under President Obama’s rule in 2015 strengthening cooperative convergence with Cuba on key issues. By now, Castro was seriously ill and no longer handling affairs of state; he did not meet Obama during the landmark visit by the President, the first ever since 1928. Obama has said history would "record and judge the enormous impact" of Castro.

While detractors of Castro have largely ignored his presence in the last few years with his diminishing hold over Cuban politics, he remains a giant both as a revolutionary for his country, as well as for the Marxist Leninist ideology. In his lifetime he continued to be a thorn in the side of the US, and staunchly repudiated the capitalist ideology of the US and its western allies. And even though his ideology has seemingly died its own death, it will remain a challenge to the ills of capitalism and a reminder that all is not well with it either.
















November 25, 2016

Why the Rohingyas Are Not Making Headlines

Thousands of stateless Rohingya Muslims are trying to reach Bangladesh amid reports of abuse by the Burmese army


A United Nations official was recently quoted saying that Myanmar’s western Arakan State has been witness to Burmese authorities carrying out a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims with military atrocities continuing in the garb of combating Islamic militants in the region. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims are fleeing the country and entering into Bangladesh to save their clan from getting extinct. The alleged charges against the Burmese army are very serious - Rape, mass slaughter, burning entire villages and loot, all extremely serious human rights violations. However Bangladesh has not labelled the Rohingyas as refugees and the Bangladeshi establishment is drafting policies to stop the Rohingyas from entering their borders. The Rohingyas are considered to be illegal immigrants by Bangladesh and there is serious resistance to the Rohingyas mixing with the extant Bangladesh demography. The 1.1 million Rohingyas are viewed as one of the worlds’s most persecuted minorities. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims have been crossing the border for decades to seek refuge in one of several refugee camps near Cox’s Bazaar, a major population centre. However moves to staunch the flow of these migrants continue by the Bangladesh government.
The Rakhine region has been on military lockdown since Oct. 9, when nine border police guards were killed in what appear to have been coordinated attacks on three security posts.In a surprising turn of events it is observed that not much coverage is seen on the torture of Rohingya Muslims by the Burmese authorities who have labelled them as jihadists. Serious humanitarian crisis faces the Rohingyas who are denied food and medical aid in the conflict torn zone. The Rohingyas are forced to live in camps in unimaginable conditions.
Aung San Suu Kyi who is considered as the democratic face of Myanmar, has made few statements on the crisis. This is indicative of the tenuous hold on a semblance of democracy that she is maintaining. It is an acknowledged fact that the transition to a democratic set up has been more lip service than anything else, and Suu Kyi is well aware of how quickly things could revert to the earlier military ‘junta’ that ruled over Myanmar for decades and still maintain a stranglehold over politics in the country. The military still controls the key Ministries of Home Affairs, Border Affairs and Defence with activists like Suu Kyi playing minor roles in decision making processes. Owing her well known public persona, it is convenient to keep her as the facade for international interactions such as those with President Obama. This gives a tinge of legitimacy to the state of affairs in Myanmar today, which was under crippling sanctions by the international community during the rule of the military junta.

In a world torn by conflicts perceived as much more serious and apocalyptic, it seems the plight of the Rohingya Muslims has taken a back burner. While it may be worth more TRPs to cover Iraq and Syria and the fight against the Islamic State, it may well be remembered that highlighting the case of the downtrodden also remains an important facet of media reporting. It is in effect a word of caution to the powers that control the media. 

November 24, 2016

Where does the Demonetization debate stand in India?




Demonetization has been defined as the act of stripping an old currency unit of its value as legal tender, in order to introduce new units in to the financial system. The Indian government has recently taken the gigantic step of demonitizing its 500 and 1000 rupee notes, a move which has been hogging the limelight since then. The government claims it is a move to stem the tide of black money or an underground and parallel system which has been sapping the growth of economy, along with some other associated benefits in the short and long term. It is being debated with equal fervour by the opposition parties who seem to have arrived at common ground and hope to make it suitably uncomfortable for the government in order to have an upper hand on other issues.

The said currency notes totalled a whopping 86% of extant currency in India, and the move to demonitize these have made an immense impact on a cash driven economy like India. Most transactions in India are dependant on cash; these include small transactions such as grocery and daily needs shopping, transport, medicare, payment of utility bills such as electricity, gas and water, and larger transactions such as bullion trading, stock market trading, real estate and property. Reasons for the continuation of cash based transactions is the poor penetration of banking services in the hinterland, and urban centres using cash to escape lawful taxation on money heavy activities. Willy nilly there are enough loopholes perpetrated by the financial system that are sought to be exploited by using underhand methods such as these.

The present government under Prime Minister Modi campaigned on a plank of stringent anti- corruption measures and a promise to unearth the black economy which it alleged was a direct result of illegalities that the earlier dispensations allowed to burgeon during their watch. In the present move the government ostensibly is living up to these campaign promises. To the face of it the move to demonitize currency in such a drastic manner seems to do precisely that; force people sitting on large piles of currency to move it in to the banking system or allow it to perish, create conditions to jump start at least the basis of a cashless economy, and initiate measures to use a sledgehammer on illegal transactions. The government promises that it would also ease out inflation in the short term by sucking out the liquidity in the financial system. However, and with ample reason, the opposition parties seek to corner the government by portraying the move as anti- people, and the fact that such a momentous decision was taken without taking all parties on board and without adequate preparatory steps. It would also reduce the economic growth of the country simply because of the dwindling investment confidence in the financial markets. Couple this with the outflows from emerging markets such as India in the hope of a spike in the US Fed rates, and the oposition has a watertight and sealed debate!

Both sides of the argument seem to hold water but only in isolation.

While the government took this step seemingly solely on the basis of its commitment to eradicate a flourishing parallel economy, it has been timed to coincide with important forthcoming elections in state legislatures. In addition there are massive allegations that its own minions were aware of this step and managed to convert their piles of currency before the order came in to effect. Further that the important mega business houses which support the ruling party were warned off in advance thereby allowing them to take corrective measures. Also most of the really colossal sums of black money exist in other forms such as investments in tax havens abroad or bullion or real estate and these are not remotely affected by a domestic move of this nature. And most importantly, that in taking a politically timed step such as this, the government completely overlooked the misery it would cause the common man.

Similarly, the opposition parties are known to be sitting atop massive piles of currency which are used to affect outcomes during elections, these are normally collected against promises to be kept post elections. Naturally a sudden move which chops them at the base would engender protest. Moreover the coalition which was ruling earlier had ample time and opportunity to adopt stringent measures but they failed to do so.

Naturally in the cacophony of political voices the common man is left to fend for himself. In the past two weeks or so, the country has seen a number of deaths which emanate from a person's inability to get adequate cash for daily life. Similarly other facets of life in India have ground to a halt, but these seem to have no articulation in the public debate. Tourists for example have been left high and dry. Military personnel serving in difficult terrain with virtually no access to banking facilities are finding it extremely hard to maintain their families back home. People in Nepal, a neighbour state which had agreed to honour Indian currency suddenly find themselves up a gum tree. Nepalese citizens especially the Gurkhas who serve in the Indian Army and are largely dependant on their salary to meet their needs back home are completely asunder as to how to fulfill their commitments back home.

Notwithstanding the 'fors' and 'againsts' the motion that we hear on the media generated hyperbole, what remains clear is that the government has initiated a move without adequate preparation; possibly such a stringent move could have been more carefully balanced out to ensure minimal effect on the economy and the people. The coming months are likely to witness more turmoil. Whether the ruling party garners enough wins in the state legislatures is yet to be seen. Yes, given the enormous Indian penchant for improvisation, needless to say the black economy would find new ways to perpetuate itself!

November 23, 2016

Change of Guard in Pakistan- Change of Policy as well?

General Raheel Sharif, the present Pakistan Army Chief is likely to retire on 29th November this year. By all accounts, General Sharif does not seem to be seeking an extension of his term. The sitting incumbent usually has a say in the extension of tenure, which cannot be refused by the political dispensation owing the stranglehold of the military over all affairs in the country. Given that, it appears pretty surprising that the present Chief does not want one. What then does that reveal about the state of affairs in Pakistan?


General Sharif became Chief with the tacit backing of former Chief and President of Pakistan, General Musharraf. Pervez Musharraf continues to maintain his command over the way the Pakistan Army, and therefore the civilian government functions. Ostensibly, there are a number of cases being contested in courts against Musharraf but these should be taken with a handful of salt considering the record of justice disbursement in an almost 'banana republic'. Further, what is happening behind the screens will never be available for public consumption, and it may well be wheels within wheels in the warped politics of Pakistan that are propelling these eyewashes. In either case, it remains irrefutable that Musharraf continues to be an active and assertive voice in their domestic politics and foreign policy.

Foreign policy in Pakistan has two important tenets namely its relations with the United States (for what it can extract) and its historical conflict with India (which remains its bete-noire). Both these play an important role in what decisions are taken in its domestic sphere. In the present instance, with the confusion prevalent following Trump's victory in the US Presidential elections, it may not be entirely clear to policy makers in Pakistan what to expect in the months to come. However, with Trump announcing General Flynn as the National Security Advisor in the transition team, it is evident that he intends to follow his rhetoric about Muslims (during campaigning) even after he takes oath. That may well be a cause of worry to the Pakistani establishment, both military and civilian, as they may not be able to continue sucking the American funds that they have been so used to in the past. It may also be wise to portray normalcy to the world, with the semblance of civilian control over the military establishment. To that end, a smooth transition of the Chief of Army will serve their interests in this projection to the US government.


It may also be possible that Sharif enters politics as a former Chief of Army, rather than usurp power that most of his illustrious (?) predecessors have done. By and large, he has enjoyed a fairly popular status in the country by selective action against radical Islamic groups, providing a fair degree of publically visible action against brutality and bloodshed on the streets, and yet has maintained the hidden agenda of the 'Deep State'. He enjoys similar popularity in the armed forces as well. To that extent he seems to be more politically astute than most former Chiefs (and some ex- dictators). If he succeeds in entering politics on this plank, he would have successfully accomplished both a smooth transition in public view, as well as retain his grip on the military- civil complex in Pakistan. It would appear perfectly normal to the outside observer that a former soldier has now decided to enter politics (as is the case in Trump's team also), without too much of focus on behind-the-scenes machinations. In addition he would have the continued backing of Musharraf, keep exploiting his background as Army Chief, even utilize his brother's martyrdom to his advantage. In his last months, he has even successfully nullified India's much touted 'surgical strikes'; much of the world believes there's more to the story than what the Indian government released to the world.

Therefore, this change in guard would transalte in to little difference in the way things are dealt with, in Pakistan, in its civilian government, and definitely in its military establishment. In fact, the new Chief would be a handpicked General, obviously allegiant to the old guard, yet pitch for the 'rule of law' in international perspective. For those battling Pakistan's 'Export of Terror' machinery, it should be business as usual.


Advent Of Trumpism And What It Portends – Analysis



US President Barack Obama’s often spoken “Obama Doctrine” is about to be upended by the new thought on the block – Trumpism.

In his eight years as thex most powerful leader on earth, Obama has consistently resisted the idea of armed intervention unless circumstances threaten the very security of the United States. He has stood steadfast by his policy even in the face of opposition from the hawks in his own team, and held that diplomacy and negotiations must serve as the bulwark of international relations. The use of armed force has to be the last resort and only in the face of a direct and existential threat.

In the emanating debate, Obama has been harshly criticized, especially in the case of Syria, where humanitarian concerns and the genocide perpetrated by the Assad regime has turned world opinion against him including European allies of the US.

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, admitted after resigning office in 2012 that the vacuum created by the failure of the US to produce a plausible response (using rebel factions) in Syria, was filled by the Islamic State jihadists. In his perception the President felt the only credible threats to the US were Al Qaeda, the irresolute Israel-Palestine question and a nuclear Iran. Putting at risk his own credibility and the power of his office, he encouraged the deal with Iran to ensure a more benign foe than an out rightly belligerent one. In more than one instance he has exhibited his reticence in getting embroiled in more Middle East wars, which according to him more often than not, serve to exploit US muscle for the sectarian gains of Arab allies.

President Obama’s focus on Asia was articulated by Hillary Clinton when she spoke of the Asia Pivot. However critics have pointed to the lack of a suitable supportive action after the articulation of a policy thought that has only served to weaken the American position in the region. To his credit Obama saw the Chinese and the Russian equations in the harsh lens of realism, and proceeded to deal with them as such.

In the aftermath of the US presidential election and its apparently disastrous result many theories have been extended to explain Donald Trump’s ascendancy to the White House. Trumpism, as the term goes, is hard put to explain by way of normal electoral politics or the range of policy option oscillations that were witnessed during Trump’s campaigning. In what could only be termed as gutter level politics and a no- holds barred contest, he has managed to emerge the winner, and it is now up to myriad analyses to justify this twist in the tale.

In his 1960 book, Constitution of Liberty, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek marked the transition from conservatism to neo-liberalism. He rejected the ideas of political freedom, equality and universal rights, and his sole focus remained the absolute freedom from coercion, with competition as a defining axiom in human relations. Since any impediment in the form of regulations, taxes or state provisioning found itself counted as counter productive, his theories found sympathetic audience in the form of millionaires on both sides of the Atlantic willing to fund its expansion by way of lobbying vociferously in government circles.

This theory soon entrenched itself in the form of various adaptations such as Thatcherism and Reaganism and saw the paradigm shift from social democracy to a fresh belief and assurance in the form of neo-liberalism. Similarly, alterations of the same theme were employed by successive leaders both in the US and UK, having no substantial political thought of their own.

In that, and enigmatically, lies the explanation of Trump’s advance — it is the very lack of political alternatives that he has cashed in, and indeed he is a perfect example of the ‘independent’ postulated by Hayek. Most have given up trying to understand as to how a man so devoid of moral constraints, who has thrived simply on inherited wealth and repeatedly lost what he sought to create, gross beyond reason in his political conduct, could still ascend to the highest office in the US and in fact the world.

More importantly and as the specter of a Trump Presidency grows, analysts across the globe are scrambling to figure out what his foreign policy is likely to be and how it would affect them. Contrary to the realism exercised by Obama, will Trump tend toward an isolationist approach, or will his be an era of naked self interest cloaked in the garb of liberal interventionism? Or, and albeit without too many takers for it, will he stand by existing international norms and therefore strengthen multilateralism? The problem faced by most analysts is the same; ‘The Donald’ has made so many contradictory statements and adopted such widely oscillating stances that Trump has managed to stump everyone as to what is coming.

In strategic circles today, there exist a manifest confusion as to what Trump the President is going to do. This is compounded by the sheer inadequacy of his transition team, most of whom are stark novices on issues of governance, policy and international intrigue. To that end, and much to the relief of strategists, an odd Reince Priebus or Michael Flynn seem as the saving grace in the otherwise maddening amalgamation. They do agree on certain precepts though. That there is chaos in the world, more so because it is governed by varying yardsticks and discordant principles. That there is an emergent requirement to pare down chaos in key regions in the world. That there is an incessant demand for a more comprehensible and intelligible world order. So then what, if anything is Trumpism going to do about it? Some of the more sane voices in the Trump camp have also scrambled – scrambled to put some amount of meaning in to what their presidential candidate made an utter hash of in the run up to the elections.




If one were to go by what Trump said during his campaign, he is unlikely to accept the deterioration of the US economy for reasons of foreign policy. Only that much seems clear. He has repeatedly stressed upon the inadequate contribution of most key US allies in maintaining the security status quo across the globe. In Europe, it is the NATO allies. In east Asia, Japan and South Korea seem to have not done enough of their share.

With a recalcitrant and belligerent Russia in the east, NATO is left wondering what the new US stance is going to be. Those who put their money on the humanitarian crisis fomented by the Assad regime in Syria and then propped up by Russia, it is a question whether the US will now support them on these concerns, and therefore in an armed intervention in the war? Trump’s statements about Putin have left key allies such as UK, Germany and France confused about what the equation is likely to be in times to come.

Similarly the far east seems a potential trouble spot with the Chinese dragon flexing its biceps. This leaves Japan and South Korea wondering what their courses of action are going to be. In the eventuality that the US does rescind its own responsibility in these areas, the most obvious deduction is steep militarization in these zones. A host of other countries who have started to tilt toward the US such as Vietnam, India and Myanmar have expressed uncertainty. The example of the Philippines is being touted as the likely outcome if the US fails to stand by its commitments in the region.

Undoing some of the damage done by the fickle Mr Trump, two of his key policy advisors, Alexander Gray and Peter Navarro have sought to word succinctly what Trumpism would mean. They outline two tenets of his (likely) foreign policy, one that the US will no longer sacrifice its economic interests on the altar of foreign policy, and two, that the US will focus on peace through strength.

As such, some of the key alliances of the US may be asked to increase their share in sustaining the presence of US troops. This will invariably result in rubbing some of them the wrong way. However if those allies were to look at things pragmatically, it may be a better idea to increase percentage of GDP spends, rather than look at long term and expenditure heavy militarization.
The principle would be true both for NATO and South Asia. Coupled with Trump’s plan to build up the US Navy from 274 ships at present to 350 ships, an increase in spending would see a much more secure region. At the same time it would continue to drive home the message of the US as the traditional guarantor of a liberal world order. The allies could feel reassured of the commitment of the US, while the foes would find it hard to scale up their presence under the pressure that would be brought to bear on them.

Again based on the way the Trump team seems to be shaping up, where the first concern was of novices trying to deal with issues probably beyond their comprehension or capabilities, the second concern holds as much weight. This concern is to do with the known views of the few experienced people he has picked up.

Inside the US it is a matter of how badly the very principles on which the US has made its position in the free world are likely to get mauled. Whether it is an Attorney General who is deemed too racist for the job, or or a Chief Strategist who is an alleged white supremacist, and possibly a front for neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, these people worry the nation which comprises a sizeable proportion of Asians, Hispanics, African- Americans and Jews. The level of indignation is evident from the number of Republicans who have openly opposed such appointments. Similarly, a National Security Advisor who is known for very stringent anti-Muslim views augurs ill for relations with the Muslim world. The equation is further compounded by the turmoil that the Muslim world is witnessing, and that many of the countries are allies of the US from an earlier dispensation.

During the campaign Trump has repeatedly reminded people of his business acumen, and that he intends to use the same to rid America of her economic woes. Without entering in to the discussion of his business acumen, which is questionable at best, some of the more alarming issues emanate from his dislike for immigrant communities which form the backbone of the American work force. If he were to indeed insist on American jobs for Americans, firstly, would they be up to the task?

The fact that immigrant communities have filled positions in the work force is fairly indicative of the average American standard of education. Moreover the Americans may never be able to produce the same resilience exhibited by these communities.

Secondly, what of the huge populations of immigrants living in the US. Trump has denounced Trade Deals which according to him are disadvantageous to the US, such as the NAFTA or TPP, or even allowing China’s entry in to the WTO. How he intends to tackle these is still not clear. In either case, he has been voted to power on promises of restoring the supremacy of the white American, but his modus is not clear in any lucid form. If fans of Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy’s hero in an entire series) were to recall, stringent trade measures forced the other guys so far against a wall that they lashed out resulting in a war. In a globalized economy that scenario is quite plausible in today’s times. However, this is not fiction, and Trump is definitely not Ryan.

The United States will witness some sea changes from the realism exercised by President Obama to (possibly?) a liberal interventionism based on naked self interest by Trump. As the inauguration draws closer, the transition will be clearer. One thing is, however, crystal clear, the world is going to be a very different place than we know today.


TOPICS:Donald Trump

November 15, 2016

Beyond The Himalayan Barrier: The Chinese Question (Part III) – Analysis



In the first part this paper, it was sought to analyse Chinese perceptions, possibilities of a new world order centred on China, and its military and naval aspirations. In the second part of the analysis, the role of the Chinese in the growth of communist regimes and how the secret service in China aided that was examined. Successful cyber warfare as a key ingredient of their strategic play formed a part of the analysis. Finally the correlation of spreading Islamic fundamentalism and China and its impact on India was looked at.



China’s ascendance as an economic powerhouse and military superpower has started altering the cultural, political, social, and ethnic balance of global power and is in the process of creating a whole new world. According to conservative estimates, China will overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy by 2027 and will ascend to the position of world economic leader by 2050. But the full repercussions of China’s ascendancy have been little understood. Answers to some of the most pressing questions about China’s growing place on the world stage can be understood by looking at how China will seek to shape the world in its own image.

The Chinese have a rich and long history as a civilization-state. Ninety-four percent of the population still believes they are one race, the Han Chinese. The strong sense of superiority finds a resurrection in twenty-first century China. This is also used to strengthen and further unify the country. A culturally self-confident Asian giant with a billion-plus population, China will resist globalization as we know it. This exceptionalism will have powerful ramifications for its neighbours. As China is already cementing its position as the new centre of the East Asian economy, the mantle of economic and, therefore, cultural relevance will pass from Manhattan and Paris to Beijing and Shanghai. The relationship and attitude toward China will affect India’s peace. Therefore an attempt has been made to explain the upheaval that China’s ascendance will cause and the realigned global power structure it will create directly affecting India’s policies on economy, oil and its relations with the US.
China and Global Oil Play

According to former Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, the short supply of energy resources is a “soft rib” in China’s economic and social development. Wen Jiabao’s statement reflects the importance China’s leaders place on the energy issue. This issue is considered a matter of national strategic significance and one that has considerable impact on whether or not China can sustain its development. It is perceived as an issue over which the Chinese have little control, given their reliance on foreign imports and foreign security of their lines of transportation. These dependencies on foreign supply (the “reliance problem”) and security (“the Malacca dilemma”, so named because of the vast quantities of oil that must pass through the Malacca Straits, which is secured by other countries’ navies) are the main threats to China’s energy security. Based on these dependencies, it is important to understand what China is doing to minimize these threats and why, despite such efforts, the lack of effective governmental mechanisms to respond in a crisis may still leave China’s energy market insecure and vulnerable.

China was a self-sufficient energy-producing country until 1993. But while its oil consumption grew by more than 55 percent from 1994 to 2000, its oil production increased by only 11 percent. Its imports grew more than twenty fold as it became the world’s second highest oil importer after Japan, and in the decade that followed, the highest importer. Foreign oil imports now account for 40 percent of China’s energy market with the gap between supply and demand continuing to widen. According to a report by China’s Academy of Geological Sciences, by 2020, China will need to import 500 million tons of crude oil and 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, which is 70 percent and 50 percent of its domestic consumption respectively. The huge extent to which China’s energy market depends on foreign imports is thus a key indicator of China’s lack of energy security. Perhaps even more significant is the rate at which the country has moved from self-sufficient exporter to over dependent importer. To a country that is seemingly still to come to terms with the free-flowing dynamics of market economics and globalized trade, such newly emergent dependence on the unpredictable and uncontrollable free market is unnerving.

Energy supply disruptions and unpredictable surge in prices could undermine China’s rapid economic growth and job creation, and in turn raise the real spectre of social instability and impaired national security. There is no denying the adverse impact that problematic energy supplies can have on China’s national security. What possibly worries the Chinese policymakers more than reliance on foreign imports is the extent to which the reliance is confined to the Middle East. Not only is this region the most volatile part of the world, it is embroiled in geopolitics and is the centrepiece of American foreign policy. While 18 percent of U.S. oil comes from the Gulf, 60 percent of China’s oil comes from there; this too mostly from just three countries namely Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Oman. Because import sources are limited and the United States and Japan have a lock on much of the oil market, China is forced to find alternate suppliers.

The result is a Chinese energy policy that directly competes with energy demands of other countries. The reliance on oil from the Middle East and Africa leads to an excessive reliance on the Malacca Straits for passage of the oil tanker ships. This has always been considered highly susceptible to blockade. Without pipelines to route its oil through and only a small portion of oil coming from Venezuela (crossing the Pacific Ocean from the east), almost 85 percent of China’s oil passes through the Indian Ocean, Malacca Straits, and the South China Sea. Any interference in this strategic passageway by nations trying to contain China or by pirates or terrorists intent on disrupting the global market could halt nearly all of China’s energy supply. Thus the Chinese see the Malacca dilemma threatening their normal oil imports which in turn jeopardizes China’s economy and may imperil even its defence.

Though India has been emphatic about not letting such an eventuality come to pass, assurances do not seem to cut ice with the Chinese. China’s inability in securing its energy requirements has so far been attributed to its lack of naval power to patrol sea lanes and the presence of the Indian navy in the Indian Ocean. While China can boast of growing global influence, when it comes to energy security, the extent of China’s military and diplomatic influence is much more sober. With that factor in mind, China is now exploring both the security of its interests (the deployment of its naval vessels in the Indian Ocean region) as well as alternate means of passage (such as the Gwadar pipeline and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC). At some point therefore, it ceases to matter what the monetary cost of the project is; instead it is simply a question of the guarantee.

Relevance for India: The Chinese are both critical of their country’s ability to secure sea lanes and wary of developing new markets in contrast to India. To this end, a steep rise has been seen in (ostensibly) patrolling activities by the Chinese PLA Navy. It has also in recent years put the entire weight of its financial power behind acquisitions of oil fields in Africa and Central Asia. Most of these contests are a direct confrontation between the Chinese and Indian oil companies. India has usually lost to its competitors from the Middle Kingdom. This is a potential flash point between interests of both economies. The presence of the Chinese navy has also been seen with some trepidation by India, and not without reason; as was seen in the first part of the analysis, Chinese naval presence is growing at a much faster pace than India and in the years to come will be in a position to directly threaten interests, including in the traditional military/ naval sense. Simultaneously, China’s energy diplomacy aims at posturing as a partner for joint stability, prosperity, and development with concerned energy supply countries, regions, and companies. It is trying to diversify sources internally as well to include investments in wind, solar, and nuclear energy, build a strategic reserve and build naval and air capacity so it has the capability to project power in distant seas.

The world consumes a cubic mile of oil per year. This is growing by just over one percent per year and is forecast to accelerate. A third of this is used by China. By 2025 its cars alone would need another Saudi Arabia or two. Indian growth also gives similar prognosis. Oil is the world’s biggest business and economy driver and as a source of energy is indispensable, at least in the foreseeable future. The diplomatic, military or functional costs of acquiring oil are justified by the necessity of sustaining development and prosperity. Possible substitutes are either too small or slow or immature or unattractive or all of these. It is also premature to speculate about life after oil; imperative for the foreseeable future is to design realistic and practical measures to cater to this threat and align long term policies to this exigent and strident demand.
Clash and Confluence of Economies

Indians live in a world affected by domestic economic change and greater integration into the global economy. Gains from economic growth and reform mean rising commercial farm income and increased business and employment opportunities in the cities. Globalisation has meant an intersection of interests beyond electronics, academics, business, medicine, and journalism across borders.

In India, two million English-speaking college students graduate yearly, and most work for one tenth the salary that a comparable U.S. worker receives. Low cost and high quality telecommunications have opened up Business and Knowledge Processing Outsourcing options. Other outsourcing spans the technology spectrum, including software code writing, chip design, product development, accounting, Web site designing, animation art, stock market research, radiology, airline reservations, tax preparation and advice, transcribing, consulting, prayers for the deceased, and other support services, especially in Bangalore and Hyderabad.

Emerging technically talented Indian diaspora provides the skills for India to play a major role in the global information technology industry. In the late 1990s, Indian immigrants ran one third of the technology firms in Silicon Valley, California. Indian and Indian-American-owned companies in the US have become suppliers to U.S. corporates. Indian software firms raise capital in the US to acquire US companies, set up offices to interact with clients, and undertake research and innovation. India’s software sector represents a skill-based, high value export oriented sector. The sector has also attracted considerable foreign direct investment by multinationals. Indian manufacturing sector too, though still in nascent stages, has increasingly taken the world by storm. Essentially, Indian strengths lie in a young work force, increasing levels of education, cheap labour and low costs of setting up businesses.

In Mao’s China, the ideology stressed upon prices determined by the state, state ownership of the means of production, international and regional trade and technological self sufficiency, non-economic (moral) incentives, egalitarianism, socializing the population toward selflessness, continuing revolution and development of a holistic communist person. From 1952 to 1966, pragmatists, primarily managers of state organizations and enterprises vied with Maoists for control of economic decision making. But during this period, Mao and his allies won out, purging moderates from the Central Communist Party (for example, Deng Xiaoping) to workplace committees.


After Mao’s death in 1976, the Chinese, under Deng recognized that despite the rapid industrial growth under Mao, imbalances remained from the Cultural Revolution, such as substantial waste in the midst of high investment, too little emphasis on consumer goods, the lack of wage incentives, insufficient technological innovation, too tight control on economic management, the taxing of enterprise profits and too little international economic trade and relations. Economic reform, which began in late 1979, included price decontrol, decentralization, agricultural household responsibility, management responsibility among state-owned enterprises (SOEs), small entrepreneurial activity, and township and village enterprises (TVEs).

Since 1980, China has had virtually the fastest growth in the world. Chinese growth rates are overstated as they are heavily based on growth in physical output figures rather than deflated expenditure series and managers understate capacity and over report production to superiors to receive the greater reward received by those who meet or exceed plan fulfilment. But the fact remains that despite over reporting and continuing market distortions China’s growth under market reforms has been rapid (albeit uneven in some parts). China’s step-by-step approach during the last two decades of the 20th century contrasted sharply with Russia’s more abrupt changes in strategy in the early 1990s. China’s reform started as socialism with Chinese characteristics and gradually evolved to a socialist market economy. China’s weaknesses are its inability to fully integrate with the global economy, an aging work force and blatant disregard for intellectual property rights. Its continued communist hangover also contributes in no small measure to restricting growth.
Relevance for India: Despite the challenges that it faces in its transition, the Chinese economy has grown at a phenomenal rate and indeed the state apparatus is faced with a problem that it needs to sustain this high trajectory to maintain its internal cohesion. This naturally brings it into a direct conflict with the equally fast growing Indian economy, with the competition for resources, capital and captive enterprise heating up. India is also perceived as a better option for investments owing to its democratic government, stability of its capital markets and emphasis on innovation and free enterprise. Equally irrefutable is the trade equation of the two countries. Therefore it is a paradoxical situation in that there is both a confluence and a clash of the two economies. Future strategy related to China’s equation with India could be heavily influenced due to this reason and must be factored in to India’s policy decisions to obviate conflict while continuing protection of Indian interests.

Conclusion: Strategic Interests and Policies
In a peculiar situation, India finds itself increasingly at cross roads in a bid to decide the sway of its foreign policies. Traditionally non-aligned, it is now of greater importance to, and exerting greater influence on decisions both in the US and in China. The Joint Declaration signed in 2005 by US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is seen akin to President Nixon’s opening to China.

America agreed to recognize India as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology and pledged to support its civilian nuclear program and urge others to do the same. This agreement caught observers in the strategic community by surprise. It was difficult to understand why the US made a large concession on non-proliferation rules in exchange for a vague exchange of Indian support to help the US combat AIDS, support countries seeking a Global Democracy Initiative and otherwise support India’s economic development in a number of areas.

The scenario has been repeated during the tenure of President Obama, and of late, with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s overtures, the equation seems to have turned positively convivial. This may be a possible counter to China; American policymakers feel a rich, strong, yet still authoritarian China will pose security challenges to Washington. Simply put, the US now views China as a long term strategic competitor. The move towards cooperation with India can be explained as a form of hedging against China, as the only country that competes militarily with the US. Since the end of the Cold War the US has been helping Beijing become richer and stronger, hoping to see it become democratic and rise peacefully. However, uncertain about China’s strategic intentions, the US now feels the need to create a strategic competitor and the choice narrows down to India for obvious reasons.

As the US rethinks its India policy, it finds itself confronting a host of geopolitical challenges. It is engaged in a long global counterinsurgency against radical Islamic terrorism. Simultaneously, a rising China poses a long term challenge. Hence, America must enlist allies to secure its interests and sustain the US led world order that has been the basis for economic development and relative peace. India may prove a partner in confronting both these challenges. As a liberal democratic country, New Delhi accepts that the more democracy spreads, the safer Indians will be. India has been one of the foremost targets of jihadi terrorist attacks and shares an interest with Washington in bringing them to an end. China has been a historic rival to India, and China’s growing power is viewed in New Delhi with apprehension. India too shares an interest in maintaining a balance of power in Asia ensuring that China does not predominate. Although India is a rising power with its own aspirations, it is unlikely to challenge US predominance in Asia in the short term. (Neither will it accept a hegemonic America in perpetuity).

The fact that India is a liberal democracy will help the two countries develop necessary relations with less suspicion and tension than characterizes the Sino-American relationship. India’s non-aligned foreign policy and fiercely independent strategic culture will however make the prospects for strategic partnership more difficult. In Central Asia too, the US finds its continued support to Pakistan growing untenable. Instead of accepting a Communist China led Central Asia, the US deems fit to help India posture in the region to make it compatible with the move towards democratisation. It is axiomatic that Afghanistan cannot be pacified if the border with Pakistan is unpoliced, and insurgents have free rein to come and go as they please. Yet that is what is happening. Since 9/11, Pakistan has been forced to accept formally the fall of the Taliban. But of late, evidence suggests that it is assisting the Taliban to regroup in and around the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas. It seems a matter of time that Pakistan with its history of proliferation and support to Islamic jehadis comes a cropper as far as US support is concerned. Then the tilt would be in favour of India and it would become all the more important for India to decide its biases.

Indian policy framework would necessarily have to explore these issues with intent to providing long term solutions to them. The Chinese perspective may be different than the Indian, but may not have a different view of the future. Threats of containment based on diplomatic, political, and economic imperatives are a matter of concern to India as much as they are to China; what is required is to obviate these spiralling out of control, becoming flash points and resulting in possible military conflicts. Threats as India perceives them also affect China in similar (or slightly modified) forms; it would be incumbent on policy makers to mould the framework in such a manner that more synergies are obtained and both nations move towards mutual cooperation rather than ominous conflicts.

Beyond The Himalayan Barrier: The Chinese Question (Part II) – Analysis



In the first part this paper, it was sought to analyze Chinese perceptions, possibilities of a new world order centered on China, and its military and naval aspirations. In this part of the analysis, the role of the Chinese in the growth of communist regimes based on their own perception as torch bearers of Communism after the fall of socialist Russia has been examined.



Within this conundrum, the role played by the secret service in China has been examined. To further their designs the Chinese have adopted rather successfully cyber warfare; cyber threats seem to be a key ingredient of their strategic play. Further the correlation of spreading Islamic fundamentalism and China, and how it is likely to affect India has also been dealt with in this part. China happens to be at a critical juncture where two transitions coincide, the transition of modernization and the transition from planned economy to market economy. Both transitions are inundated with contradictions and are highly vulnerable to the outbreak of conflicts. Being so intertwined they further enlarge the urban-countryside, regional, wealth and ethnic disparities; all are possible turmoil spark points, if treated unskillfully. This in turn provides tremendous scope for the turmoil and conflict to spill over into neighboring countries such as India.

China’s Role in Growth of Communist Regimes
China‘s rise has seen an outburst of nationalism, driven from two different directions: top-down and bottom-up. From the top, the Communist state has launched an extensive propaganda campaign of education in patriotism since the 1990s to ensure loyalty in a population otherwise subject to domestic discontent. From the bottom, nationalism erupts in mass demonstrations, like the protests against NATO in May 1999 and Japan in early 2005.

Chinese nationalism has thus become one of the most important domestic forces behind Chinese foreign policy, including China‘s approaches toward Asian regionalism in general and the world at large. It both motivates and constrains China‘s participation in regional cooperation. China has embraced a more multilateral strategy to achieve three nationalist goals: (1) to create a stable and peaceful peripheral environment for economic growth and political stability, on which the political legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party now depends; (2) to suppress ethnic nationalism among the minorities in its border areas and maintain its frontier security and prosperity; and (3) to enhance its position with other countries, especially major powers such as Japan, US and India.

The increasing assertiveness of popular nationalism poses a daunting challenge to the Communist state, which has tried to maintain political stability and its monopoly of power for rapid economic development. Nationalism has thus become a double-edged sword; it is both a means for the government to legitimize its rule and a means for the Chinese people to judge the performance of the state. The Chinese government has based its legitimacy on its ability to provide political stability and economic prosperity, including a peaceful, stable, and friendly periphery. As a part of an effort since the early 1980s, Chinese leaders have devised a regional policy known as periphery policy (zhoubian zhengce). In making the periphery policy, however, Chinese leaders have been tested by the contradiction between bilateralism and multilateralism. Historically, China has been wary of participating in multilateral institutions because of its concerns about the possible erosion of state sovereignty or exploitation by foreign countries to restrict China‘s actions. The post Cold War era, however, has witnessed the rise of multilateralism in international and regional affairs, creating more and more pressure on China‘s traditional diplomacy.

Many of China‘s smaller neighbors have preferred to deal with China in multilateral settings because China‘s market potential, military capability, and enormous size threaten smaller Asian states. China‘s conduct of relations with them on a bilateral basis could put them at a disadvantage and raise their suspicions that Beijing might seek to exploit divisions among them to assert influence. Coping with China in a multilateral setting not only gives them the power of collective bargaining but also enhances their security by embedding China in a web of multilateral structure. A recent example of China’s disdain for multilateralism was its instantaneous and extreme reaction to the judgement by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in the dispute of the South China Sea.

This power of collective bargaining is particularly important with an increasingly powerful China, which has maintained assertive positions on its territorial and sovereignty claims on land and at sea and has not hesitated to flex its military muscles to reinforce these positions. China‘s neighbors are therefore better situated if they can deal with China in collective bargaining institutions like the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Going by this premise, India would do well to leverage its responsible membership in these fora.

As communist regimes collapsed in the late 1980s, the defeat of the communist parties seemed complete. These were the same regimes that had shown no regard for basic civic rights, had strategically planned the economies into negative growth rates, and had displayed a remarkable propensity for corruption and self-enrichment. Over forty years of oppression had left the people with memories that were as bitter as they were vivid, and the popular uprisings of 1989 fought to remove the parties from power. The first demand voiced by the masses of demonstrators in the streets was that the communist stranglehold on the economy and the polity finally end. The democratic breakthroughs of 1989 thus bade farewell to regimes widely despised by their own citizens. Few predicted that the successors to these parties would survive in the democratic political system, much less thrive.

As the new regimes took over, the communist parties were forced to exit from power and governance. They were no longer allowed to organize in the workplace their assets were expropriated, and they were forced to relinquish their auxiliary organizations. It seemed simply a matter of time before these parties would be swept away into the “dustbin of history.” Yet all communist parties survived democracy and the regime transition that began in 1988–89, and all remained politically active afterwards. Several of the successor parties have even won free elections, returning to govern.

These parties regenerated based on learning from their communist allies in China by transforming their appeals, garnering broad support, and enforcing discipline and professionalism in their parliamentary behavior. Key Chinese communist organizational practices of policy reform and negotiation with the opposition affected the paths these parties would take and spurred the pursuit of regeneration. These parties thus redeemed the communist past by making amends for the most disgraceful elements of their history and by cashing in on their elite resources to remake themselves into successful democratic competitors and governors.

Relevance for India: External policies of advancement within the communist party promote elite pragmatism and technical know-how; experience with policy innovation has led the elites to realize the need for party transformation and centralization. Policy implementation and negotiation with the opposition promotes the formulation of responsive programs, new dimensions of competition, and effective electoral campaigns. These precepts are not only in the public domain, they are actively being taught and propagated by the communist masters in mainland China to cadres in various countries, including India. The communist threat does not so much come from the parties already in mainstream Indian politics (though the lessons may well be of much use to them too), but the same teachings spreading to Maoist and Naxalite cadres. These are on the threshold of entering mainstream politics owing to their large and popular support bases among the marginalized classes. The support from their mentors in China would make this transition easier and more successful.
Intelligence and Promoting the Communist Dream: China’s Secret Service

Kang Sheng is credited for the development of the Chinese secret service (as it is known today) around the time of Mao’s rise. From humble beginnings, the Chinese Secret Service moved to being a key segment of Mao’s and Deng’s China and gradually grew to dominate its foreign policy and decision making. Following the Gulf War with Saddam Hussein, Chinese military intelligence was tasked by Jiang Zemin to reorganize and prepare for the future high-tech war. A new Qingbaobu military intelligence network was formed; its prime targets included copying the Russian MIR space station, building a sea power commensurate to the best that either the US or Russia could muster, buying an aircraft carrier, stealing secrets of French and US missiles and high-tech transfers from Japan and Korea. The intelligence service was responsible for providing immense support to communist cadres in Asia, especially in India. Following 9/11 in the US, the Chinese decided to help the US chase Islamists; a war was organized against the Uighurs of Xinjiang. At the same time surreptitious help was provided to the Afghan Taliban through links with Pakistani services. This was widely recognized as the Chinese contribution to the covert war against Indian interests.

In its newest avatar, the Chinese secret service was used to ensure a trouble free Olympics, as well as keeping an eye on Uighur and Tibetan dissidents. In a bid to move forward with technology across the globe, cyber space is now the latest frontier for the Chinese. As far back as 2009-10, the US FBI estimated that the Chinese Army had developed a network of over 30,000 Chinese military cyber spies, plus 150,000 private-sector computer experts, whose mission was to steal military and technological secrets from countries that China perceived as potential threats, namely US, Japan and India. Since 2003, this special network of the Chinese Army was tasked to cause mischief in government and financial services.

China’s goal is to have the world’s premier “informationized armed forces” by 2020. Chinese hackers are adept at implanting malicious computer code, and in 2009 companies in diverse industries such as oil and gas, banking, aerospace, and telecommunications encountered costly and at times debilitating problems with Chinese-implanted malware.

Chen Yonglin, a Chinese diplomat who defected in Australia provided the valuable knowledge that Chinese embassies across the globe control and use the Chinese Student and Scholar Associations (CSSA) for ulterior motives such as spying. More evidence of this embassy control over students and journalists has surfaced lately. Thousands of young Chinese live abroad and are organized in groups like students’ associations which are linked to the Chinese embassies through the cultural affairs department. What is considered as normal (Chinese people wanting to keep a link with their homeland) is used by China to pass orders to Chinese Diaspora abroad and use these individuals for spying activities.

Relevance for India: One of China’s most effective weapons is a continuation of what was originally dubbed as Titan Rain; it is a Chinese scanner program that probes defense and high-tech industrial computer networks thousands of times a minute looking for vulnerabilities. The Chinese military hackers enter without any keystroke errors leaving no digital fingerprints, and create a clean backdoor exit in under 20 minutes.

These feats were considered possible only for military/ civilian spy agencies of very few governments and perhaps, still not possible by Indian agencies. These attacks are proliferating against Indian networks, as has been seen by the recent reports of hacking of Indian defense networks, identifiable as attacks originating from China. Although the barrage of attacks may at times appear random, it is part of a strategy to fully flush out military telecommunications and to understand and to intercept intelligence being gathered by Indian agencies.
Islamic Fundamentalism and China

Islam has been a practiced religion in China from as early as the 7th century. Some 20 million plus followers of Islam today live in China. Among the 56 ethnic groups recognized by China, 10 follow Islam. These have among them the Uighurs, Tajiks, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Tatars, and some Tibetans and Mongolians also. Apart from cultural, ethnic and social links with China, they also share common links and interests with people of the same ethnicity across Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

With cultural and religious bonds stretching across borders, it is but natural that these people also get sucked into issues of ethnicity and conflict that their brethren face in Asia and Europe. Till the erstwhile USSR controlled its ethnic minorities with an iron hand, conflicts were largely relegated to their own domestic spheres and the world knew little of what was going on. After the break up of USSR, these ethnic minorities now form the majority in their respective countries and growing dissidence is seen to the tough policies of the Chinese state against religion/ ethnicity.

To further complicate the issue, Islamic fundamentalism has seen a rapid proliferation following the events in Iraq and Afghanistan. These have now spread across borders as a general issue of discrimination against the followers of Islam and as a Clash of Civilizations. The rise of the Al-Qaeda, followed by the Islamic State are indicative of the proliferation of extremism and fundamentalism within Islam. The Chinese too face the same issues with their own minorities, especially the Uighurs.

What was so far handled as a domestic issue, now finds sympathizers among the same ethnic people in other countries. This naturally gives rise to proliferation of weapons for armed uprising as also the spread of political thought. However the Chinese still insist on these issues being within their domestic space and have handled it with the same high handedness that was witnessed in case of the Tibetan question. Naturally, the conflict threatens to spiral out of control in times to come, with the growing cohesion that fundamentalists have exhibited. On the other hand, China has had no compunction in using Islamic fundamentalism as an extension of its state policy in waging a covert war against India. The support provided to the Pakistanis and by association to the Taliban, via their Pakistani interlocutors, is evidence of the duplicity followed by the Chinese.

Relevance for India: The prospect of turmoil among the ethnic minorities in China spilling over into India is very real. Indian Muslims, especially from the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir have historically shared close ties with the very ethnic groups that are rearing their heads in China. To that effect any state policy aimed at controlling or subjugating them would be seen as a common enemy; this further gets compounded by the spread of such extreme/ fundamental thought across borders. On the other hand, continued support to the Pakistani military establishment gives another dimension to this threat. Pakistan has been either providing direct support for these extremist groups or acting as conduits for instruments of Chinese state and secret service policies. In either scenario, the Indian establishment is under a very real threat.

In addition to the potential religious and separatist problems within India, China is concerned with India’s involvement in aggravating similar problems inside its own borders. India’s provision of sanctuary in 1959 to the Dalai Lama is still a contentious issue for China because he continues to be politically active in exile, along with approximately 150,000 other Tibetans living in India. These Tibetans carry out activities seen as dissidence by the Chinese, directly threatening the stability of Tibet and endangering China’s security in its southwest region. The sense of calm and camaraderie portrayed currently in writings in China regarding India seems to be more China’s self proclaimed charm offensive than any real outlook on peace with India; veritably, the calm before the storm!

Conclusion

Today’s friendly overtones do not erase the unresolved issues and historical resentment between the countries. Rather, they are indicative of the threat China perceives from India as a competitor for vital resources and international influence, as a destabilizing influence on its western border, and as a conventional military and nuclear power. The rapidly heating up competition for vital resources between China and India, along with its impact on policies of the US and on the economic scenario, is dealt with in Part III of this analysis.

November 04, 2016

Pakistan, India and the Game of Thrones

In International Politics (IP), the Game Theory is a model of a zero sum game which describes a conflict scenario in which a protagonist’s total loss is his enemy’s total gain. The sum total of the loss and gain is zero. In IP as Zawodny opines some international conflicts today can be resolved only by situations in which the warring factions don’t lose and in which both may sometimes win.


So is the Game Theory shifting the fulcrum of conflict between Pakistan and India towards settlement via international and regional agencies? The security dilemma or better still the Prisoners’ Dilemma plays a crucial role here. A nation like Pakistan faces dilemma without knowing about India’s intentions and vice versa. Both the nations want to resolve matters but with the K question being a permanent bone of contention it is very unlikely that something constructive will come up in the near future.

After the Uri attacks by Pakistan backed terrorists and retaliatory surgical strikes by India on Pakistani terror camps, tensions escalated between India and Pakistan; so much so that a well known Indian producer was stopped from releasing his movie for casting an actor from Pakistan. Nationalistic fervour (read tempers) stands at an all time high, with irresponsible media on both sides gleefully cashing in on the state of affairs as they are. In this game of proxy wars and actual wars is it possible to settle matters amicably? Earlier this year, following the killing of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen operative Burhan Wani in the Kashmir valley the media was barred from covering the massive protests in the valley against the Indian Army. Though this was done ostensibly to avoid further escalation of violence, yet amidst all the brouhaha, tensions continued to escalate. The war of words on primetime television kept getting louder and none of the parties was willing to confess. The prisoners’ dilemma was evident.
The cancellation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit and the boycott of Pakistan by the members of SAARC was a gigantic move, a statement in itself of the growing clamour for intolerance of any act of terror anywhere in the world. Pakistan stood exposed and the generals had nothing much to offer to the erudite discourses on national television about the cancellation of the SAARC summit. Some journalists from Pakistan termed it as a propaganda war set in motion by India, which was nothing less than a national joke. Prime Minister Sharif and the Army Chief, General Sharif both have no political or diplomatic face left to show especially after they have been exposed.

Unidentified people have set fire to dozens of schools in Kashmir. The violence has not stopped. “This is very unfortunate and the responsibility is on the separatists, including Mr Geelani and other people are encouraging such elements to burn the schools. Ultimately, the future of the children of Kashmir is in the dark," said Deputy Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Nirmal Singh. The K question is a serious bone of contention between India and Pakistan and the Valley is still burning. In the end the sum total of the game between India and Pakistan will be zero with maximum casualties at both ends. Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti seems to have maintained a tough stand on acts of violence but nowhere in the near future does the issue appear to be heading towards a resolution. Boycott and isolation of Pakistan is the need of the hour but in a liberal world order isolation may not be possible. Former Chief Minister and National Conference chief Omar Abdullah opined that the attacks on schools was an "abhorrent ploy to destroy the future of the children" and blamed both the state government and separatists, calling the attackers "enemies of our children and the enemies of enlightenment."

From purely a strategic point of view India needs to draw the attention of international community towards state sponsored terrorism in Pakistan. Theoretical understanding of the new world order through the lenses of functionalism and neo-functionalism needs to be redefined. The Indian Army has taken charge of the situation but several actions by the forces have received severe criticism by the mainstream media. The valley is burning and so is India. Dialogue may not be the way out. All this violence calls for serious mediation by the international community. With the US increasing its economic and military ties with India as a counterweight to China in South Asia, this may well be sooner than later.