Current Projects
Stern Bear, Rising Dragon: Russia & China Steadily Grow Defense Cooperation
The past month has seen a marked increase in cooperation between Russia and China on defense and national security issues. And while it's early to speak of a military alliance between the two countries, experts say that as long as the dangers posed by terrorism and US-led unipolarity continue to grow, so too will Russian-Chinese cooperation. This week, Chinese and Russian naval forces began Joint Sea-2016, a massive eight-day series of war games in the South China Sea involving destroyers and other surface ships, submarines, fighters, shipborne helicopters, marines and armored personnel carriers and other amphibious vehicles. Commenting on the exercises, PolitRussia contributor Sviatoslav Knyazev suggested that it's no wonder that much of the international community has focused its attention on the drills, "given that China's neighbors are being actively pitted against Beijing" using sea-based territorial disputes. "The United States is providing demonstrative support for China's neighbors, actively trying to pull Southeast Asia into the its economic, political and military sphere of influence, using the 'divide and conquer' principle." Moreover, Knyazev noted, "the US military is treating the Chinese with open defiance on the open sea." "Against this background," the analyst suggested, "the training of the Russian and Chinese military in the vicinity of the disputed territories is very revealing," serving to demonstrate the growing extent of military cooperation between the two countries. "Their message however, differs fundamentally from that of the US." Speaking to Russian media ahead of the exercises, Vice Admiral Fedotenkov, commander of the Russian forces involved in the drills, emphasized that the Russian-Chinese cooperation "is not directed against anyone, and is intended to protect our mutual interests, to ensure security across the world's oceans. It's a good thing when two countries, two great powers, cooperate; this guarantees peace not only in the...
The American Withdrawal Woes
Afghanistan’s security situation to this day remains unstable despite the numerous efforts made by multiple stakeholders. The US is faced with a dilemma whether to fulfil President Obama's election promises of withdrawing its troops after 15 years long tour of duty and allow the country to be torn apart once again or stay back to oversee the process consolidate to a viable political order and continue to strive for political reconciliation amongst the competing groups i.e.; Ghani's government supported by a cartel of warlords on one hand and the Taliban on the other. A recent advice to this effect came via an article in the Foreign Affairs. Pointing to the US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the article quotes Astro Teller, CEO of Google’s X, as saying: Failure is “the point at which you know what you are working on is the wrong thing to be working on or that you are working on it in the wrong way. You can’t call the work up to [that] moment… ‘failing’—that’s called ‘learning.’ And once you frame it that way there’s this moment where if you stop now, if you course correct now, you can be shame-free. But if you keep going forward, the shame starts to build.[1] Nearly 15 years after a massive military intervention and financial infusion worth a trillion dollars Afghanistan remains a divided polity with no real political process. The country's security structure is fragile and the country is financially hugely dependent on foreign aid. The American troops were supposed to leave Afghanistan by 2017 but the way that things have been progressing its seems that they might be forced to stay for the indefinite future. The transition of power to the Afghan authorities have been anything but smooth as the Afghan Military still seems to be a work in progress. Past predictions about the Afghan forces readiness may have been far too optimistic and it doesn’t help that the Taliban are still going strong. As a part of current military plans, the United States will...
Daesh, Haqqanis and Sanctuaries
Abandoning a project in which the United States and its partners have invested 15 years, billions upon billions of dollars, and thousands of lives with no acceptable outcome in sight is harrowing. Although the United States’ engagement in Afghanistan has not resulted in many of the outcomes it might have preferred, the real failure would be maintaining the current course knowing that doing so is likely to only prolong ultimate defeat —This excerpt from a recent Foreign Affairs article by Andrew Shaver and Joshua Madrigal sums up the dilemma that the US today faces in Afghanistan. The authors quote Astro Teller, CEO of Google’s X, as saying: Failure is “the point at which you know what you are working on is the wrong thing to be working on or that you are working on it in the wrong way. You can’t call the work up to [that] moment… ‘failing’— that’s called ‘learning.’ And once you frame it that way there’s this moment where if you stop now, if you course correct now, you can be shame-free. But if you keep going forward, the shame starts to build.” Using Pentagon data, the authors point out that violence in Afghanistan following Obama’s 2009 troop surge has remained at levels vastly exceeding those observed during the initial years of the war. Meanwhile, measures of insurgent activity, from kidnappings to weapons sales, have remained at levels at or above those observed when the United States “surged” troops into the country. Not surprising that the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) lost nearly 900 men during the month of July alone, a fact that the top US commander in Afghanistan General John Nicholson admitted in a public meeting late August. In a September 23 briefing at Pentagon, Nicholson gave a detailed account on the Daesh/IS in the region. He said some 20 of the 98 designated terrorist groups are in Af-Pak region, Daesh being among them. This group, he said comprised up to 1,300 “Pakistani Pashtoon fighters, mostly from the Orakzai agency, currently...
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: Paper Tiger Or Sleeping Dragon?
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) was once viewed as an Eastern counterbalance to NATO. In reality, the Eurasian political, economic and military alliance has no joint military forces, although its members do share intelligence and cooperate over border and customs issues. Founded in 2001, it is made up of China, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Last July, the SCO decided to admit India and Pakistan as full members. This means that when they join next year, the organisation will include half of the world’s population. Fabio Indeo, a specialist in Central Asian geopolitics and a research fellow at the Centre for Energy Governance and Security at Hanyang University in Seoul, looks at the implications for the organisation as it marks its 15th anniversary. IWPR: What are Russia’s and China’s main objectives concerning the SCO? Fabio Indeo: Russia appears to be most interested in security since anything happening in Central Asia and Afghanistan affects its own southern borders. Russia is also interested in China’s involvement in SCO since it represents a way to control Chinese potential military ambitions in the region. Furthermore, Uzbekistan’s membership in the SCO allows Russia to share a security forum with this strategic post-Soviet country, which left the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the Russian-backed military bloc, in 2012. Going forward, China has historically conceived of SCO summits as an enlarged and privileged forum to develop bilateral economic relations with Central Asian countries, accepting that Russia can play the role of security provider through the CSTO. The recent deal with Uzbekistan to upgrade Chinese-Uzbek relations to the level of “comprehensive strategic relations” confirms this trend even further. One also needs to consider that since 2015 China has become Tashkent’s main trade partner, taking over Russia's traditional role. What is Uzbekistan’s interest in being a member of SCO? As far...
IS Retakes Control of Former Strongholds in Afghanistan
Officials and witnesses in Afghanistan say fighters linked to Islamic State have regained control of most of the militant group's former strongholds in the country, weeks after retreating to remote mountain hideouts in the face of major Afghan security operations. The troubled areas are located in Achin, Naziyan, Kot and Haska Meena districts of the eastern Nangarhar province, which borders Pakistan. A reporter for VOA’s Afghan service this week traveled to Achin, the main IS base in the country, and says government security forces have relocated to positions they were occupying prior to the launching of an anti-IS “Qahr-e- Sellab” offensive in June. Regional military spokesman Shreen Aqa confirmed to VOA that IS militants have returned to parts of the troubled districts, but said Afghan forces are preparing to undertake a fresh offensive for their eviction. Warning not heeded Tribal elders from the area have repeatedly warned IS was trying to return to its former bases and criticized Afghan authorities for not paying attention or establishing permanent security posts after concluding the previous operations. IS launched its regional operations early last year in about 10 districts of Nangarhar, but stiff resistance from the rival Taliban and repeated U.S. counterterrorism drone strikes confined them to three or four districts, according to officials. The operations in June and July were “very successful” because they eliminated IS regional chief, Hafiz Saeed Khan, along with 11 other top leaders and killed 25 percent of its fighters, General John Nicholson, the top U.S. military commander in the country, noted last week. “We estimate there numbers are 1,200 or 1,300 fighters. They have some enclaves in (neighboring) Kunar province, but primarily they are in Nangarhar province,” Nicholson told reporters on Friday. Primarily Pakistani ethnic Pashtun militants who were previously part of the anti-state Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan in the neighboring country...
Afghanistan Working With India to Create Joint Air Corridor to Enhance Bilateral Trade
Afghanistan is working with India to create a joint air corridor to enhance bilateral trade following Pakistan's intransigence in denying transit rights through its territory amid deteriorating ties with both the countries. Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani has said he discussed the creation of a joint air trade route with India during his recent visit to the country, according to a statement from the presidential palace issued on Sunday. The issue was also discussed when Ghani met a World Bank delegation headed by its vice president Kyle Peters over the weekend in Kabul. The World Bank supported Kabul's quest for better regional connectivity, people familiar with the matter said. Besides a joint air trade route with India, the Afghanistan government is also focusing on creation of economic zones in airports. During his visit to Delhi earlier this month Ghani had set a target of $10 billion for bilateral trade and investment with India in five years, underlining the importance of a concrete road map for future collaboration. He marked out retail, power, pharmaceuticals, solar energy, water management, ports and skill development as areas that hold immense potential. "You spoke of a road map. Let us start with a target of $10 billion in trade and investment, five years and we are going to realise it," Ghani had said at a business meet in Delhi. Trade between India and Afghanistan amounted to $643 million in 2015-16. At the business meet Ghani had proposed formation of a task force between the industry chambers of the two countries and governments for laying a concrete road map for future collaboration. Stating that Afghanistan had invested over $30 million in its airports, Ghani proposed formation of a joint cargo company with India. He also spoke of Afghan fruits that can be made affordable for the middle class and low-income Indian households. Noting that the Kandahar airport has "first-grade cold storage capabilities", Ghani sought investment from...
NUG-HIA to Bring Political Stability in Afghanistan: Analysts
The deal between the Afghan National Unity Government (NUG) and Chief of Hizb-e-Islami Afghanistan (HIA) Gulbadin Hikmatyar will affect positively political stability in Afghanistan, analysts having known as Afghan experts have said. Hikmatyar, who is dubbed as a ‘butcher of Kabul’ for allegedly killing thousands of people in the country’s civil war in 1990s would be granted amnesty under the agreement. His role in Afghanistan passed through several phases: The HIA chief was considered as significant anti-Soviet Jihadi during the cold war era and played an important role in Afghan Jihad besides the politics of the country as Prime Minister. In 1990s’ civil war in Afghanistan, he reportedly committed heinous war crimes, even supervised rocket bombardment on Kabul. Now, he goes for peace deal vowing to shun violence and also appealing powerful Taliban to join the reconciliation process. In the past he was blamed to have organized attacks on coalition forces and Afghans and also for ties with Al-Qaeda and Daesh in Afghanistan. But for couple of years, he has been considered militarily irrelevant and has been in hiding. As per the 25-point long pact, HIA would abide by the Afghan Constitution and will dismantle its militant wing. The government pledged to release HIA’s prisoners and lift all restrictions on the group and Hikmatyar. The deal could be implemented once Hikmatyar and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani sign it. Rahimullah Yousafzai, Expert on militancy and the region, told CRSS, “the deal with Hikmatyar may not be important militarily but most likely lead the breakaway factions of HIA would to reunite after the peace deal. Such a situation would make Hikmatyar the most powerful figure and HIA large political party in the country. HIA was divided into four factions namely: HIA United Afghanistan faction led by Wahidullah Sabawon, HIA Hamdard led by Juma Khan Hamdard, and the faction led by Abbdul Hadi Arghandiwal. The faction led by Hikmatyar was the...
Hekmatyar Committed a Major Crime By Signing Peace Deal: Taliban
The Taliban militants group in Afghanistan has slammed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar for allowing his party to sign a draft peace agreement with the Afghan government, saying Hekmatyar has committed ‘a major crime’. “Not only will he face the wrath of Allah for leaving jihad, but he has committed a major crime,” the group said in an article published in its website. Titled The Concept of Peace In Islam, the group offered scathing criticism of Hekmatyar without naming him, according to Gandhara/RFERL. “[He is] backing this government by concluding a peace agreement with it,” the article said. “Doesn’t it tantamount to supporting the occupying forces and joining them?” Questionnning Hekmatyar’s nearly 40-year militant career, which saw him transform from a student rebel in the 1970s into the leader of the most powerful anti-Soviet guerilla faction of the 1980s, the group said “If making peace with the occupiers was of such importance, then why didn’t these peace-loving people make peace with the Russians, who killed 2 million people and their occupation was followed by a brutal civil war?” “Why has making peace with the United States become a legitimate option now, when it was not acceptable for 15 years?” the group said. Hezb-e-Islami is the first militant group to sign a draft peace agreement with the Afghan government following a call made by the government to join peace process in a bid to end the ongoing violence through reconciliation process. The Taliban group however rejected the plea and announced its spring offensive in April this year forcing the Afghan government to give up peae efforts and respond to Taliban’s insurgency with military option. This article originally appeared on www.khaama.com , September 27, 2016. Original link. Disclaimer: Views expressed in the article are not necessarily supported by CRSS.
Why India Has Everything to Gain If Third Party Mediates With Pakistan
As the government reviews the Indus Water treaty , it would do well to remember that the water sharing arrangement and the Rann of Kutch agreements that have both stood the test of time and wars, were both negotiated by a third party. While the World Bank helped India and Pakistan with Indus, the UK played a role in solving the border dispute over the salty marsh lands. As India and Pakistan spar once again, over the unrest in Kashmir and the terror attack at an army camp in Uri, should New Delhi redraw its redlines and opt for a mediator? As a keen watcher of the Kashmir conflict, I’d make the case that a third party makes maximum logical strategic sense. Here’s why. It is in India’s interest to engage Nawaz a third party for several reasons. First, Pakistan reiterates its demand for third party mediation on Kashmir and thus would be hard-pressed to reject this approach. Speak to senior Pakistani diplomats and bureaucrats and they will concede privately that were such a process to start, the outcome would evolve towards the view that the Line of Control (LoC) be made the international border. India has everything to gain and Pakistan more to lose in the event of third party involvement. President Bill Clinton virtually endorsed the LoC as an international border when, he said in Islamabad in March 2000, soon after the short but sharp war in Kargil that, “History will not reward those who try to forcefully redraw borders with blood.” Bilateral talks with Pakistan are unlikely to transform the LoC into an international border. Talks with Pakistan and a third party are likely to be more effective in clarifying the unreality of Pakistan’s stated goals for Kashmir. It would not be difficult for Indian government officials to defend third party involvement politically. Indeed, it would be easier to generate public support for third party involvement than for a resumption of the bilateral dialogue that hasn’t seen much progress since the Mumbai attacks of 2008....
Multiplicity of opinions and ideas is crucial for growth and progress: Dutch Political Affairs Sec
As a child, I was fortunate that I was always able to engage my teachers and explore a range of concepts and questions because critical thinking was encouraged. This is what teachers in Pakistan need to do, to engage the youth in a manner that creates safe spaces for discourse. These remarks were made by Martijn Beerthuizen, First Secretary for Political Affairs of The Netherlands, during the closing ceremony of Pakistan Center of Excellence’s (PACE) eighth round of collaborative workshops; a four day residential training program between September 23 and 26, 2016. He also said that our perspective is narrowed if we never break out of our comfort zones, and that the best path to progress was to look at life from a multitude of angles, perspectives and ideas. Beerthuizen, who recently came to Pakistan, said that this was his first time addressing a public gathering in Pakistan, and that he was very excited to be here. PACE is a major CVE initiative launched by the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) - with the support from the government of Netherlands - to promote democratic values, respect for diversity, fundamental human rights and virtues of tolerance as a measure of ensuring social peace and harmony for peaceful co-existence. It aims to facilitate a socio-political discourse – the Alternate Narrative on democratic rights and responsibilities anchored in the globally accepted and practiced concepts. These concepts include adherence to the rule of law, equal citizenry, secular governance as a primary condition for social cohesion, and tolerance within the society at all levels. The resource persons and public intellectuals who interacted with the participating university lecturers and professors from different universities across Pakistan included Dr. Niaz Murtaza, Ms. Humaira Masihuddin, Ms. Tahira Abdullah, Ms. Sara Farid, Dr. Shoaib Suddle, Mr. Safiullah Gul, and Mr. Charles Petrie. The discussion themes we primarily rule of law, tolerance,...
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.