Current Projects
Afghanistan: The Informal Colony of India
In an increasing globalised world, secret agencies have become an evermore-important weapon of the state. The impact of globalisation on intelligence cooperation between Pakistan, India and Afghanistan in the war against terrorism is rendered problematic by divergent conceptions of its nature and contradictory expectations. The recent developments in information technology as well as a new wave of terrorism in South Asia are the main factors impelling regional states to increase intelligence cooperation on law enforcement level. In fact, intelligence sharing and interoperability of information system has been the biggest challenges facing Pakistan, India and Afghanistan due to their reservations on sharing national secrets. A contemporary theory on the concept of information age spotlights some challenges in the information sharing process. The function of intelligence is to have a structure to process and analyse information and purvey that to policy makers. In South Asia, intelligence function is divided on ethnic and linguistic bases, which create misunderstandings and lead policy makers in wrong directions. The involvement of Pakistani, Indian and Afghan and intelligence agencies in the ongoing proxy war prompted the emergence of several ethno-terrorist organisations that pose serious challenges to the national security of the three states. To counter these violent groups, multilateral intelligence cooperation can be a new light while this way of cooperation gives nations courage to tackle their national security challenges. The emergence of ISIS and Taliban and their suicide attacks against military and civilian installations forced Pakistan and Afghanistan to consider and develop a new working relationship, but unfortunately, the changing foreign policy approach of the Afghan Unity government diminished all efforts. The recent violent noise of the Afghan and Indian leaders about terrorist infiltration from Pakistan before and after the Uri attacks...
Why Russia and China’s Combat Drills in the South China Sea Matter
There’s a growing intimacy between two of Asia’s big naval powers and it’s causing disquiet among regional watchers and maritime policymakers. Russia and China are growing closer in the nautical realm, much to the chagrin of Indian, American and Southeast Asian analysts who feel that their growing bilateral synergy could impact the balance of power in Asia. The trigger for the latest bout of anxiety is ‘Joint Sea-2016’— a joint Sino-Russian naval exercise featuring surface ships, submarines, fixed-wing aircraft, ship-borne helicopters and amphibious vessels navies. China has announced that its biggest naval drill with Russia will include the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLA-N’s) Nanhai fleet, and will involve, among other exercises, anti-submarine and amphibious missions. This is the first time Russian and Chinese naval contingents are meeting for combat drills in the South China Sea (thoughreportedly not in a contested part of the region), however there’s been visible evidence of a growing synergy in other parts of maritime Eurasia. In August last year, the two navies carried out ‘Joint Sea 2015 II’, a high-end naval exercise in the Sea of Japan, featuring live-firing drills, anti-submarine operations and close-support combat drills. During an earlier exercise in the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea in May the same year, senior commanders made statements challenging America’s strategic dominance of Eurasia. Russian and Chinese leaders believe that the US is the central destabilizing factor in the region’s geopolitics, and is engaged in a systemic containment of Moscow and Beijing. By staging close-combat naval exercises, they hope to warn Washington that its primacy in maritime Asia is at an end. The prospect of joint amphibious exercises near the South China Sea has alarmed regional watchers. Many fear a repeat of the August 2015 drills, when the Russian and Chinese navies simulated a mock ground assault in which 400 PLA marines landed on an island in...
Why Russia and China's Combat Drills in the South China Sea Matter
There’s a growing intimacy between two of Asia’s big naval powers and it’s causing disquiet among regional watchers and maritime policymakers. Russia and China are growing closer in the nautical realm, much to the chagrin of Indian, American and Southeast Asian analysts who feel that their growing bilateral synergy could impact the balance of power in Asia. The trigger for the latest bout of anxiety is ‘Joint Sea-2016’— a joint Sino-Russian naval exercise featuring surface ships, submarines, fixed-wing aircraft, ship-borne helicopters and amphibious vessels navies. China has announced that its biggest naval drill with Russia will include the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLA-N’s) Nanhai fleet, and will involve, among other exercises, anti-submarine and amphibious missions. This is the first time Russian and Chinese naval contingents are meeting for combat drills in the South China Sea (thoughreportedly not in a contested part of the region), however there’s been visible evidence of a growing synergy in other parts of maritime Eurasia. In August last year, the two navies carried out ‘Joint Sea 2015 II’, a high-end naval exercise in the Sea of Japan, featuring live-firing drills, anti-submarine operations and close-support combat drills. During an earlier exercise in the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea in May the same year, senior commanders made statements challenging America’s strategic dominance of Eurasia. Russian and Chinese leaders believe that the US is the central destabilizing factor in the region’s geopolitics, and is engaged in a systemic containment of Moscow and Beijing. By staging close-combat naval exercises, they hope to warn Washington that its primacy in maritime Asia is at an end. The prospect of joint amphibious exercises near the South China Sea has alarmed regional watchers. Many fear a repeat of the August 2015 drills, when the Russian and Chinese navies simulated a mock ground assault in which 400 PLA marines landed on an island in...
Alliance: The Newest Phase of Russo-Chinese Relations
Western observers inexplicably dismiss all signs of a Russo-Chinese alliance with the argument that underlying incompatibilities between Russia and China will prevent any real cooperation. Yet while disappointments and tensions exist between them, all the evidence points to the formation of an alliance, or what the Russian analyst Alexander Gabuev calls “an asymmetric interdependence,” where Moscow depends more on Beijing than vice versa. Indeed, Russian officials have, since 2014, spoken openly in terms of an alliance and used that word. Russian President Vladimir Putin most recently stated that: As we had never reached this level of relations before, our experts have had trouble defining today’s general state of our common affairs. It turns out that to say we have strategic cooperation is not enough anymore. This is why we have started talking about a comprehensive partnership and strategic collaboration. “Comprehensive” means that we work virtually on all major avenues; “strategic” means that we attach enormous inter-governmental importance to this work. This is too close to advocacy of an alliance to be coincidental. Putin has also spoken of Russia catching the wind of China’s growth in its sails and derided the China threat theory. He also indicated that Russia and China would begin discussing a vast “Eurasia project,” presumably comprising both China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Presumably these talks are based upon China’s earlier assent to the idea of linking Russia’s plans for integrating Eurasia through the EEU to the OBOR project. China’s Victory over Russia This sequence actually displays China’s victory over Russia and Russia’s inability to compete with China. Russia now is merely a “junior brother” in such endeavors. Typically, China graciously but decisively punctured Russia’s grandiloquent Eurasian and great power pretensions. And Russia’s recklessness and failure to reform greatly assisted in the...
Will Russia-Pakistan Joint Drill Change The Balance of Power In Asia?
This week India-Russia relationship moved from being ‘special’ to regular. As Russian troops landed in Pakistan for a two-week counter-terrorism joint exercise the ‘degree of separation’ of the original strategic partners only increased, coming as it did in less than a week after the Uri terror strike. Even though India and Russia are also engaged in counter-terrorism exercises in Vladivostok (for the eighth year running), watching Russian troops land in Pakistan is a new experience in the region. Russia is central to India’s foreign policy goals and to the balance of power in Asia. “The challenge for us is to keep the India-Russia relationship stable in a loosening great power universe,” a source said. Russia remains India’s top defence supplier, but Indian officials confirmed they have asked Moscow to make a choice between Pakistan and India. It’s a red line that Moscow has breached and things may never be the same again.. This follows increasing tension recently between India and Pakistan.. Pakistan prime minister seems to be convinced that they are safe as they are protected by China. Also Pak is calling every Muslim nation to support. It has good relation with Saudi’s. Seems like Saudi’s decide their govt. Pak is looking for freedom of state of Kashmir from India and join its nations.Reason!! It needs road and a pipe line for china. China ready to pay for it. Seems like this land deal has already been done to sell to China. Baluchistan is another problem in Pak, it seems to be same “kashmir” problem at pak home. They usually are under coup and never stable govt. This article originally appeared on www.investmentwatchblog.com. Original link. Disclaimer: Views expressed in the article are not necessarily supported by CRSS.
China to Build Outposts for Tajik Guards on Tajikistan-Afghanistan Border
China plans to finance and build several outposts and other facilities to beef up Tajikistan’s defence capabilities along its border with Afghanistan, the Tajik government said on Monday. The Central Asian nation’s 1,345-km border with its southern neighbour is leaky and Dushanbe routinely reports clashes between border guards and armed drug smugglers there. The increased activity of Afghan Taliban in the northern Kunduz province is another source of concern. A large part of the main highway connecting Tajikistan’s most populous regions to China lies along the same border and armed trespassers this year kidnapped several Tajiks doing maintenance work on that road. In a decree published on Monday, the government instructed the State National Security Committee to sign an agreement with the Chinese side that provides for the construction of 11 outposts of different sizes and a training centre for border guards. China, which according to official statistics sells goods worth US$2.5 billion a year to Tajikistan has already built one outpost on the Tajik-Afghan border, its first, earlier this year. Russia used to station its own border guards on the frontier until 2005, and after that kept a regiment in the Tajik city of Kulyab, 42km from the Afghan border. But Moscow pulled the regiment out in December last year and moved it to the capital, Dushanbe, about 200km further away. China confirmed last year that it would build a military logistics facilities in Djibouti to support Chinese peacekeeping and anti-piracy missions. No completion date has yet been given for the base. It is seen as a move to strengthen China’s presence in Africa. This article originally appeared on www.scmp.com, September 26, 2016. Original link. Disclaimer: Views expressed in the article are not necessarily supported by CRSS.
Will the World Keep Funding Afghanistan?
International donors are gearing up to contemplate their financial commitments to Afghanistan once more. The two day conference, which will take place in Brussels next week, follows on from the 2012 Tokyo conference at which major donors pledged $4 billion annually in development aid through 2015. But four years on, billions in aid later, Afghanistan seems no more stable in either the security or political realm. The massive gathering–70 countries and 20 international organizations are expected to participate–aims to “endorse a realistic program of reforms to bring about the Afghan government’s vision and to ensure continued international political and financial support” for the country. Donors are expected to commit to the same level of aid–$4 billion annually–although a leaked memo obtained by The Guardian indicates that the EU will make some aid contingent on Kabul accepting some 80,000 deported asylum seekers. The leaked memo underscores one of the conclusions–that aid conditionality has not been consistently effective in influencing Afghan government behavior–in a report released today by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, an independent U.S. oversight body. The report–part of SIGAR’s recently launched lessons learned project–was based on a closed-door conference convened in the spring at the U.S. Institute of Peace which included among its participants seven sitting ambassadors, five former ambassadors, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as representatives from major donor countries and organizations. The report (PDF) cites four themes stemming from the discussions. First, conflicts between divergent goals and different actors resulted in the pursuit of “disparate and sometimes ill-defined missions in Afghanistan.” The tension between pursuing short term security goals and investing in long term development combined with individual states having to balance civilian and military initiatives,...
Afghanistan’s Shaky National Unity Government Approaches Its Second Anniversary
Afghanistan’s national unity government, which will complete two troubled years in power Thursday, has set aside its internal differences and prepared an upbeat report of its achievements and goals to present to international donors in Brussels next week, hoping to secure their renewed commitment to long-term support. By highlighting their efforts to combat public corruption and waste, and outlining a five-year plan to develop agriculture, private investment and regional ties, President Ashraf Ghani and his aides hope to prove that Kabul deserves the trust of a skeptical world community that has paid Afghanistan’s bills for the past 14 years. Abdullah Abdullah, Ghani’s governing partner and chief executive, has embraced the initiative and dropped the sharp public criticism he leveled last month at Ghani, calling him “unfit” to lead. This week, Abdullah said that the government will remain “legitimate” after the two-year power-sharing agreement expires Thursday, and that it will continue for Ghani’s full five-year presidential term. “The CEO is fully on board. He has been at every single meeting and discussion in the planning for Brussels,” said Nader Nadery, a senior spokesman for the Ghani administration. Nadery ticked off a long list of reforms achieved in the past two years, including curbing customs fraud and collecting a record amount of taxes. “We are frank and self-critical about where we have not made progress, but in many areas we have made a lot,” he said. But critics say that the long-running dispute between Ghani and Abdullah has only been put on hold, and that a flurry of pre-Brussels good-news gestures — including last week’s announcement of a peace deal with fugitive militia leaderGulbuddin Hekmatyar — cannot mask the failures that have led to deep public disillusionment after two years of aggressive insurgent attacks, rampant unemployment and entrenched public corruption. They also say that despite Abdullah’s conciliatory new stance and...
Modi’s War Hysteria
After drumming up war hysteria for several days, India’s top brass has taken the route of de-escalation, manifest in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s words on September 24 at a BJP meeting: “People of Pakistan should question their leadership on why, when both countries gained freedom together, while India exports software, Pakistan exports terrorists.” In the same breath, Modi challenged Pakistan to “fight a war on poverty and unemployment and see who wins first, India or Pakistan.” Only two days earlier, in a travesty of diplomatic norms and contravention of international law, the Indian embassy at Geneva had received Brahamdagh Bugti, a terrorist wanted by Pakistan. Ironically, the same day an official of the Permanent Mission of India to the UN Eenam Gambhir, called Pakistan “a terrorist state” which, according to her, channelises billions of dollars, much of it diverted from international aid, to training, financing and supporting terrorist groups as militant proxies against its neighbours… where terrorist entities and their leaders, including many designated by the UN, continue to roam the streets of Pakistan freely and operate with State’s support. This essentially implied that the US reimbursements under the Coalition Support Funds to Pakistan, which undergo thorough scrutiny, were being diverted for terror missions—quite an indictment of the quality and rigour of US auditing! The Indian rhetoric also conveniently sidestepped the fact that its best friend Iran too enjoys the distinction of once being branded by the United States part of an “Axis of Evil” alongside North Korea. Writing in the Hindustan Times on Sept 25, Ramachandra Guha advised the ruling BJP to recall what Jayaprakash Narayan, the renowned Indian independence activist, social reformer and political leader, had said on Kashmir back in 1966: “It will be a suicide of the soul of India, if India tried to suppress the Kashmiri people by force”. And, further: “Kashmir has distorted...
Peace With Hekmatyar: What Does It Mean For Battlefield And Politics?
The peace deal signed today by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of Hezb-e Islami, and President Ashraf Ghani, has been hailed by the Afghan government as the first major peace achievement of the last fifteen years. However, expectations should be tempered. Given Hezb-e Islami’s almost total absence on the battlefield, the deal is unlikely to significantly lower the current levels of violence. It is also unlikely to inspire the Taleban to follow Hezb’s example, considering the completely different trajectories and aims of the two groups. Even so, says AAN’s Borhan Osman, Hekmatyar’s outsized ‘jihadi credentials’ could present a challenge to the legitimacy of the Taleban insurgency and his eventual return to civilian life can only be expected to leave its mark on Afghanistan’s politics. How did this peace deal come about? The agreement is the climax of six and half years of negotiations which included dozens of meetings between the two sides. It was a turbulent process, fraught with interruptions and breakdowns only to be followed by resumptions. Contacts with US officials were initiated even earlier, in 2008. That year, the Hezb-e Islami faction led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (often abbreviated as HIG: Hezb-e Islami-ye Gulbuddin) published its outline for a peace plan and two years later it handed over a 15-point plan to the government (see this AAN analysis). Despite the long trajectory, it was not until spring of this year that a deal finally looked imminent. The negotiations that culminated in the current draft agreement started in March 2016, and in April, HIG dropped its most substantial condition for an agreement, the withdrawal of foreign troops; chief negotiator Karim Amin called the full withdrawal of foreign troops a goal, rather than a condition for an accord. In May 2016, a draft agreement between the two sides was initialled by Amin and HPC chair Pir Sayed Ahmad Gailani (AAN analysis here). In the following month, however, the fate of the agreement was...
TOP STORIES
TESTIMONIALS
“
I am also a member of National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting. Recently, we held a meeting with the Director General of Radio Pakistan and we told them to initiate such local programs (like Constituency Hour) in regional languages to educate and inform people. Even Indian Radio can be heard in FATA which is being used for propaganda purposes and must be closed. Therefore, we should launch some standard and quality programs like CRSS that will change the taste of the listeners.