IF there was any doubt about Russia’s recovery from the strategic dislocation that it had suffered as a result of the Soviet Union’s defeat in the cold war and its disintegration, it was removed by the denunciation of Washington’s unilateralist and militarist approach by President Vladimir Putin at the international security conference at Munich on February 10.

Criticising the US for its attempt to force its will on the world, Putin observed, “The US has overstepped the limits in all spheres — economic, political and humanitarian — and has imposed itself on other states…. One-sided illegitimate action hasn’t solved a single problem and has become a generator of many human tragedies, a source of tension…. This is very dangerous. No one feels secure because nobody can seek safety behind the stonewall of international law.”

This is, indeed, heady stuff in marked contrast with the rather submissive style of the statements by Russian leaders during the 1990s when Russia was passing through a difficult transitional period in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the Russian leader’s complaint about Washington’s unilateralist policies was not entirely new. There were earlier signs during the past few years that Moscow was losing patience with the US tendency to try to impose its will on others in pursuance of its global hegemonic agenda.

The establishment of Sino-Russian strategic partnership was one consequence of this development as both China and Russia sought closer ties to safeguard their security interests in the face of the US expansionism. On July 2, 2005, the join communiqué issued in Moscow after the summit meeting between Presidents Hu Jintao and Putin denounced “the aspiration for monopoly and domination in international affairs”. In August 2005, the two countries launched their largest joint military exercise in modern history to send a political signal to Washington.

The outburst by the Russian President at Munich was the latest manifestation of Moscow’s growing unhappiness over US policy of unilateralism and Nato’s expansion close to Russian borders. In his Munich speech Putin also criticised US plans to set up missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Earlier, at a press conference in Moscow on February 1, Putin had vowed that Russia’s response to these plans will be “asymmetrical but highly effective”.

Russian officials had rejected Washington’s position that the missile defence systems would guard against potential attacks from Iran and North Korea as missile trajectories from these two countries did not go over Poland and the Czech Republic.

Putin’s visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan, which followed his Munich address, reflected Moscow’s determination to play once again an active role in the Middle East, thus posing a challenge to the virtual US stranglehold over the region. Significantly, the Russian president offered to help Saudi Arabia develop nuclear energy and pledged to enhance cooperation with the Islamic world. He also announced plans to launch six information satellites for Saudi Arabia.

In Qatar, he mooted the idea of a gas cartel on the lines of Opec. After his talks with Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas on February 13, Putin accused the US of using Russia as a “threat” to secure funds from Congress for its military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for its anti-missile programme in Europe. He recalled that a weak earlier US Defence Secretary Robert Gates had characterised Russia as a potential military threat to the US. He further stressed that “For Russia, the Middle East is strategically important.”

On February 19, General Nikolai Solovtsov, head of the Russian strategic missile force, threatened that if the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic allowed the US to site a missile defence system, “the (Russian) strategic missile force will be able to aim at these installations.” He also underscored that if a political decision was taken to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Russia could easily restart production of medium-range missiles.

This writer had the personal experience of witnessing the newly assertive tone of the Russian statements at Manila on February 6 at the second meeting of the ARF Experts and Eminent Persons (ARF EEP’s) where the Russian representative ruled out the use of force for settling the issue of North Korea’s nuclear programme and urged that too much pressure should not be applied on Pyongyang in finding a negotiated settlement.

However, he did acknowledge the gravity of the North Korean nuclear proliferation issue for security in Northeast Asia thus accepting the need for the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme.(The agreement with North Korea to that effect was arrived at a few days later).

The strengthening of the Russian economy is perhaps the most important factor responsible for the increased confidence that Moscow is showing in its dealings with other major powers. Undoubtedly, the rise in oil prices has played a significant role in the revival of the Russian economy. With GDP growth rate of 5.9 per cent, foreign exchange reserves exceeding $250 billion, GDP estimated to be $ 1.14 trillion, the highest gas reserves in the world, proven oil reserves of 60 billion barrels and well-known capabilities in defence production, Russia is well-poised to flex its muscles in international politics.

Moscow feels that the West led by the US has taken advantage of its weakness in the post-Cold War period to expand its power and influence at Russia’s expence, especially in Eastern Europe. It is also apprehensive of the inroads that the US and Nato have made into the Caucasus and Central Asia. Predictably, therefore, Russia and China called upon the US in 2005, from the forum of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, to close its military bases in Central Asia. Thus, President Putin’s outburst against the US at Munich was merely the latest manifestation, at the highest level, of Moscow’s growing disquiet over Washington’s expansionist and unilateral tendencies.

What is worth noting is that Russia’s growing economic strength and technological prowess provide it with the wherewithal to demonstrate in practical terms its uneasiness over the US designs and pursue an independent foreign policy worthy of a great power as was evident from the outcome of Putin’s recent visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan. The signal which is coming loud and clear from Moscow is that it is no longer prepared to be pushed around by the US.

While the re-emergence of an assertive Russia is an important development with far-reaching strategic implications for the world order, it needs to be seen in proper perspective to assess its true significance. The fact of the matter is that Russia lags far behind the United States in all indicators of economic and military power. The US, with a GDP of $ 13.98 trillion, GDP per head of $ 46,280 and unmatched military capabilities, enjoys overwhelming superiority over Russia. The Russian economy still suffers from serious structural flaws. Besides, there is also a question mark about the stability of the Russian political system.

Therefore, while Moscow is pursuing an increasingly assertive role in international politics, its ability to pose single-handedly a serious challenge to the US global domination is severely circumscribed. The same is true of China despite the phenomenal growth that its economy has witnessed since 1980, raising its GDP to $ 3.01 trillion. However, the two, by combining their military and economic capabilities, can be a formidable adversary for the US. This is the driving force behind the growing strategic partnership between Moscow and Beijing.

It all also leads one to the conclusion that the days of a unipolar world are numbered if not already over. This was the message sent by the foreign ministers of Russia, China and India at their meeting in New Delhi on February 14. The emerging world order will be marked by multipolarity with several centres of power, including the US, China, European Union, Japan, India, Brazil and ASEAN.

There is no denying the fact that it is critically important for Pakistan to maintain its friendship with the US. However, in view of the emerging multipolar world, it must avoid putting all its eggs in the American basket, thus, limiting its foreign policy options in the future. Instead, it must expand the manoeuvrability of its foreign policy by developing relations with the different emerging centres of power in a carefully balanced manner.

The weakest link in our foreign policy right now is Pakistan’s relationship with Russia which suffered in the past because of its linkages with the West during the Cold War and the support to the Afghan jihad against the Soviet occupation. There is an urgent need for Islamabad to build bridges of understanding with Moscow to overcome the mistrust and bitterness of the past and usher in a new era of friendship and cooperation with that great power.

There would be obstacles and occasional hiccups on the way but it must not be deterred by them especially as Russia has expressed the desire to enhance cooperation with the Islamic world. This strategic imperative is dictated not only by the growing power and strength of Russia but also by the demands of Pakistan’s friendship with China, which is the linchpin of its foreign policy, in view of the fast developing Sino-Russian strategic partnership.

The moot point is whether Pakistan leadership has the courage and the sagacity to pursue such an independent and balanced policy which, above all, requires a government enjoying domestic political legitimacy and popular support. Going by the past experience, Pakistan’s well-known pre-disposition in favour of the US, its heavy dependence on the US in political, economic and military fields, the known inability of its policymakers to see further than their noses and the questions about the legitimacy of the present government, it remains to be seen whether it would be able to chart its foreign policy on those lines.

The writer is a former ambassador.

THE much talked-about Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project has finally turned the corner. In February, Iran and Pakistan resolved the most difficult issue of pricing in Tehran, and soon, thereafter, India indicated its agreement also. This has opened the door to follow-up developments.

Much of the credit for this breakthrough goes to Iran for attractively pricing the gas for the project. By reducing it by 30 per cent from its earlier price, Iran has sweetened the deal for both countries. For Pakistan, the project has added attraction. Apart from meeting its growing energy needs, Pakistan would also pick up from India about $1.5 in transit fee for every million British thermal units transported through pipeline to that country.

The seven-billion-dollar, 2,100-kilometre IPI pipeline would turn out to be the largest cross-border investment in this part of the world and an important milestone in building regional energy security for South Asia. But the moves on the energy chessboard are also generating several cross currents and it would be a litmus test of our economic diplomacy to protect and implement this important project.

For over 100 years since the oil industry was born in and around the Caspian Sea region, its consumption markets have largely remained in industrialised Europe and the US. With production and consumption being so far apart, the oil industry developed a worldwide market and infrastructure for linking oil production with consumption.

But the markets in the 21st century have come closer to the producers and there is a marked difference in the games now being played out in the energy world. Much of Middle Eastern oil is committed through long-term arrangements to countries that became industrialised early. But as Asia industrialises, its rising energy demands are bringing Central Asia into the centre of an intensified competition. Energy security is occupying centre-stage not only for the old but also the newly industrialising countries.

Accessing Central Asia’s vast energy resources has been a frustrating exercise for many years. Central Asia has remained landlocked, geographically and politically. Bounded on the north by the Arctic Circle and on the east and west by a vast expanse of land distances, its attractive opening was always through outlets on the south – through Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The attractiveness of the southern route can be established from one simple fact: both producers and consumers of energy through this route stand to benefit from $1-2 per barrel of oil supplied. For gas consumers, this equation becomes even more favourable. But apart from the one window of opportunity that opened for Pakistan in 1995-6 and was then quickly shut off, accessing Central Asian energy across the southern route has remained blocked by US opposition to Iran and the violence in Afghanistan.

Energy pipelines from Central Asia to Europe and beyond through Russian and Turkish ports and to Japan and China across the steppes, cannot meet the rising demands of both markets. The pressure on opening the southern route through Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan has been increasing. How long can the energy-starved world wait for conditions in Afghanistan to become stable and peaceful to access Central Asian energy through that country? Increasingly, both, consumers and producers are getting favourably inclined towards accessing these enormous energy resources through Iran.

During its meeting last year in Shanghai, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) had also discussed the idea of an “energy club” of its members – since between themselves and along with the observer states of Iran, Pakistan and India, the SCO constitutes a regional market of large energy producers and consumers. The Soviet-era oil and gas pipeline system linking with Central Asia has been added, upgraded and expanded to the European markets and beyond. Since the early 1990s, China has also embarked upon laying an extensive network of pipelines for taking that energy eastwards for meeting the needs of its fast-paced industrialisation.

The northern loop of an Asian energy system has thus been taking shape. But the southern route in this energy infrastructure had still been missing. It is against this background, that the strategic importance of the IPI project becomes obvious. It is the first project that links Central Asia with South Asia through the umbilical cord of energy passing through Iran. It is tempting to give a place to the IPI in the strategic moves being made on the global energy chessboard. If Pakistan also becomes a transit route for Iranian-Central Asian oil and gas resources flowing into China, it would finally connect the southern and northern loops of an Asian energy system. If that happens, it would be a tectonic move on the energy chessboard.

Similarly, Nato leaders also discussed in their summit meeting in Latvia last November the formation of a “gas Nato” geared towards safeguarding the energy security of Nato members. European concerns were heightened after disputes cropped up over the pricing of Russian gas supplies to Ukraine and the consequent depletion in pipeline supplies onwards to West European markets. Some big energy companies from the US and Europe that are already pumping energy from the Caspian basin and Kazakhstan are also looking towards developing southern routes for transporting Central Asian energy through the Gulf and Arabian sea ports to markets worldwide.

Pakistan would be experiencing first-hand what it feels like to lie in one of the centres of gravity of these strategic moves on the energy chessboard. There would be many a slip between the cup and the lip to stall or spoil opportunities along the way -- from confidence-building to consortium-building to technical, operational, project management and other important issues as the IPI pipeline moves ahead to become a reality on the ground.

The most important consideration for our strategists and decision-makers should be to keep our routes open for accessing Central Asian energy. Despite various forecasts coming out of foreign think-tanks, predicting the results of moves being made on the energy chessboard is mere fantasising. It is not in Pakistan’s interest to have its western borders prone to violence and instabilities of one kind or the other. The conditions in Afghanistan are not totally in Pakistan’s control but improving these in Balochistan is entirely in our hands; and the price of a peaceful resolution of disputes is miniscule compared to the costs of locking ourselves out of the scenario of energy sources for future development.

This is no idle concern since a similar opportunity of an oil pipeline from Iran to Pakistan in the early 1980s was allowed to fall through because Gen Zia did not want to do business with Islamic Iran while fighting his version of jihad in Afghanistan. The external environment today isn’t all that different from what it was a quarter of a century back, but repeated assertions by the Pakistani leadership raise hopes that this time our diplomacy will demonstrate the skills and maturity needed for promoting our energy security needs while maintaining a friendship with the US.

If the IPI project is successfully implemented, it promises to be the harbinger of many other cross-border projects that have been kept on hold by investors. The biggest beneficiary would be none other than Pakistan but it would also test the mettle of our economic diplomacy.

The writer is a former head of Board of Investment and federal secretary.
Email: smshah@alum.mit.edu

AS the people who talked the United States into the Iraq war try to talk their way out of the blame for the mess they made, one dominant theme has emerged: blame the Iraqis.

Our intentions were good; we did our best to help; but the Iraqis are vicious, incompetent ingrates who would prefer to kill one another than seize the freedom we brought them. It's not our fault that it turned out so badly.

It has turned out rather badly, hasn't it? President George W. Bush will go no further than to say that he is "disappointed by the pace of success," and his British sidekick, Prime Minister Tony Blair, still insists that "We will beat them (the Iraqi resistance) when we realise that it's not our fault that they're doing this." But practically everybody else in the US and Britain knows that the invasion of Iraq was a huge disaster.

Somebody must be to blame, and it cannot be us, so it must be those brutal, stupid Iraqis. This comforting myth started on the right, among those who had been eager supporters of "a war of choice to instil some democracy in the heart of the Middle East," as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman put it in his column four years ago. So fast is the myth taking root in America, however, that it has now even infected that icon of liberal irony, the "Doonesbury" comic strip.

There was no surprise last November when arch neo-conservative Richard Perle, ex-chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee, said that he had "underestimated the depravity" in Iraq. He has a lot of blame to shift, so he would say that, wouldn't he?

It was no surprise, either, when right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer, once an eager supporter of the war, elaborated on the same theme less than a month ago: "Thousands of brave American soldiers have died trying to counter, put down and prevent civil strife. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shias kill Shias and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on (America) is simply perverse....Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war."

Brazen, self-serving distortions of the truth by the people who have a lot of explaining to do, and not in the least surprising, because if the ghastly mess in Iraq wasn't the fault of Iraqis, then it would have to be the fault of Americans. Perle and Krauthammer would figure quite prominently among the Americans in question.But what is one to make of Gary Trudeau peddling the same line in his comic strip "Doonesbury"? The strip runs daily in 1,400 newspapers around the world, and often serves as the vehicle for political or social commentary from a liberal perspective. It never supported the invasion of Iraq, but this Monday's strip was a classic exercise in stereotyping and blame-shifting.

An American colonel, planning the day's operation in the streets of Baghdad, notices that his Iraq army opposite number has not shown up yet, and sends a soldier to find him. Cut to the Iraqi army officer: still behind his desk, coffee-cup in hand, ashtray full of cigarettes. He says to the young American soldier: "It's not in my book. Are you sure it's today?" US solder wearily replies "Yes, sir. You'll recall we fight every day."

Unravelling the message doesn't take a Marshall MacLuhan: US troops are carrying the burden of the war while lazy, cowardly Iraqis shun their duty. They don't deserve us.

The strip the weekend before last was even more blatant in blaming the failure on the Iraqis. An American soldier gets behind the wheel of a Humvee and says "Ready to do this, partner?" to the same Iraqi officer, sitting beside him in the front seat. But the Iraqi officer is asleep.

As they approach the target house, the Iraqi officer, now awake, says "I know this house. The owner is Sunni scum." "Well, intel wants us to capture the guy alive," says the American. "That will not be possible. I am sworn to revenge," replies the Iraqi.

"Why," asks the American. "What'd he ever do to you.?"

"A member of his family killed a member of mine," replies the Iraqi officer, cigarette dangling from his lips. "What? When did this happen?" asks the shocked American.

"1387," replies the Iraqi officer. "What is the matter with you people?" screams the American.

Get the message? These Ay-rabs are not only lazy, they are so savage that they harbour murderous grudges over six centuries. Even Americans cannot bring these people to their senses. Let's get the hell out of here. It isn't our fault that it all went wrong.

Getting out of Iraq is the least bad thing the United States can do now, and the sooner the better. If Americans must manufacture racist fantasies about the victims in order to salve their pride on the way out, then so be it. But it is a shameful, childish lie. —Copyright