Dr Shabir Choudhry's blog

Thursday, 20 November 2014

Pakistan’s Afghan policy- arsonist or fireman? Dr Mohammad Taqi

Pakistan’s Afghan policy- arsonist or fireman? Dr Mohammad Taqi

Former US Ambassador Peter Tomsen was almost prophetic when he warned in his 2011 book The Wars of Afghanistan, “If Pakistan hews to its fireman and arsonist policy in Afghanistan, the Obama administration will likely make little progress in Afghanistan.” He accurately noted:

“The most valuable contribution that America can make to Afghan peace lies not in Afghanistan but in Pakistan”. Sadly, voices like Ambassador Tomsen’s were not heeded in Washington DC in a timely fashion and Pakistan successfully dragged its feet on taking action against the Afghan jihadists of three main varieties, i.e. Mullah Omar’s Quetta Shura Taliban, the Haqqani terrorist network and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami, till the bulk of US and NATO combat troops were out of Afghanistan.

The Pentagon’s report, ‘Progress towards security and stability in Afghanistan’, submitted to the US Congress last month, has once again pointed out that Pakistan continues to maintain these jihadist safe havens. Pakistan has since rubbished the report, issued a démarche to US Ambassador Richard Olson and was subsequently able to squeeze kudos out of Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, a senior US officer in the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, for tackling the Haqqani network.

The fact is that the death of not even one of the 1,200 or so terrorists that Pakistan claims to have killed in Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan could be independently confirmed. The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) has issued no names either. Not a single Haqqani network commander has been arrested or killed. Contrarily, the prime minister’s national security advisor, Sartaj Aziz, has raised a furor by telling the BBC Urdu service: “Why should we target those extremists who do not target us...why should we willy-nilly make the US’s enemies our enemies?”

He also conceded that the Haqqani network had been operating from Pakistani soil but claimed that now the “infrastructure has been eliminated”. A Pakistani foreign office spokesperson has since stated that Mr Aziz’s comments were reported out of context. Interestingly, Mr Aziz has also said what North Waziristan locals also frequently say, i.e. many terrorists fled way before Zarb-e-Azb started. In fact, locals say a curfew was clamped in many areas of North Waziristan before the operation and then transportation mysteriously appeared and carried away the Haqqani network hordes.

Pakistani officials claim that the Afghan jihadists have gone back to Afghanistan while the information from the ground suggests they have been redistributed over Kurram, Orakzai and Khyber tribal agencies and even Khyber Pakhtunkhwa areas adjoining FATA. Independent media is still not allowed by the military in North Waziristan and it arranged only one escorted tour for journalists since the inception of the Zarb-e-Azb operation about six months ago. Whatever the veracity of the claims in the North Waziristan operation, the bigger picture is that the Quetta Shura of Mullah Omar and Hekmatyar’s men are safely outside the scope of Zarb-e-Azb.

The course correction vis-à-vis harbouring the Afghan jihadist rebels that the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif is trying to persuade the Afghans and the US about is at best partial. Quetta remains off limits to any foreign diplomat except perhaps the Houbara Bustard-hunting Arabs. Pakistan does not appear to be taking any serious action whatsoever against any of the three prongs of the Afghan Taliban insurgency that it harbours.

The Pakistani security establishment appears to meticulously be repeating its November 2001 drill when it retracted and preserved its Afghan Taliban proxies only to launch them with a vengeance in 2004-2005 when the US took its eyes off the ball. This time the game plan seems to be to play nice till the US takes both eyes and hands off the ball in Afghanistan before letting the jihadist killers loose again. The line that General Raheel Sharif seems to be taking in the US is that Pakistan has cured the 66-year-old jihadist cancer in less than six months of Operation Zarb-e-Azb. It would be incredibly naïve of US officials to fall for this without due diligence, which must span years, not months. Issuing a clean bill of health prematurely will imperil not just the Afghans but the Pakistanis too, who have suffered tremendously from jihadism’s blowback.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said in a blistering interview with the Prague-based Mashaal Radio that Pakistan not only sheltered jihadist insurgents but also pressed Afghanistan to accept the Durand Line as the permanent border, make peace with the Taliban (on its/their terms) and tried to dictate Afghan foreign policy by telling it to curtail ties with India.

Mr Karzai said that accepting any of this would have meant compromising Afghan sovereignty. He blamed the US for a duplicitous policy where it acknowledged that Pakistan harboured terrorists but did nothing to stop it. Mr Karzai also indicated that the US wanted him to accommodate Pakistan’s perverse demands on how the Afghans should handle their relations with India. Just days before Mr Karzai made these remarks, his successor, Mr Ashraf Ghani, made his maiden visit to Pakistan, including to its military’s general headquarters. The visit ended on the optimistic note that both countries were ready to reset their relations favourably.

While the suave Mr Ghani has to exhaust this diplomatic song and dance, just like his rough and tough predecessor, he too will not be able to concede to a single one of Pakistan’s demands. Pakistani media made a big deal of Mr Ghani coming to Pakistan before going to India but Mr Ghani is not the first Afghan leader to do so. In 1958, Afghan King Mohammed Zahir Shah also visited Pakistan before he went to India.

During its 1965 and 1971 wars with India, the Afghan government sided with and helped Pakistan. The India-Afghan relationship is a red herring that Pakistan has consistently deployed to dupe the US. Hegemony over Afghanistan is still the Pakistani security establishment’s goal. It yearns for the days when the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) ran at least eight large centres in Afghanistan during the 1990s Taliban regime and its men served as advisors in every single ministry there.

Whether or not the US continues to fall for the Pakistani establishment’s dual policy, Afghanistan’s other neighbours, including China, seem to be developing a consensus that a slide back to the 1990s is not an option. The US can leave the region but Afghanistan, its neighbours and India do not have that luxury. The region has no appetite for Pakistan hewing to its fireman and arsonist policy in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s honeymoon period with the new Afghan government will be short; it will have to clean up its act quickly and transparently.

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com and he tweets @mazdaki

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-Nov-2014/pakistan-s-afghan-policy-arsonist-or-fireman

Thank you Indians, Zulfiqar Shah November 20, 2014

Eighteen months of nightmare have passed by in Delhi. And, the nightmare is not yet over. It was worrisome for me that the persecution and the persecutors would again say ‘hello’ to us even in India. I never knew that Pakistani establishment has created a cloud of manipulations against us.

It was shocking, but not shaking that Pakistani agencies and the High Commission are being facilitated here against us. Eventually someone hinted that all this was being done through the facilitation by some non-South Asian countries. We have observed that there is understanding between India and Pakistan at the top level of establishment. We are dismissed in the time, however not aimlessly. We have to cobble-up the torn out pieces of our persona.

I have blogged much about some fundamental details of the happenings around us. How can I forget when, on the instigation of a surveillance person, I was beaten-up with wooden stick by the watchmen of Gurdawara Sahib near Jantar Mantar only because I was having cigarettes in my pocket! I was told not to enter the Gurdawar again. I felt a sigh of relief indeed because it indicated me that the education of Guru Nanak has yet to be spread and spread among the Sikhs and rest of the humanity.

There is enough account to thank so many Indian citizens. Contrary to what was happening with us in Delhi, they came forward and tried their best to support us.

I cannot forget the fundamental help by a few of the university professors, who after our arrival in Delhi tried their best. And, particularly a couple of rights bodies as well as our journalist friends from Press Club of India. We also feel greatly obliged to those activists from various states of India particularly from Gujarat, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Madhya Pardesh, Mahrashtra, Delhi, UP, Haryana, Punjab, Kashmir and Tamil Nadu who spared some moments to see us and express their solidarity during our protest at Jantar Mantar.

Our financial resources are restricted. Around fifty thousand Indian rupees given to us by some western human rights bodies were stolen from Jantar Mantar. It was great kindness of a Sikh restaurant owner who provided two times food on credit and without time limit restrictions. India’s political power is starched around Raisina Road, which did not bother to address our issue. But the trade unions, activists, journalists, restaurants, tea-shops and the policemen arround the Raisina Road supported us a lot within their personal limits.

We were, no doubt, given a very tough time in the Pak Section of Delhi Police Bhawan, however there were some who stood by our genuine issue. The most honorable is the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India that gave a humanitarian look into our issue and sent directives to the concerned departments for the appropriate actions, though these directions unexpectedly were unheard. I cannot forget one sentence that was uttered by a visa department official in 2013, ‘You are a Muslim from Pakistan. You cannot get refugee status in India.’ At the same time, I cannot forget some timely actions by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) India which were a kind of legitimate relief in the roughest times.

It was a kind of storm for us when the newly elected parliament was holding first meeting. A few persons came at Jantar Mantar and threw away our stuff. We were asked to dislodge protest. What I could say expect that as if we were facing demon-cracy in the largest democracy of the world.

Amid all this, I cannot forget Mr. Singh who supported us with a Razai (blanket) in winter while we use to sleep on the Jantar Mantar pavements. Sympathy and love by this Punjabi family is an unforgettable memory.

I have applied for refugee resettlement outside India. I am unable to avail the support by United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), India because they are not allowed to help refugees from Pakistan. My passport is about to get expired within upcoming six months. I would not be able to move outside India if our issue is not resolved before that.

Undergoing ruthless persecution combined with the nonexistence of financial resources is what we are pushed towards. Our sin is very simple and naïve. We were persecuted and were posited in Pakistan due to our civil and political rights activism; persecuted and poisoned in Nepal due to our writings against division of Sindh, and against crimes against humanity committed by Pakistan. We are being persecuted in India due to our political opinion. What else we could do except that to file complaints and petitions against our persecutors in the concerned components of the United Nations.

We truly feel that being a Sindhi is a big crime. There are so many people who want a share in the usurpation of Sindh! Rest assured we would give fight unto the last! Amid this stormy atmosphere, support by those Indian citizens who sympathized with us will always remain an unforgettable asset.

O our persecutor! O world power! Stop using you intelligence agencies against us. Why do you fear one activist and analyst?

http://www.zulfiqarshah.com/2014/11/thank-you-indians.html

Wednesday, 19 November 2014

Saudi Arabia Bulldozes Over Its Heritage

Over 98% of the Kingdom's historical and religious sites have been destroyed since 1985, according to the U.K.-based Islamic Heritage Research Foundation

For centuries the Kaaba, the black cube in the center of Mecca, Saudi Arabia that is Islam’s holiest point, has been encircled by arched porticos erected some three centuries ago by the Ottomans, above dozens of carved marble columns dating back to the 8th century. But earlier this month, any vestiges of the portico and columns were reduced to rubble, cleared to make way for the Saudi government’s expansion of Mecca’s Grand Mosque.

The $21 billion project, launched in 2011, is designed to meet the challenges of accommodating the millions of pilgrims who visit Mecca and Medina every year. Around 2 million currently visit during Hajj alone, the annual pilgrimage that happens during the last month of the Islamic calendar. But activists charge that the recent destructions are part of a much wider government campaign to rub out historical and religious sites across the Kingdom.

Over the last few years, mosques and key sites dating from the time of Muhammad have been knocked down or destroyed, as have Ottoman-era mansions, ancient wells and stone bridges. Over 98% of the Kingdom’s historical and religious sites have been destroyed since 1985, estimates the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation in London. “It’s as if they wanted to wipe out history,” says Ali Al-Ahmed, of the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington, D.C.

Though the Saudi rulers have a long history of destroying historical sites, activists say the pace and range of destruction has recently increased. A few months ago, the house of Hamza, the Prophet Muhammad’s uncle, was flattened to make way for a Meccan hotel, according to Irfan Al Alawi, executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation. There have even been rumored threats to Muhammad’s tomb in Medina and his birthplace in Mecca.

A 61-page report, published recently in Saudi Arabia’s Journal of the Royal Presidency, suggested separating the Prophet’s tomb from Medina’s mosque, a task “that would amount to its destruction,” Alawi says. “You can’t move it without destroying it.” Moreover, he alleges, plans for a new palace for King Abdullah threaten the library atop the site traditionally identified as the birthplace of Muhammad. Even now, signs in four languages warn visitors that there is no proof that the Prophet Muhammad was born there, “so it is forbidden to make this place specific for praying, supplicating or get [sic] blessing.”

Wahhabism, the prevailing Saudi strain of Islam, frowns on visits to shrines, tombs or religio-historical sites, on grounds that they might lead to Islam’s gravest sin: worshipping anyone other than God. In recent years, the twin forks of Wahhabi doctrine and urban development have speared most physical reminders of Islamic history in the heart of Mecca. The house of the Prophet’s first wife, Khadijah has made way for public toilets. A Hilton hotel stands on the site of the house of Islam’s first caliph, Abu Bakr. Famously, the Kaaba now stands in the shade of one of the world’s tallest buildings, the Mecca Royal Clock Tower, part of a complex built by the Bin Laden Group, boasting a 5-story shopping mall, luxury hotels and a parking garage.

Saudi officials did not respond to interview requests, but in the past, they have said that the expansion project is necessary to cater to the ever-growing number of pilgrims to Saudi Arabia, a number forecast to reach 17 million by 2025. When it’s done, the expansion of the mataf, the area where the faithful circumambulate around the Kaaba, will treble its capacity, to 150,000 people; the Great Mosque will be able to hold 2.5 million.

Amir Pasic, of IRCICA, the culture organization of the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Conference, points out that the logistics for Hajj dwarf those required for a World Cup or Olympics. “Every time has the right to make changes on the existing urban set-up,” he said. “Every generation tries to develop something. The Kaaba is what’s important.”

If Mecca’s new skyline is impossible to ignore, what with 48 searchlights beaming from the top of the Clock Tower, other changes to the landscape are more insidious. “Everyone’s focused on [the two mosque expansion projects], but people are not focusing on what we’re losing in the meantime,” says Saudi activist, poet and photographer Nimah Ismail Nawwab. After blue markings appear on sites mentioned in Islamic histories, says Nawwab, then the bulldozers come–often in the dead of night. “Everything happens at night,” she told TIME by phone from Saudi Arabia. “By the next day in the morning, the monument is gone.”

It’s not just in Mecca, either. Over a year ago, the split in Mount Uhud, north of Medina, where Muhammad was said to have been carried after being wounded in the famous Battle of Uhud was filled with concrete. A fence went up at the base of the mountain, warning would-be visitors that it was just a mountain, like any other. Six small mosques in Medina where Muhammad is believed to have prayed have been locked. The seventh, belonging to Islam’s first caliph Abu Bakr, has been razed to make way for an ATM. Nawwab, along with a small group of historians and activists, has tried to raise awareness by photographing sites and starting a Twitter campaign, but says “it’s a losing battle, despite the fact that what’s being lost is not just Muslim history, but human history.”

When the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001, they were met with international condemnation. The response to the demolition activity in the Kingdom, by contrast, has been decidedly muted. “When it comes to Mecca, as far as we are concerned it’s a Saudi question,” says Roni Amelan, a spokesman for UNESCO, the United Nation’s cultural body. The Saudi government has never submitted Mecca for inclusion on the list of World Heritage Sites. As UNESCO’s mandate requires a respect for the sovereignty of individual countries, “we don’t have a legal basis to stake a position regarding it,” adds Amelan.

Muslim governments, perhaps mindful of the power of the Saudis to cut their quotas for how many pilgrims can attend Hajj, have been strikingly silent on the issue. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has also been noticeably quiet on the destruction of the Saudi campaign. One exception has been Turkey, whose Ottoman heritage has also long been under threat. In September, Mehmet Gormez, head of the Dinayet, Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs, told journalists that he told Saudi’s minister of Hajj that the skyscraper overshadowing the Kaaba “destroys history,” the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet Daily News reported. “History is being destroyed in the Holy Land each day,” he added.

For pilgrims old enough to remember the dangerous crush of crowds in the 1980s, the spate of new development may be welcome, offering a chance for comfort on their spiritual journey. For other Muslims, like Ziauddin Sardar, author of the recent Mecca: The Sacred City, the vigor of the Saudi campaign springs from financial jitters. “The Saudis know the oil is going to run out,” he said. “Hajj is already their second major source of income, after oil. They look at Dubai, and Qatar, and ask ‘what are we going to do?’ And they say, ‘We have Hajj, and we’re going to exploit it to the max.’”

Carla Power is the author of If the Oceans Were Ink: A Journey to the Heart of the Quran (Henry Holt: April, 2015)

http://time.com/3584585/saudi-arabia-bulldozes-over-its-heritage/

Modi’s foreign policy Mantra, Geo economic, regional hegemony and global aspirations

Modi’s foreign policy Mantra, Geo economic, regional hegemony and global aspirations 19 Nov. 14

By FRIDE By Gauri Khandekar

Within just six months in power, Narendra Modi has managed to induce a dramatic overhaul of India’s hitherto muffled and ill-defined foreign policy, and has dramatically increased his country’s global profile. Successful summits with the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), Japan, China, Nepal and Bhutan were topped off with a high-profile visit to the United States (US) from 27-30 September. Modi’s US visit was his most interesting foreign trip: barred from entry to the US for nine years because of accusations over his role in the Gujarat massacre of 2002, the red carpet to the White House was rolled out. Modi received a ‘rockstar’ reception in the US, especially from Americans of Indian origin, for example addressing 18,000 people at Madison Square Gardens in New York.

Unlike his predecessors, Modi has underscored foreign policy as a priority from the beginning alongside a strong mandate to put India’s economy in order. Modi aspires to re-invigorate India’s emerging power status, which suffered in recent years due to poor economic growth. He has not only injected focus and ambition into India’s foreign policy, but also linked it directly to his plan to transform India’s economy. Launched in September 2014, ‘Make in India’ has become Narendra Modi’s signature programme as he aspires to convert India into a global manufacturing hub. His foreign policy mantra therefore is strongly driven by geo- economics – especially attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) – and at the same time seeks to consolidate India’s leadership role in South Asia.

While the previous Congress party- led governments prioritised relations with the US and the European Union (EU) (the Singh government negotiated the historic US-India nuclear energy agreement from 2005-2008 and launched free trade talks with the EU in 2007), Modi is shifting the focus to India’s immediate neighbourhood and other major Asian countries like Japan, China and Australia, as well as the BRICS grouping.

Modi has a personal penchant for foreign policy and, unusually, had undertaken numerous foreign visits (especially to China and Japan) while Chief Minister of Gujarat, an Indian state. Modi’s foreign policy mixes uber-pragmatism with business acumen. He has managed to convince both China and Japan to invest heavily in India while re-establishing India’s foothold in its precarious immediate neighbourhood. Reaffirming India’s traditional non-aligned policy, Modi has employed a more muscular approach to asserting his country’s independence while taking a very selective approach to multilateral cooperation. For example, India singularly vetoed the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) in July (a draft already agreed by the WTO’s 160 members including the previous Congress-led Indian government at the Bali Ministerial Conference in 2013) over food security concerns. A breakthrough was reached in the fringes of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in November, when the US agreed not to challenge India’s food security policies at the WTO, removing the main impasse to the agreement. With the US, Modi has steered clear of joining any US grand strategy on Asia or the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria, but spoke during his visit there about trade, investment and bilateral security cooperation.

IndIa’s ImmedIate NeIghbourhood

As an emerging power with global aspirations, India must first befit a regional power. Modi’s first major decision after securing power was to extend an unprecedented invitation to South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) leaders for his swearing-in ceremony, despite opposition in India from certain state leaders and political party allies. Modi wishes to emphasise New Delhi’s role in India’s immediate neighbourhood and to revive SAARC, a role long neglected by New Delhi. This move not only confirmed India’s acceptance of its responsibility as a regional leader, but was also the first sign of a shift in Indian foreign policy.

On his first day in office, Narendra Modi held successful bilateral talks with Pakistani Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif. The last major breakthrough in Indo-Pak relations transpired under the previous Vajpayee-led BJP coalition (1998-2004) with the Sharif government, a development which Modi seeks to emulate. By initially holding out the olive branch to Sharif, Modi not only coaxed the latter to reciprocate, but also set Pakistan’s democratic apparatus against its anti-Indian military establishment and intelligence agency who opposed Sharif’s trip to India. However, prior to his election, Modi had promised to take a tough stand on Pakistan.

When Pakistani High Commissioner to India, Abdul Basit, met Kashmiri separatists in August (a policy tolerated by previous Congress-party governments in India), India called off scheduled foreign secretary talks a week before they were to take place. Modi drew his first red line on Pakistan. Bilateral talks were also held with all other SAARC leaders. Symbolically, Modi’s first foreign visit was to neighbouring Bhutan in June, and in August he became the first Indian PM to visit Nepal in 17 years, where he offered a $1 billion line of credit for infra- structure development and energy projects. In June, Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj travelled to Dhaka. Bangladesh is a key neighbour that can help India to better connect with its geographically isolated north-eastern territories, curb India-focused Islamic terrorism, and counter China’s growing influence in the Bay of Bengal.

The drawdown of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan will leave behind a major regional power vacuum which Modi seeks to fill. By taking a lead as the largest country in SAARC, India is looking to set the rules for the region, which is home to nuclear-armed arch rival Pakistan, and is increasingly susceptible to Chinese influence. In recent years, the Chinese strategic footprint in India’s neighbourhood has deepened, in particular via investments in commercial ports in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Burma/Myanmar. These are, however, perceived suspiciously by Indian hawks as a ‘string of pearls’ aimed at encircling India and containing its expansion, whilst also monitoring India’s naval activities. While these ports remain commercial for the moment, China’s deepening of relations with India’s neighbours through military and economic assistance and high-profile infrastructure projects is the real concern. For example, some three-quarters of China’s arms exports are sold to three of India’s South Asian neighbours: Bangladesh, Burma/Myanmar and Pakistan.

EngagIng East AsIa

The centrepiece of Modi’s East Asia manoeuvrings is his China-Japan waltz. Modi shares a personal bond with both Japan and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe. Modi travelled twice to Japan as Chief Minister of Gujarat – Japan did not follow the US and Europe with travel bans on Modi following accusations over his role in the 2002 Gujarat massacre. Modi is one of only four people that Abe follows on twitter (in addition to Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh), and during Modi’s five-day visit to Japan in August-September, he was received in Kyoto with a bear hug from the usually stiff Japanese PM. During that visit, Japan elevated its relationship with India to a ‘special global strategic partnership’ and pledged $35 billion in investments in Indian infrastructure and energy development, be- sides doubling its FDI over the next five years.

A bullet train or Shinkansen project worth $10 billion and an agreement on joint production of rare earths were also announced (India holds around 2.2 per cent of the world’s rare earth reserves). Although a much-anticipated nuclear energy agreement was not signed, energy cooperation and military ties were significantly strengthened. Both countries also agreed to establish a ‘two-plus-two’ security arrangement bringing together foreign and defence ministers, hold regular maritime exercises, and that Japan would continue to participate in Indo-US military drills. In Tokyo, Modi also condemned the ‘vistar vaad’ or expansionist tendencies of ‘some countries’ who ‘engage in encroachments and enter seas of others’ – a veiled reference to Chinese territorial expansionism.

Although India has its own border dispute with China, Modi is not anti-Chinese. He travelled to China four times before becoming PM to woo investments into Gujarat. There too, like Japan, he was received with the honours proffered to a head of state. Modi is an admirer of Chinese development and feels at ease amongst Beijing technocrats. On one of his visits, he not only carried red business cards printed in Mandarin but declared that ‘China and its people have a special place in my heart’. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi travelled to India soon after Modi’s election while Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the BRICS Summit held in Brazil from 14- 16 June 2014.

Xi Jinping concluded a three-day visit to India landing in Ahmedabad (Modi’s hometown) on 17 September, Modi’s 64th birthday. The visit was highly symbolic and marks the beginning of greater Chinese investments in India – China has invested only $400 million in India in the last decade, compared to the €26.8 billion FDI stock
Beijing held in the EU by the end of 2012 according to the European Commission. Xi is the first Chinese president to visit India in eight years and brought along a delegation that included around 135 Chinese business leaders. Twelve agreements were signed in all.

China pledged to invest $20 billion in Indian infrastructure and manufacturing sectors, agreed to build high-speed rail links and construct two industrial parks in the Indian states of Gujarat and Maharashtra. The visit also saw the twinning of commercial capitals Mumbai and Shanghai as well as Ahmedabad with Guangzhou. In addition, a five-year economic and trade development plan was agreed, and greatly welcomed in New Delhi given India’s large trade deficit with China (some $36.2 billion of a total trade of $66 billion in 2013).

One hallmark of Modi’s nascent foreign policy has been his ability to attract both China and Japan to invest in India without agitating either. However, Modi is also wary of China in some respects. To counter China’s new ‘Maritime Silk Route’ which would link Europe to China via the Indian Ocean, Modi will soon launch a new foreign policy initiative, ‘Project Mausam’. Following the pattern of seasonal monsoons used by ancient Indian sailors, Mausam will stretch from East Africa to Indonesia, proffering India robust control over the Indian Ocean by deepening links with littoral states. For example, India has recently stepped up defence cooperation with the Maldives and Sri Lanka (following Xi’s visit to these countries before travelling to India), while four Indian warships are currently stationed on a two-month term off the coast of East Africa and the Southern Indian Ocean.

ince 2008, India hosts an Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONs) every two years, with the aim of enhancing naval cooperation among 35 Indian Ocean littoral states, and this Symposium can be expected to be further developed under Modi.

Furthermore, Modi will not shy from potential disputes with China. During Xi’s India visit, Indian President Pranab Mukherjee purchased seven new oil and gas blocks from Vietnam in an area of the South China Sea disputed by both China and Vietnam. India has also offered Vietnam a $100 million line of credit to buy patrol boats. Foreign Minister Swaraj has stated that if India should recognise the One-China policy, China should also recognise the One-India policy, referring to the territories of Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh and Trans-Karakoram Tract disputed by India and China.

Modi’s India has pursued a renewed engagement in the rest of Asia too. Swaraj has travelled to ASEAN (Association of South- east Asian Nations) countries to boost India’s profile there, while in the Middle East (where roughly 7 million Indians live) she oversaw the return of 46 Indian expats kidnapped by the Islamic State in Iraq. In September, Modi and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot signed a landmark civil nuclear energy deal to enable Australian uranium sales to India in a major boost to strategic bilateral ties. In November, Modi visited Australia – the first visit from an Indian Prime Minister in 28 years. Australia and India will also hold their first joint naval exercise in 2015.

Furthermore, an India-Russia annual summit scheduled for December 2014 in India presumes a renewal of Indo-Russian ties. Russia, which is India’s second-largest arms supplier and a major nuclear fuel supplier, is also looking to build a $40 billion gas pipe- line to India. Russia is also eager to divert some of its funds from Europe to infrastructure in India. In March, India abstained along with rest of the BRICS countries from voting on a UN Resolution on the territo- rial integrity of Ukraine, and objected to the suggestion of Australia, Chair of the G20, to disinvite Russia from the G20 November 2014 Summit.

WhIther the West?

Modi has had a relatively colder relationship with the West, soured mainly because of his ostracism by the US and European governments following the Gujarat massacre in 2002. His recent visit to the US therefore was more a personal victory lap for him than a revolutionary moment for the Indo-US relationship. At the White House, Modi and Obama discussed ways the US and India could repair their rocky relations. The landmark Indo-US nuclear agreement inked during the Bush administration in 2005 has been held back by Obama. Furthermore, Obama also pushed India to speak with Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue during his trip to India in 2010, a suggestion not appreciated by many Indians – especially at a time when India was waiting for Pakistan to persecute perpetrators of the Mumbai 2008 attacks. The ‘defining relationship of the 21st century’ that President Obama spoke of during the same visit has not yet happened.

The US has also been critical of India’s stalling of the WTO’s TFA in July. The TFA would drop trade barriers and import duties across its membership, adding an estimated $1 trillion to global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Modi is certainly keen on economic growth, but was concerned about India’s ability to provide subsidized staple food for its poor (this US-India impasse was overcome at the APEC Summit in November). Discussing a host of prickly issues, both leaders agreed to renew their defence cooperation for 10 years and spoke of trade and investment especially in India’s defence sector. The US has recently become the top arms exporter to India.

Europe has so far been ignored in Modi’s foreign travel itinerary. Many European leaders including the UK deputy prime minister and the French and German foreign ministers have visited Modi in India this year with billions of dollars’ worth of deals in tow. Already France is India’s third-largest arms supplier, Germany is India’s top trading partner in the EU and the UK and India are negotiating a civil nuclear cooperation agreement. But Modi’s reciprocity has been lukewarm. No visit was scheduled in 2014 to Europe although a trip to Germany is now on the agenda for early 2015. Visits to the UK, France or the Nordic countries, may also be likely during 2015 (Sweden and Denmark were the first countries to reach out to Modi in 2008 when their Ambassadors met him in Gujarat, while the UK hosts a huge Indian diaspora). If anything, Modi can be expected to strike interest-based partnerships with European countries rather than pursue high-profile ties like the previous government. In October, for instance, Indian President Pranab Mukherjee travelled to Finland to sign a key nuclear cooperation pact.

Relations with the EU, however, are likely to further deteriorate as Modi may prefer to engage individual EU member states than the EU institutions. EU-India relations have remained dormant for some time now due to low levels of engagement. Bilateral visits from the EU remain limited and the annual EU-India Summit has not been held in 2014 (or 2013) despite ten years of the EU-India strategic partnership (signed in 2004) and the golden jubilee of relations (established in 1964). Modi also did not attend the biennial Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Summit held in October in Milan. The EU-India FTA under negotiation since 2007 is nowhere in sight, and the Modi government is likely to renegotiate parts of the FTA or lower its overall ambition. In September, Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharam stated that ‘the government wants to enter into such deals on its terms and if necessary, start all over again’.

EU-India engagement on foreign policy remains a blind alley. Cooperation on civil nuclear energy at EU level has been limited due to a lack of consensus among EU governments. On the research side, however, India and EURATOM have entered an agreement on fusion energy research in 2009 and an agreement on civilian nuclear energy research is under negotiation and may be signed next year. In all of this, cooperation on urbanisation seems a particularly promising avenue for engagement. The EU remains relatively absent from India’s infrastructure sector, a top priority for Modi, but could become the entry platform for its 28 member countries to the vast Indian infrastructure market. The EU already has a pre-existing model for co- operation on sustainable urbanisation with China that promotes exchanges and cooperation between a large number of European and Chinese stakeholders. Launched in September, Modi’s signature project ‘Make in India’ aims to transform India into a manufacturing hub and could well accommodate European high-speed railways, world-class infrastructure and technology which all have a large potential market in India. By tapping into Modi’s ‘Make in India’ project, an EU- India urbanisation partnership could help re-launch a wilting strategic partnership.

ConclusIon

India is recalculating its geostrategic approach. Relations with Japan, China, Russia and Australia are gaining importance in relation to those with the US and the EU, traditionally considered priority strategic partners. Asia, beginning from the immediate neighbourhood out, is likely to be the main geographic focus of Modi’s foreign policy. Without a restructuring of the international economic architecture to reflect contemporary realities, India will aggressively pursue multilateralism through alternative platforms like the BRICS.

The EU needs to factor Modi’s priorities into reshaping its engagement to India, such as foreign direct investment and infrastructure, or else it is likely to be overlooked in New Delhi. As for the US, India will reject any ‘American-led alliances’, be it in the Middle East against Islamic terrorism or in Asia against China. Modi may push at the boundaries of India’s long-held non-aligned policy, but the defining framework of his foreign policy will be corporate-style geo-economics. Modi believes that India is an emerging global power, and therefore first needs a solid economic base. Economic remodelling at home will govern India’s foreign policy leaning, and those with dispensable cash will be prioritised.

About the author:

Gauri Khandekar is head of the Agora Asia-Europe Programme at FRIDE.

Source:
This article was published by FRIDE as Agora Asia-Europe Number 17, November 2014 (PDF)

http://www.eurasiareview.com/19112014-modis-foreign-policy-mantra-geoeconomics-regional-hegemony-global-aspirations-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29