Indo-Japan nuclear deal

Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal

INDO-Japan strategic partnership is on a positive trajectory. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Japan was very productive. On November 11, 2016, Japan and India inked an accord ‘Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy’ in Tokyo, Japan. The treaty allows Japan to export nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel and nuclear technology to India. Moreover, the deal would also facilitate the US-based companies like GE and Westinghouse Electric to set up nuclear power plants in India. It’s because Japan’s Toshiba owns these companies’ shares. Westinghouse already signed an agreement to build six nuclear reactors in India.
Today, India is an attractive country for the Japanese due to its growing economy; Indo-Pacific strategy; strategic partnership with the United States; and having potential to compete with China in the Asian strategic environment. Moreover, New Delhi has successfully generated an impression that it is playing an effective role in maintaining the safety and security of sea-lanes in the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean regions and fighting against transnational crimes, terrorism, piracy and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In a joint statement Prime Minister Modi and his Japanese counterpart “condemned terrorism in strongest terms in all its forms and manifestations in spirit of ‘zero tolerance.” They also called upon all countries to “implement UNSC Resolution 1267 and other relevant resolutions designating terrorist entities.”
The Japanese nuclear industry is endeavouring to export nuclear power plants to foreign buyers. It is because the Japanese nuclear industry is in crisis due to the shrinking sales at home since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants disaster. Hence, Japanese firms are interested in building nuclear power plants in India to capture its lucrative nuclear energy market. The nuclear deal is a rewarding venture for the Japanese nuclear industry and equally beneficial for India. By virtue of the deal, New Delhi will receive advanced nuclear reactors for its sites coming up at Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh.
In addition, the deal would improve the credibility of India as a responsible nuclear power, and hence reinforce its case for the full membership of the Nuclear Supplier Group. The safety and security of nuclear power is not only critical for India alone, but is also a serious concern for the Indian neighbours. It was reported that in the case of Fukushima Daiichi, the Japanese operating authority failed to stick to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safety standards. Notably, in the Fukushima catastrophe four reactors were damaged instead of six. The two were saved from the Tsunami because the operators of the facility followed the IAEA safety guidelines. The Chairman of the National Diet of Japan’s Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, Dr Kiyoshi Kurokawa’s pointed out that: “Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster– that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.”
The bilateral defence cooperation advanced between Tokyo and New Delhi during the last decade. On November 11, 2016, Japan announced to provide its state-of-the-art defence platforms such as US-2 amphibian aircraft to India. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe while speaking in the Indian Parliament on August 22, 2007 stated, “India and Japan have entered a new era under their strategic partnership.” He added that Indo-Japan partnership would create an “arc of freedom and prosperity” in the region. The current trends in the global politics and cementing strategic partnership between Tokyo and New Delhi alarms about the probability of strategic competition and thereby the earlier announced “an arc of freedom and prosperity” might be transformed into “an arc of containment” in the near future. In addition, quadrilateral dialogue among the US, India, Japan and Australia, alarm the Indian neighbours, especially China and Pakistan. Perhaps, any attempt by India and Japan to contain China on the behest of United States would perilous for the regional security.
To conclude, Japan being very vocal anti-nuclear weapon state agreed to assist nuclear-armed India in its nuclear pursuits including to secure the full membership of the Nuclear Supplier Group. Tokyo’s support for the membership of the Group is significant for New Delhi. It is because; the former is the only state, which was attacked with nuclear weapons; currently having a vibrant nuclear industry; and is an influential member of the Nuclear Supplier Group. Precisely, Japan formally accepted India as a responsible nuclear weapon state and hence is altering its symbolic role as an advocate of ‘world free from nuclear weapons’ or ‘nuclear disarmament’.
— The writer is Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Who was Behind Mumbai Attacks?

By Sajjad Shaukat

On November 26, 2008, several persons were killed in the simultaneous terror attacks in Mumbai. Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media had started blaming Pakistan.

Mumbai attack was just another false flag operation of Indian establishment to gain sympathies of world community and defame Pakistan in the comity of nations. The whole drama was staged to put blame Pakistan and its intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

It is notable that renowned thinkers, Hobbes, Machiavelli and Morgenthau opine that sometimes, rulers act upon immoral activities like deceit, fraud and falsehood to fulfill their countries’ selfish aims. But such a sinister politics was replaced by new trends such as fair-dealings, reconciliation and economic development. Regrettably, India is still following past politics in modern era.

Under the cover of the Mumbai catastrophe, India began a deliberate propaganda campaign against Pakistan and tried to isolate the latter in the comity of nations by showing that Islamabad was sponsoring terrorism in India. In this regard, Indian former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and its other high officials, while repeating old rhetoric of baseless allegations, stated that Pakistan has “epicenter of terrorism” and Islamabad should “end infrastructure of terrorism.” L.K. Advani, leader of the BJP, while accusing Pakistan as the hotbed of terror in the region, said that Pakistan’s secret agency ISI should be declared a terror outfit.

In this respect, Indian top officials and TV channels had remarked that Indian Mujahideen and the banned Lashkar-e-Tayba (LeT) based in Pakistan and ISI were behind the Mumbai terror attacks. With the assistance of Indian secret agency RAW, Indian investigators fabricated a false story that 10 terrorists who executed Mumbai carnage came in a boat from Karachi and were in contact with the members of the banned Lashker-e-Taiba through phone calls. But a number of questions arise in relation to the so-called links, deliberately entangling Pakistan. First, how it is possible that the militants phoned 100 times inside Pakistan, but they did not call their families? Second, the lonely gunman Ajmal Kasab who was arrested, knew his address and why he did not indicate the names and home addresses of other 9 fugitives with whom he lived for a long time? Third, after the hard journey of more than 50 hours, traveling on the slow moving water, evading 20 coastal guards of Indian Navy, how they reached Mumbai? Fourth, where did they change their muddy shoes and wet dresses? Fifth, how it became possible that they immediately hired a taxi and reached their targets, without taking some rest? Sixth, why the terrorists killed only four people at the Nariman house, sparing the other six guys present there?

Availing the pretext of the Mumbai catastrophe, New Delhi had suspended the process of ‘composite dialogue’ in wake of its highly provocative actions like mobilization of troops. Islamabad had also taken defensive steps to meet any Indian prospective aggression or surgical strikes. But, India failed in implementing its aggressive plans, because Pakistan also possesses atomic weapons.

However, in the post-Mumbai terror attacks, Indian rulers had started blackmailing Islamabad that they would not resume the talks unless Islamabad takes actions against the culprits of Mumbai mayhem. New Delhi urged Islamabad to arrest the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks. Rejecting Pakistan’s stand that its government or any official agency was not involved in the Mumbai attacks, New Delhi wanted to make Islamabad accept all other Indian demands since our rulers admitted that Ajmal Kasab was Pakistani national. In fact, Islamabad’s admission which had emboldened New Delhi was forced by the US. And, Ajmal Kasab was tortured by the Indian intelligence agencies so as to endorse Indian false story against Islamabad, while giving statement in an Indian court. Suppose, even if he was Pakistani, it did not matter because he was a non-state actor, as non-state actors like smugglers and the militants are found in many countries.

It is of particular attention that on July 19, 2013, the Indian former home ministry and ex-investigating officer Satish Verma disclosed that terror attacks in Mumbai in November 26, 2008 and assault on Indian Parliament in January 12, 2001 were carried out by the Indian government to strengthen anti-terrorism laws.

It has clearly proved that Indian secret agencies; particularly RAW arranged coordinated terror attacks in Mumbai and orchestrated that drama only to defame Pakistan in the world, but also to fulfill a number of other sinister aims.

As a matter of fact, a lack of seriousness on India’s part to settle all disputes, especially Kashmir issue has compelled New Delhi to follow a self-contradictory and confused strategy towards Islamabad.

Hence, New Delhi earnestly found various pretexts to cancel peace talks, while shifting the blame to Islamabad. For example, besides Mumbai attacks, in 2002, under the pretension of terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, India postponed the dialogue process.

In this connection, on July 27, 2015, three gunmen dressed in army uniforms killed at least seven people, including three civilians and four policemen in the Indian district of Gurdaspur, Punjab.

Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media started accusing Pakistan, its banned militant outfits and intelligence agencies for the Gurdaspur incident. Indian Police remarked that the attackers are from Indian-held Kashmir, and some said that they were Sikh separatists, while Indian Punjab police chief claimed that the three gunmen were Muslim, but as yet unidentified. Contradicting speculations, India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh told parliament that the gunmen came from Pakistan.

Khalistan Movement Chief Manmohan Singh stated that the Gurdaspur incident is “a conspiracy of Indian secret agency RAW to defame Pakistan.”

Besides, prior to the US President Obama’s second visit to New Delhi, Indian intelligence agencies orchestrated a boat drama to defame Pakistan, allegedly reporting that a Pakistani fishing boat as a Pakistan-based outfit group Lashkar-e-Taiba was intercepted by Indian Coast Guards, off the coast of Porebandar, Gujarat. And Indian Coast Guard crew set the boat on fire and it exploded. But, its reality exposed Indian terrorism, because, some Indian high officials admitted that there was no such boat which came from Pakistan.

Similarly, India orchestrated the drama of militants’ attack at Indian Air Force Base in Pathankot on January 2, 2016. Indian media and top civil and military officials started claiming that the attackers had arrived from Pakistani Punjab’s Bahawalpur district, and had links with Jaish-e-Mohammad and ISI. But, despite Islamabad’s cooperation with New Delhi like formation of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) consisting of professionals to investigate the Pathankot attack, crackdown against the militant group Jaish-i-Mohammad—lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) in relation to the incident, India failed in providing any proof of Pakistan’s involvement in the Pathankot episode.

Indian authorities did not cooperate with Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team which visited India to probe into Pathankot attack. The JIT members visited Pathankot Airbase on March 29 where Indian National Investigation Agency officials briefed and showed them the route from where the attackers stormed the airbase. In fact, besides fulfilling other sinister designs against Pakistan, New Delhi staged that drama to postpone secretary-level talks with Pakistan, which were scheduled to be held in Islamabad on January 15, 2016.

Sources said that the lights along the 24-km perimeter wall of the Pathankot airbase found to be faulty on the eve of the attack. The Pakistani investigators were allowed to enter the military airbase from the narrow adjacent routes instead of main entrance and their duration of the visit was just 55 minutes, enough to take a mere walk through the airbase. The JIT could not collect evidence in this limited time. And the visiting team was only informed about the negligence of Boarder Security Force (BSF) and Indian forces. It was disclosed that at the time of the assault, the BSF was sleeping, even though they had been alerted of a possible attack 48 hours earlier.

India’s orchestrated drama of the Pathankot incident could also be judged from the fact that earlier, Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had stated in confusion that New Delhi would not allow access to the JIT into the base, though it was allowed on very limited scale to fulfill the formality. It can undermine the seriousness of bilateral commitments to find the truth.

Continuing false flag operations, on Setember18, this year, India also staged the drama of the terror attack in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) at a military base in Uri, close to the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan.

Like the previous terrorism-related events, without any investigation, Indian media, civil and military high officials started blaming LeT and ISI, saying that the militants who target the Uri base came from Pakistan’s side of Azad Kashmir. In this regard, a senior Home Ministry official and a spokesman of the Indian army allegedly said, “It is clearly a case of cross-border terror attack…the militants infiltrated across the Line of Control from Pakistan before attacking the base in Uri.”

The situation developed in the aftermath of the Uri base terror assault like creation of Indian war hysteria against Pakistan, mobilization of troops near the LoC, exposure of the myth of Indian surgical strikes inside Azad Kashmir, differences between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Country’s Army Chief Gen. Dalbir Sing about the ‘fake video’ of this episode, criticism Modi government inside India, continuous violations at the LoC, targeting villages of Azad Kashmir etc., and diversion of attention from the new phase of uprising in the Indian held Kashmir where Indian security forces have martyred more than 100 innocent Kashmiris since July 8, 2016, who have been protesting against the martyrdom of the young Kashmir leader Burhan Wani by the Indian security forces in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) in wake of continued sieges and prolonged curfew have clearly proved that with the help of Indian intelligence agencies, especially RAW, India has itself arranged the Uri base assault not only to defame Pakistan abroad, but also to achieve a number of sinister designs.

Nevertheless, all these terror attacks were planned by Indian security agencies to distort image of Pakistan and its primary intelligence agency, ISI, linking it with the banned group Lashkar-e-Taiba. In these terms, coordinated terror assaults of November 26, 2008 in Mumbai were part of the same Indian scheme.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Revisited Salala Attack

By Sajjad Shaukat

On 26th of November 2011, the US-led NATO forces attacked two Pakistani check-posts on Pak-Afghan border and martyred 24 Pakistani military personnel indiscriminately. 

In this regard, two American Apache helicopters and two F-15 Eagle fighter jets targeted the two Pakistani posts, Boulder and Volcano, situated at Salala in the Baizai tehsil of Mohmand Agency. The airstrike was carried out in two phases.

Notably, the aerial attack was coordinated and deliberate, its second phase carried out by American forces after the Pakistan Army informed the ISAF command that their forces were attacking Pakistani troops–and despite this information, it continued.

In this context, a NATO inquiry said that both sides had made mistakes. Pakistan categorically rejected the inquiry report. It had earlier refused to be part of a joint inquiry. Top Pakistan Army officials denied the attack was unintentional.

Reacting to the Salala attack, Pakistan blocked the NATO ground lines of communication to Afghanistan and demanded an apology before the supply line would be unblocked.

Pakistan’s parliament unanimously approved recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) in connection with the re-engagement with the United States. Besides other matters, the recommendations included an immediate cessation of drone attacks and infiltration into Pakistani territory, entailing some conditions regarding supply to NATO forces in Afghanistan across the country. Besides, Pakistan should seek an unconditional apology from the US for November 26, 2011 unprovoked Salala check-posts assault.

Meanwhile, a number of American diplomats including NATO chief had visited Islamabad and met the then Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, asking them for re-opening the NATO routes. Setting aside the American pressure, they reiterated that parliament in light of the PCNS recommendations and the Defence Committee of Cabinet would decide on the issue of NATO supply, after negotiating new relationship with the US, based upon equality and non-violation of Pakistani territory.

When Pakistan government remained stern on its stand by keeping the NATO supply lines suspended for the six months in wake of US pressure tactics, on May 10, 2012, the United States House Armed Services Committee approved a bill that would prohibit the preferential procurement of goods or services from Pakistan until the “NATO supply lines are reopened.”

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen suggested on May 11, 2012 that Pakistan could miss out on important talks on the future of Afghanistan, if it failed to reopen supply routes in time to secure a place at a NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21, 2012. Indirectly, he disclosed that Pakistan would not be invited to participate in the summit.

On the other side, Prime Minister Gilani confirmed that the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, would debate as to how to repair relations with America in time to attend the NATO summit in Chicago or to boycott it. While, the British Defence Minister Phillip Hamond stated that negotiations on restoration of the NATO supply is progressing in the right direction, but Pakistan would not accept any pre-condition.

In these terms, Pak-US war of nerves accelerated due to American coercive diplomacy towards Islamabad coupled with its double game. In this regard, after the 9/11 tragedy, Pakistan joined the US war against terrorism as frontline state and Islamabad was granted the status of non-NATO ally by Washington because of its earlier successes achieved by Pakistan’s Army and country’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) against the Al-Qaeda militants.

Within a few years, when the US-led NATO forces felt that they were failing in coping with the stiff resistance of the Taliban in Afghanistan, they started false allegations against Pak Army and ISI of supporting the Afghan Taliban. US high officials and their media not only blamed Pakistan for cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan, but also continuously emphasized to ‘do more’ against the insurgents in tribal areas by ignoring the internal backlash in the country such as bomb basts and suicide attacks which killed thousands of innocent people and personnel of the security.

Cold war had already started between Pakistan and the United States when hundreds of CIA agents entered Pakistan under the guise of diplomats to destabilize the country. On January 11, 2011, Raymond Davis who was CIA agent killed two Pakistanis in Lahore.

Since May 2, 2011, Pak-US relations further deteriorated when without informing Islamabad, US commandos killed Osama Bin Laden in a covert military operation. Afterwards, tension intensified, as America continued its duress on Pakistan in wake of drone attacks on FATA, while brushing aside parliament’s resolution in this respect.

Differences also increased between Islamabad and Washington, because Pakistan’s superior agency, ISI interrupted covert activities of the American so-called diplomats. Notably, ISI thwarted the anti-Pakistan activities of the agents of Blackwater and CIA which had started recruiting Pakistani nationals who were vulnerable. In this connection, with the pre-information of ISI, Pakistan’s police and other security agencies arrested a number of secret agents. On many occasions, ISI helped in stopping the clandestine activities of the CIA spies who were displaying themselves as diplomats. On the information of this top spy agency, Pakistan’s establishment expelled several American spies operating in the country. On the other side, US withheld $800 million in military aid to punish its army and ISI.

It was due to the professional competence of ISI in foiling the anti-Pakistan plot that US and India including their media accelerated deliberate propaganda against ISI.

Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the November 26 incident in Mohmand Agency, Pakistan’s bold steps such as vacation of the Shamsi Airbase, boycott the second Bonn Conference and rejection of the US investigation report regarding the deliberate attack on Salala Army check-posts accelerated tension between Islamabad and Washington.

Some American top officials accused Pakistan-based Haqqani militants behind the well-coordinated attacks in Afghanistan, which occurred on April 15, 2012. US aim was to pressurize Islamabad for restoration of the NATO transit routes.

It is mentionable that confused in their goals, sometimes US high officials praised Pak sacrifices regarding war on terror, sometimes, admitted that stability cannot be achieved in Afghanistan without the help of Pakistan after the withdrawal of foreign troops, sometimes, threatened Islamabad to abandon the Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project and sometimes, realized that US wants to improve its relationship with Pakistan, but at the same time, they blame Islamabad for safe-havens of militants in the country. While in connivance with India and Israel, America has been continuing its anti-Pakistan activities by supporting militancy in Pakistan and separatism in Balochistan.

Nonetheless, after the Salala incident, Pak-US war of nerves continued, it took the relationship of both the countries to the point of no return. On July 3, 2012, Defence Committee of the Cabinet permitted NATO supplies across the country to Afghanistan after the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apologized the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in November 2011 by American air strike on Slalala check posts by saying “sorry”.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Is the US Trying to Sabotage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor?

Intentional or not, U.S. counterterror operations are pushing militants into Balochistan, the heart of CPEC.

By Ian Price

When the United States added Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (TTP-JA), a faction of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), to the terror list in July 2016 following their claim of responsibility for a failed car bombing in Manhattan, it helped to push the group out of the tribal region of Pakistan and into areas that China was eying for their multibillion economic corridor project. This was part of a larger strategy that eventually created immeasurable headaches for both the security establishment in Islamabad and officials in Beijing, potentially causing billions of dollars in losses for both. Given Washington’s growing acrimonious ties with Pakistan and desire to constrain China’s expansion, this seems a fortuitous coincidence. But was it simply an unplanned consequence of Washington’s war on terror, or a calculated outcome set into motion specifically to keep Pakistan and China in check?

It’s no secret that Pakistan has fallen out of Washington’s good graces in recent times. The current dip in relations culminated in a U.S. bill introduced on September 20 seeking to officially designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. Pakistan has also seen the writing on the wall, allegedly using their networks to disrupt progress in Afghanistan and cozying up to China as a new source for weapons and economic growth. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), for which China announced nearly $50 billion in funding in late 2014, would be the triumph of their growing relationship. This was certainly unwelcome news for the United States, who had a cautious eye on both countries, but there was no way for Washington to directly intervene. Indirectly, however, Washington seems to have succeeded in meddling with the project through a recent intensification of operations in east Afghanistan.

When the TTP-JA was added to the U.S. State Department’s global terrorist list, it significantly expanded Washington’s options for dealing with the organization. The United States has already used drone strikes against designated Taliban groups in a number of instances, including a May 21 strike in Pakistan’s Balochistan that killed TTP leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour and a November 2015 strike that killed another commander, Khan Saeed, in the Khost province of Afghanistan. As illustrated by precedents involving Afghanistan, Pakistan, and various Islamic State (ISIS) holdings, when the United States puts a group on the list, they intend to target it aggressively.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

At the same time, security forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan aren’t sitting idly by, waving to drones as they buzz overhead and leaving all of the work for the Americans. In the last week of July alone, joint U.S.-Afghan operations killed an estimated 300 ISIS militants in eastern Afghanistan. In Pakistan, security forces have launched no less than three large-scale operations against TTP elements in the Federally Administered Tribal Region (FATA) that borders Balochistan, also reportedly killing hundreds militants since they began in 2014. Operation Khyber 3, launched on August 17, claimed 14 militant lives in its opening salvo.

Now, where can the militants run? Traditionally, Kabul and Islamabad both blame the other for abetting TTP and other terrorist groups in their borders, and to an extent both are correct. The porous border region between the two countries is much like the wild west, and terrorists enjoy a relatively large amount of freedom of movement in the less secure areas. As Pakistan turns up the heat in the FATA, militants are pushed into Afghanistan, and vice versa when Afghanistan kicks up operations. Now, with nowhere to run on either side of the border, many tribal militants are now making a home for themselves in nearby Balochistan.

Unlike in traditional Taliban strongholds, Balochistan’s security arrangements are much less comprehensive. The same areas in Quetta, Balochistan’s capital city, are targeted over and over and over despite, or perhaps because of, headway in the FATA. And while the dominant ethnic group of the province is Baloch, there is still a sizable Pashtun population in northern Balochistan to blend into, including in and around Quetta. Balochistan also has its own border with Afghanistan that militants can move through.

Not only are TTP-JA and other Taliban elements being pushed into Balochistan, but they are now more actively carrying out attacks, which is hardly an unpredictable consequence. Between their founding in 2007 and when the United States added the TTP to the terror list on September 1, 2010, the TTP had claimed or is believed to have carried out at least 16 attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere that resulted in an estimated 370 deaths. After their addition to America’s global terror list, the TTP carried out approximately 32 attacks over the next three years, resulting in almost 700 more deaths. That is a 2:1 ratio in the frequency of attacks and amount of victims killed for the three year periods before and after the designation.

It would be a gross oversimplification to suggest that the uptick in activity was owed solely to American forces targeting the TTP in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but many of the attacks claimed by the TTP were stated to be retaliatory measures against U.S. strikes carried out in the area. It certainly suggests, at the very least, that Washington’s targeting of the TTP both drove them further out of their traditional areas of influence, and challenged them to retaliate for the losses that they accrued.

The pattern has begun to repeat itself with the TTP-JA. In no small part thanks to the dual squeeze put on the group by the U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan combined with the ongoing Pakistani Khyber operations, the TTP-JA has already increased their activity in Balochistan. Before July, the TTP-JA had claimed or is believed to have been responsible for six attacks resulting in approximately 160 deaths. In August and September alone, the TTP-JA is believed to have already carried out five attacks resulting in a further 135 deaths, mostly in Quetta. The beginnings of a worrisome trend, to be sure, but more importantly it illustrates that when the United States begins targeting new militant groups along the Afghan-Pakistani border, the result predicatively appears to be an increase in terror in Pakistan. It’s simple math, and no doubt was at least part of the overall decision-making calculus behind commencing operations against the TTP-JA to begin with. If the security and intelligence establishments in the United States consider this outcome to be an unfortunate part of doing business or a deliberate means to an altogether different end still remains an open question.

The border squeeze has certainly complicated matters for China and their CPEC project. China’s concerns over Balochistan’s security are longstanding, and recent developments have done little to raise Beijing’s confidence. In order to protect Chinese workers in the country, Pakistan has promised to raise a security force of 15,000. This would include 9,000 regular Army soldiers in addition to 6,000 more paramilitary personnel. As part of the plan,manpower will be drawn not only from Balochistan but also other provinces, including from local police forces. Sindh province has already voiced disapproval over the security measures, which they say intrude on their rights. Not surprisingly, other provinces appear to be reticent to commit soldiers to places like Balochistan, the most dangerous province and soon-to-be home of the juiciest terror targets in the country once construction is in full swing.

The Pakistani government knows that it is facing an uphill battle, and so does China for that matter. In July, five projects worth billions were already on the chopping block due to their slow start and Pakistan’s inability to provide adequate security. As recently as September 28, Pakistani media was reporting about China’s dissatisfaction with the current security arrangements for the corridor and how this will affect the project’s overall timeline.

China has good reason to be worried. There have been a number of attacks against Chinese laborers, engineers, and businessmen in Balochistan and throughout the country since 2001. Not only that, but China has already poured in a reported $14 billion into the CPEC project already. All of this weighs particularly heavy on the heads of Pakistani government officials who can’t afford any more delays, as billions of dollars hang in the balance for both countries.

And that is the crux of the argument. Because of the upswing in terror and the degradation of the security situation in Balochistan, Pakistan and China risk losing billions over delays and cancellations for the CPEC project. The security situation owes to, in no small part, the pushback that the TTP-JA and other groups have received from the United States and her allies in eastern Afghanistan this summer. To put it more bluntly, the United States has contributed to the degradation of security in Balochistan, a key region for CPEC projects, risking billions for China and Pakistan and putting a strain on their bilateral relations. It would have been easy to predict this outcome, as many observers have. So this ultimately raises a very interesting question: Was the United States banking on increased violence in Balochistan all along?

Ian Price works as a South Asia intelligence analyst for a private company in Tel Aviv, Israel. He holds a master’s degree from Tsinghua University in Beijing on the subject of Chinese Politics and Foreign Policy.

The Case for Pakistan’s Nuclear Suppliers Group Membership

Pakistan should be able to join the NSG alongside India.

By Sobia Paracha

For about a decade there have been forceful discussions in South Asia about U.S. efforts to mainstream India into the non-proliferation regime and enhance nuclear cooperation with the country that famously denounced the regime as discriminatory and “Nuclear Apartheid.” This has been seen in Islamabad as harming Pakistan’s strategic interests.

Pakistan’s policies vis-a-vis the nonproliferation regime will be influenced by the evolution of India’s case for Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) membership, for obvious security reasons. The tenacious efforts of the United States to conduct nuclear trade with India and make it a member of the NSG will reduce Pakistan’s space in the nonproliferation regime and it is highly probable that the doors for Pakistan’s nuclear mainstreaming will close permanently if India becomes a member of the non-proliferation regime before Pakistan. However, there is also a case for viewing Pakistan as a prospective member of the NSG on its own merit if the international criteria is developed multilaterally, with due consideration of the strategic interests of all parties and the goal of balancing them with the possibility of strengthening the non-proliferation regime.

With the existing asymmetry of military and economic potential between India and Pakistan, advocating a criteria based on international norms of nonproliferation for any future NSG memberships is Pakistan’s best bet. Pakistan for some time, has been advocating a criterion-based approach for any future addition of non-NPT states to the NSG. However, there hardly is a universal criterion for the case of non-NPT states. For some states, the criterion can be as simple as the possibility of nuclear trade and business for their companies. Others might also like to include the non-proliferation credentials of a given state. The Chinese stance of seeking to develop criteria before considering the Indian or Pakistani case for NSG membership falls in the category of states that still want to have a principled approach to nuclear trade, rather than rubbing the geoeconomic and geopolitical interests of big powers in the faces of small countries. The derogatory approach of the United States toward smaller states is obvious specifically in two ways: first, the way Washington has tried to influence (read browbeat) the smaller states’ decisions regarding Indian membership in the NSG; and second, its partial demands for Pakistan (and not India) to improve its non-proliferation credentials to be considered for NSG membership.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

However, the measures of nonproliferation credentials discussed to establish Pakistan’s case are mainly related to vertical proliferationand strategic stability with India. Interestingly, onward nonproliferation and the establishment of optimum safety and security measures are the only established nonproliferation norms internationally. Controlling arms buildup is not an international norm and all states that have decided to adopt a moratorium on further testing or production of fissile materials have done so based on their own strategic calculations, rather than to fulfill their NPT obligations. This puts a question mark on the U.S. demands that Pakistan sign the CTBT and facilitate the FMCT as a bargain for nuclear mainstreaming. Both of these are noble goals in terms of inching the world closer to nuclear disarmament. However, it is unfair to ask Pakistan to choose between its strategic imperatives and NSG membership. It is a cost bigger than Pakistan can realistically bear.

Similarly, the NSG is not the right platform to discuss issues related to strategic stability between India and Pakistan, like Indian conventional modernization and Proactive Defense Strategy, and Pakistan’s development of short-range nuclear weapons. These are issues of genuine concern, but the prospective provision of NSG membership to Pakistan does not provide the United States enough leverage to push Pakistan against its stance on full-spectrum deterrence. Also, pressure in this regard would only enhance the Pakistani sense of alienation and further increase its reliance on nuclear deterrence.

A relatively fair criteria, which may or may not be universal, should consider the potential of each prospective member to enhance the international nonproliferation agenda. Again, this has to be based on the potential to contribute to international efforts to promote nuclear safety and security and curb onward proliferation, as vertical proliferation has a separate set of dynamics and has not traditionally been considered as a measure of a state’s nonproliferation credentials. China, Russia and the United States are all modernizing their arsenals but this has never cast doubts on their nonproliferation credentials, since all three are committed to controlling proliferation to other countries and non-state actors. One could argue that all these states are de jure nuclear weapons states under NPT while India and Pakistan are not. Yet if both states could accept the obligation of non-nuclear weapons states, why would they resist joining the NPT in the first place?

So how can Pakistan contribute to the nonproliferation agenda? Pakistan is a de facto nuclear weapons state with complete nuclear fuel cycle capabilities. The NSG is better off with Pakistan inside the regime than outside. Even though Pakistan does not possess remarkable business potential like India, it has demonstrated an interest in developing its civilian nuclear sector for energy, medical, and R&D purposes. The Energy Security Action Plan of the Planning Commission of Pakistan envisages increasing the share of nuclear in the total energy mix from 0.67 percent to 15.11 percent. In any case Pakistan’s potential for both nuclear imports and exports is better than many current NSG member states.

Also, Pakistan has established positive safety and security records. Today it can contribute to the improvement of nuclear safety and security of other states through its Nuclear Security Summit-mandated Centers of Excellence, by participating in the IAEA IPPAS(International Physical Protection Advisory Service) missions, etc. No state in the world can claim an impeccable nuclear safety and security regime, but some need to do more work than others. Both India and Pakistan are developing states with a need for capacity building.

There is no reliable methodology to grade a given state’s nuclear safety and security parameters; however, it is more important that all states have confidence in international cooperation to this end. Pakistan’s engagement with the United States, IAEA, Nuclear Security Summit process, and other multilateral platforms for improving its nuclear safety and security complexes is an important way in which Islamabad is helping reduce national and international nuclear risks. This is also reflected in the confidence the U.S. government places in Pakistan’s nuclear safety and security efforts. One clear way in which Pakistan can benefit from NSG membership would be streamlining its export control procedures. Once it can formally communicate with individual member states, especially in terms of licensing and end-user certification issues, it will be better able to fill the gaps in the implementation of its export control laws.

The pace of progress on Pakistan’s strategic export controls and strengthening the safety and security regime is partially influenced by its desire to become a mainstream nuclear state. Despite highlighting its reservations about how the 2008 India-U.S. nuclear deal will impact strategic stability in South Asia, especially when an India-specific waiver was issued by the NSG, Pakistan did not oppose the deal. That’s because there was an implicit understanding that in the future Pakistan will be a candidate for such a deal as well. There is a general understanding in Islamabad, stated a Foreign Ministry official who desires to remain anonymous, that Pakistan’s aim is not to get Indian membership blocked in the NSG but also enter the NSG along with India.

However, the behavior of the nonproliferation regime in the last decade toward Pakistan, if combined in the future with India’s formal membership in the NSG, will leave no incentive for Pakistan to continue its international engagement with the nonproliferation regime bodies.

Sobia Paracha works as a consultant with Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI), Pakistan.  The views expressed here are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of IPRI.

No ‘String of Pearls’, it’s the Dragon in the Indian Ocean

By Mahendra Ved 

Forget the “String of Pearls” story about how China is supposedly surrounding India on the high seas. China is not just on the sea, but also on land, in air and deeply involved in the economies of all of South Asia and beyond.

Two events in India’s neighbourhood taking place on a single day, November 14, show the extent to which the Chinese reach has extended and is expected to grow phenomenally. They need to be taken into account by India’s strategic planners.

One was Pakistan’s Gwadar port going operational and the other was the announcement in Dhaka that Bangladesh was getting its first-ever submarine from China.       

Last Monday, the first major trade cargo departed from Gwadar, marking operationalisation of the port designed and built by China. That also marked the completion in just about two years of the project to feed the port under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) under the Chinese One Belt-One Road initiative.

Flagging off the cargo, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said the CPEC will “integrate development and commerce of various regions across Asia and Europe by increasing connectivity and Pakistan Vision 2025". He further said that it seeks "to transform Pakistan into a regional hub of trade, commerce and manufacturing by harnessing its geo-strategic location into a geo-economic advantage". 

Taking in the big picture, he said the CPEC “will help integrate South Asia, China and Central Asia and offer opportunities for people in this region, and investors all over the world”.

The CPEC is central to the Sino-Pak vision and also to the Pakistani leadership as a panacea to all the ills affecting the country and of an acute feeling of being isolated after the United States under Barack Obama and much of Europe leaned towards India.

At the event, the Prime Minister was accompanied by the army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif. Both have attributed Pakistan’s current tensions with India to part of the latter’s efforts to ’frustrate’ CPEC.

The November 14 departure of trade cargo from Gwadar marks a decisive arrival for China in the Arabian Sea and the Gulf region. From there, two ships — Al Hussain Zanzibar and Cosco Wellington —  set sail for ports in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the United Arab Emirates and the European Union.

The Chinese have moved fast in Pakistan when, by contrast, there is little push on the India-Iran-Afghanistan accord to develop the Chabahar port in Iran -- less than 100 km from Gwadar -- and build a railway line that would link Chabahar to landlocked Afghanistan and thence to Central Asia. 

The project, with the blessings of the Obama administration, was also to get Japanese participation with the likely visit to Iran of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. But a Japanese official recently said there was no word from the promoters of Chabahar seeking any financial participation.  

The announcement in Dhaka about it getting its first-ever submarine from China comes a few weeks ahead of the visit to India of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, likely in the latter half of December. A range of political and economic issues are expected to be on the agenda.

However, Bangladesh has for long placed its military eggs in the Chinese basket. Irrespective of the political colour of the regime in Dhaka, this has been a continuing and expanding process, making China the largest trade partner and the No.1 supplier of military hardware to Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, China’s deep involvement in Myanmar is a continuing story irrespective of whether the Generals rule the country or the present civil-military leadership. So is China’s commitment on several projects in Nepal, including a railway line that can be extended right up to the Nepali border with Bihar. 

Nepal wants to maintain careful equidistance with India and China. Similarly, Sri Lanka, under heavy debt from China, wants to compensate the latter with several projects that the Maithripala Sirisena government has held back.

 Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in July proposed to China’s Ambassador Yi Xianliang varying degrees of control over some of Sri Lanka’s biggest infrastructure projects, including the Mattala International Airport and portions of the Hambantota deep sea port, and wondered if Sri Lanka could receive some debt relief.

 China refused the suggestions saying it was not possible under the Chinese law. But it has continued to promise “fullest cooperation” and that such deals should be conducted via investors on proper commercial terms. While China’s government will not swap debt for equity, it will help clear the road for Chinese companies to take over key projects in Sri Lanka. IZP, a Chinese informational technology company, has been put forward as a potential purchaser of Mattala International Airport, while COSCO is looking into expanding operations at the Hambantota deep sea port.

 The fact of the matter is that India has neither the capacity, nor the political intent, to reach out to its neighbours with investments and projects. Indeed, many of the projects awarded to it have lagged behind for several reasons.

 That being the case, India has much more to worry and work on beyond countering the “String of Pearls”. The Dragon has arrived in the Indian Ocean.      

(Mahendra Ved is a senior journalist and President, Commonwealth Journalists Association (CJA). Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in) 

Diwali: Minorities are Safe in Pakistan

By Sajjad Shaukat

Although Diwali or Deepavali is the spiritual festival of Hindus, yet it is also celebrated by the followers of Buddhism,, Jainism and Sikhism who observe various customs related to Diwali. Besides India, it is also commemorated in in Pakistan, Fiji, Guyana, Malaysia, Maritius, Myanmar, Nepal, Singapore, Sri Lanka etc.

The festival preparations and rituals typically extend over a five-day period, but the main festival night of Diwali coincides with the darkest—new moon night of the Hindu Lunisolar month Karitika in Birkram Sambat calendar. Diwali night falls between mid-October and mid-November. People in different regions in India may celebrate Diwali on various dates. This is because traditional lunar calendars can be interpreted in different ways.

Its celebration includes millions of lights shining on housetops, outside doors and windows, around temples and other buildings in the communities and countries where it is observed.

Many people make a special effort to clean their homes and yards before Diwali. They may also wash themselves with water and fragrant oils, wear new clothes and give gifts of sweets to family members, close friends and business associates. Fireworks are set off in the evening in some areas. Melas (fairs) are held in many towns and villages.

As regards Pakistan, Diwali festival is also celebrated, as tens of thousands of Hindus are living in this country and like other religious minorities, they enjoy all the rights as the citizens of Pakistan.

It may be recalled that during the PPP government, August 11 was official declared National Minorities Day by the former President Asif Ali Zardari in 2009 in line with the historic speech of founder of the nation Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah at the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. In his speech, Quaid-e-Azam said, “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

There have been numerous Non-Muslims who have risen to the rank of Brigadier; and in the 1990, the first Christian promoted to the Rank of Major General was Julian Peter who commanded the 14th Div in Okara Cantt. Capt. Hercharn Singh, the first Sikh as Commissioned Officer in Pakistan Army.

Particularly, a Rana Bhagwandas was the first Hindu and the non-Muslim who was appointed acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan for a few days in 2005 and 2006, during the absence of then Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry from the country. He was again appointed as acting Chief Justice of Pakistan during the judicial crisis in 2007. After retirement from the Supreme Court, Bhagwandas was appointed as the Federal Public Service Commission.(FPSC) chairman in November 2009.

However, in the same speech, Quaid-e-Azam said, “We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between ones caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens, and equal citizens of one state.”

It is mentionable that in accordance with the vision of Quaid-e-Azam, the Constitution of 1973 protects the real rights and interest of minorities, living in Pakistan.

Every year, on August 11, Pakistan officially celebrates the National Minorities Day to honour the services and sacrifices, rendered by religious minorities for the country over the years. This very day also recognizes the contribution and sacrifices of minorities in creation of Pakistan and nation-building.

On this occasion, events, seminars and social gatherings are arranged across the country by members of various religious minorities and the ministry of National Harmony.

Shahid Mairaj, the Dean of the Cathedral stated in his message, on August 11, 2015 stated, “The governing principle is to let people of every faith live in peace as they choose, and understand that the state belongs to everyone. This country is our mother, and it is a duty for all of us to help it to advance and flourish.”

In this regard, Member Punjab Assembly and minorities’ leader Najmi Saleem remarked, “Minorities in Pakistan have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens”.

Minister Incharge for National Harmony Dr. Paul Bhatti said, “The Minorities Day provides us an opportunity to renew the pledge for the promotion of tolerance and interfaith harmony as in a pluralistic society, there can always be a divergence of opinion on a number of issues, but these differences can be solved through interfaith harmony which means a cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religions, traditions, faiths, and spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at all levels.”

He acknowledged by pointing out, “Many steps have been taken by the Government for the protection and promotion of minorities like the reservation of 5 percent quota in Government jobs/services, enhancement representation in the parliament, declaration of August 11 as the Minorities Day, including observance of optional holidays and celebration of the festivals of minorities at official level”.

A Sikh leader, Sardar Bishan Singh shared similar thoughts and pointed out that all citizens of Pakistan worked together for the growth of the country.

It is notable that the Ministry of National Harmony was formed after the devolution of Ministry of Minority Affairs to acknowledge the sacrifices and services of minorities to promote peace, patience and tolerance for creating an understanding and brotherhood among the people of different schools of thought.

Nevertheless, since the formation of Pakistan, minorities are contributing in every sphere of life and their political involvement is also worth appreciating.

But, it is regrettable that in the recent years, with the support of anti-Pakistan groups like Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), Jundullah and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), ISIS (Also known as Daesh, ISIL), including their affiliated outfits, Indian secret agency RAW which has well-established its network in Afghanistan arranged a number of terror-attacks on Ahmadis, Christians, Sikhs and Hindus in order to distort the image of Pakistan abroad.

In this connection, some terror-events might be cited as instance. In May, 2009, Indian backed militants had forcibly taken over the shops and homes of the 35 Sikh families in the Orakzai Agency in Pakistan. On May 28, 2011 armed assaults on two Ahmadi mosques in Lahore killed more than 70 people. More than 80 people died and 150 injured when two suicide attackers struck the All Saints Church in Peshawar on September 22, 2013. On March 17, 2015, at least 15 people were killed and more than 70 injured when two Taliban suicide bombers attacked churches in Lahore. In 2016, these terror attacks continued particularly in Balochistan. Indian supported TTP and ISIS claimed responsibility for these terrorism-related assaults. In this context, investigations showed that RAW was behind these subversive acts. In fact, besides other terror attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, FATA, Balochistan and Karachi, assaults on religious communities are part of the Indian scheme to create chaotic situation in Pakistan, because it is the only nuclear country in the Islamic World. In the recent years, the foreign-backed terror groups also targeted Hindus in the Sindh province to defame Pakistan.

While, India which claims an arch secular state has surprised the world because of continued attacks on other minority groups, especially Christians, Muslims and Sikhs—and events of forced conversion of Christians and Muslims into Hindus.

Unlike India, where religious minorities are being targeted by the Hindu fundamentalist groups like the ruling party BJP, RSS, Shiv Sena etc., all the minorities such as Christians, Ahmadis, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis and Budahists enjoy fundamental rights in Pakistan, including all other rights of citizenry in Pakistan.

Pakistan which came into existence on the basis of Islamic principles to provide respect and protection to all the segments of society is giving full safety to all the minorities as mentioned in the Constitution. Besides minority groups are not only serving in the armed forces, but are also working in other departments. Without any discrimination by the Muslims, they also run their own business and are working in private sectors.

Nonetheless, Diwali festival is also commemorated in Pakistan. Especially in Sindh, Muslims also participate in Diwali celebrations and give gifts sweets and flowers to their Hindus friends. We may concude that religious minorities are quite safe in Pakistan.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com