Great Game heating up in Central Asia

WASHINGTON: Two recent studies by US think-tanks predict the revival of the big powers rivalry in the Central Asian region with a direct bearing on Pakistan which sits on the confluence of Central and South Asia and the Middle East.

The first study, released on Wednesday by the Chicago-based Power and Interest News Report, foresees Russia and China getting together to combat growing US influence in Central Asia.

The other report, by Washington-based Stimson Center, examines US efforts to enlist India’s support to counter Sino-Russian influence in Central Asia and warns that India and China also have common interests that may produce friction in the US-Indian relationship.

Russia and China, bilaterally and along with the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, are posing a serious challenge to US interests in the Central Asian region, says Adam Wolfe who authored the PINR report, ‘The Great Game Heats Up in Central Asia’.

“While this combination (is) not enough to knock the US out of the region, it (is) the most forceful challenge to US interests in Central Asia since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001,” he says.

Seeking to prevent any further damage to Washington’s position in the ‘Great Game’, last week US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld travelled to the region to shore up support for maintaining its bilateral agreements with the key players. This was followed by Uzbekistan announcing a deadline for US withdrawal from a military base in its territory.

“These moves indicate that even though fighting in Afghanistan has yet to cool down, the traditional power politics of Central Asia are heating up,” says Mr Wolfe.

Stimson Center’s Ziad Haider, in his report titled ‘US-India-China: Giants at Play’, notes that with an annual trade of $15 billion, China is India’s third largest trading partner after the EU and the US. India and China are also united in their quest for energy to fuel their growth. A Sino-Indian convergence also exists in the WTO where both are championing the developing world’s cause of greater market access to the developed world including the US.

India may also break ranks with the US on China due to domestic politics. In the Congress-led coalition government, the Left parties are a key ally and are increasingly asserting their views in foreign policy. The Left is also more amenable to closer ties with China.

“A final trigger for Sino-Indian convergence is the US’s sole superpower status and its propensity for unilateralism. India, like China, has watched this trend with great concern and continues to withhold any meaningful support to US efforts in Iraq,” says Mr Haider.

He points out that in their first stand-alone trilateral meeting last month, the foreign ministers of India, China and Russia called for a ‘democratisation of international relations, a consistent application of the principles of multilaterality in problem settlement, and the strengthening of the role of the United Nations’.

“In short, as India leverages US strength for its own ends, India’s Nehruvian strain of non-alignment and multilateralism may not always be able to digest the US’s preponderance of power. Here, too, India may be compelled to close ranks with China and others,” argues Mr Haider.

Mr Wolfe notes that at their July 2 meeting Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin issued an important joint statement on ‘the international order of the 21st century’, which addresses ‘US hegemony’ in several less-than-oblique passages. The text emphasizes non-interference in internal affairs, mutual respect for other nations’ sovereignty, and stresses the role of ‘multipolarity’ in dealing with conflicts.

In a passage aimed at Washington’s perceived encroachment in Central Asia, the document states, “The international community should thoroughly renounce the mentality of confrontation and alignment, should not pursue the right to monopolize or dominate world affairs, and should not divide countries into a leading camp and a subordinate camp.”

Referring to the July 5 meeting of the SCO in Astana, Kazakhstan, Mr Wolfe says that while the group’s previous meetings focused on terrorism, separatism and extremism, this meeting demonstrated that the organization, which represents nearly 50 per cent of the world’s population, desires to be a serious force in international affairs.

“This can be seen in the granting of observer status to India (at Russia’s request), Pakistan (at China’s insistence) and Iran (to the delight of all members),” he notes.

The SCO sought to limit Washington’s presence in the region — Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan shifted their support to China and Russia in order to protect their sovereignty from ‘US meddling’. The joint declaration issued at the end of the summit took aim at Washington by rejecting attempts at ‘monopolizing or dominating international affairs’ and insisting on ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states’.

Ways to protect Britain: ‘Treat Muslims with respect and pull out of Iraq’

LONDON: It is four weeks since bombers indiscriminately killed and maimed ordinary Londoners. Protecting London from terrorists requires the best possible policing — which, in turn, needs the greatest possible flow of information from all communities. It also demands that we shrink the pool of the alienated that bombers draw on by treating all communities as equal parts of British society — not only theoretically, but in reality. And it means withdrawing from Iraq. All are interrelated.

Acceptance that the invasion of Iraq increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on London now extends far beyond the usual suspects — from Guardian writers to MI5, Douglas Hurd, the Daily Mail , the Spectator , and a majority of the British public.

Jack Straw has also acknowledged this debate. If the invasion of Iraq had been justified, it would be possible to argue that we must bear the sacrifices necessary to achieve a just outcome. However, it is evident that the war in Iraq was not justified. It has made the situation worse. The illusions with which it was launched are collapsing.

The reason the US is not able to stabilise Iraq is related to the same critical issue that affects policing in Britain: information. Which is simply another way of saying the attitude of the population.

US forces are ineffective because the great bulk of the population will not give them intelligence voluntarily. Therefore elements within the US military are led to resort to ritual humiliation and torture. This does not yield remotely sufficient information. Therefore US forces are led to relatively blind strikes against those opposing them — inevitably killing innocent civilians. This, of course, has the effect of alienating the population further.

The Iraqi people see US policy in practice. Successive US administrations showed no interest in Iraqi democracy — so long as Saddam Hussein gassed Iranians, Kurds or other US opponents he was supplied with weapons and other support. Only when he struck a US ally was he opposed.

After the 2003 invasion, when US troops were deployed to protect the oil ministry while looting gripped Iraq, when key reconstruction contracts were awarded to US companies, Iraqis understood what was in store for them. US forces cannot win over Iraq’s population because the formally stated democratic goals of the forces have nothing to do with the actual policy pursued.

That is also why Al Qaeda, previously without a presence in Iraq, now has a strong base there — damaging the fight against international terrorism. Nevertheless, I want to make the point to some opponents of the war. It is not a policy simply to explain to people: “You are dying because Britain is in Iraq.” The bombers came to kill indiscriminately. As one Londoner put it to me: “I am a Muslim and scared — and my first fear is being blown up.” I supported action against the Iraq war and I support measures to stop Londoners being bombed.

Right now, only the police can stop bombers. Anyone who tries to avoid this is not dealing with what are literally life and death matters. But the police can only be effective if they get community cooperation. Opponents of the war should continue to oppose it. But they also have to say to London’s communities: “Cooperate with the police to catch terrorists” — and explain that the quality of information the police get will be decisively affected by the degree to which communities are treated with respect.

Which leads directly to the question of whether Britain should ban Sheikh Qaradhawi — a matter with major consequences for the treatment of Britain’s Muslim community. Last week, Jonathan Freedland honestly reported in the Guardian that Qaradhawi utterly condemned the London bombings. However, many have suggested that Qaradhawi should none the less be banned because he says Palestinian suicide bombing can be justified in the specific conditions of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I am utterly against both suicide bombings and Israeli killing of civilians — I didn’t oppose capital punishment decade after decade to turn round and say it’s all right when suicide bombers blow people up.

But if supporters of the Palestinians should be banned on the grounds that Palestinians kill civilians, then consistency would require banning Israeli leaders, who have been responsible for killing several times more Palestinian civilians. Someone advocating that both Sharon and Qaradhawi be banned would be wrong, but at least they would be consistent.

Consider the consequences of a ban on Qaradhawi for relations with the Muslim community. He is one of the world’s most eminent Muslim religious leaders. It is impossible to say that Britain’s Muslims should be treated with respect but that their religion’s most eminent representatives must be banned. Imagine how the Jewish community, many of whom do not agree with the policies of Israel’s government, would react if Israeli leaders were banned because of military actions that have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians.

Every major British Muslim organization believes Qaradhawi should be admitted. Whatever his individual views, he is seen as a moderate and is fiercely opposed to Al Qaeda. Those believing he should be banned give lip service to treating Britain’s Muslim community with respect but in practice deny it.

As only dialogue and negotiation will end this cycle of violence, I favour banning neither Israeli leaders nor Qaradhawi. I don’t believe there is any prospect of achieving a lasting peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict until all sides come to terms with the horrors they have perpetrated.

The London bombings demand clear thinking, not rhetoric. People’s lives depend on the decisions made. These must be for every community to aid the police in preventing attacks; to treat Britain’s Muslim community with respect, both because it is right and to shrink the pools terrorists operate in; and for Britain to withdraw from Iraq.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service

— The writer is mayor of London