The Geostrategic New Great Game and the Playing Fields

Tuan

Tuan

Irreplaceable Intelligencer
16acf92d22fd4985ea41e8dfd88babc0.jpg


In the 21st century, all the great powers of the world once again have acquired their own interest with their ambiguous foreign policy. The USA, Russia, China, and India are the major powers playing their key role in the “New Great Game” in Central Asian landmass and the strategic sea lanes of the world in the Indian Ocean where 90% of the world trade is being transported everyday including oil. It is this extension of the great game race is the reason the Trump administration dropped the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), also known as the mother of all bomb on Islamic State’s cave and tunnel systems in the Achin district of the Nangarhar Province in eastern Afghanistan on April 13 last month. While Lutz Kleveman (2003), argues that the Central Asia is increasingly becoming the most important geostrategic region for the future commodities, Michael Richardson (2004) on the other hand explains that the global economy depends on the free flow of shipping through the strategic international straits, waterways, and canals in the Indian Ocean.

Two third of the global maritime trade passes through a handful of relatively narrow shipping lanes, among which five geographic “chokepoints” or narrow channels that are gateway to and from Indian ocean: (1) Strait of Hormuz (2) Bab el-Mandab Passage (3) Palk Strait (4) Malacca and Singapore Straits and (5) Sunda Strait. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) report published in 2014, “world chokepoints for maritime transit of oil are a critical part of global energy security. About 63% of the world's oil production moves on maritime routes. The Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca are the world's most important strategic chokepoints by volume of oil transit” (p.1). These channels are critically important to the world trade because so much of it passes through them. For instance, half of the world’s oil production is moved by tankers through these maritime routes. Hence, the blockage of a chokepoint, even for a day, can lead to substantial increases in total energy costs and thus these chokepoints are critical part of global energy security.

india_china_indian_ocean.gif


In a recent analysis of globalization and its impact on Central Asia and Indian Ocean region, researcher Daniel Alphonsus (2015), notes that the twists and turns of political, economic and military turbulence were significant to all great players’ grand strategies: (1) the One Belt, One Road (OBOR), China’s anticipated strategy to increase connectivity and trade between Eurasian nations, a part of which is the future Maritime Silk Road (MSR), aimed at furthering collaboration between south east Asia, Oceania and East Africa; (2) Project Mausam, India’s struggle to reconnect with its ancient trading partners along the Indian Ocean, broadly viewed as its answer to the MSR; and (3) the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, the USA’s effort to better connect south and south east Asian nations. India the superpower of the subcontinent, has long feared China's role in building outposts around its periphery. In a recent essay, an Indian commentator Brahma Chellaney wrote that the fusion of China's economic and military interests "risk turning Sri Lanka into India's Cuba" - a reference to how the Soviet Union courted Fidel Castro's Cuba right on the United States' doorstep. This is clearly evident how important the roles played by even the small nation states in the region vis-à-vis the New Great Game.

Great powers may set the agenda, but geopolitical illustrations are depending on the game the rest of the world play, and it is, in particular, the small states that will decide the fate of their strategies to rethink the new world order. It is against this backdrop one should view why the long term strategic 1000 Kg MOAB bomb killed three birds with one stone. That is while it sent a very strong implicit message to Pyongyang at a crucial point of time, it also echoed in Moscow and Tehran, who are covertly aiding and advising Afghan Taliban, according to a Washington D.C based Middle East Institute (2017), whereas the USA has a long term strategic interest in Central Asia, particularly in the Caspian Region. Thus, it is just another post-Cold War proxy wars between the USA, Russia, China and India in multiple fronts, which is part and parcel of "The New Great Game".

Source: Working Paper
 
Last edited:
In its first edition The Bridge magazine's compilation of articles about "Exploring the Belt and Road Initiative" analyzes one of the single most significant transnational geopolitical initiative undertaken by a country in this first half of the 21st century and perhaps beyond. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is much more than a simple Chinese political plan to push further economic development for its own domestic consumption.

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/product/the-bridge-01/
 
Tuan said:
In its first edition The Bridge magazine's compilation of articles about "Exploring the Belt and Road Initiative" analyzes one of the single most significant transnational geopolitical initiative undertaken by a country in this first half of the 21st century and perhaps beyond. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is much more than a simple Chinese political plan to push further economic development for its own domestic consumption.

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/product/the-bridge-01/
Click to expand...

Not sure how I feel about the BRI as I have a great deal of trouble in trusting China (or any of the major players) are doing anything that doesn't come with catches in the long term.
 
Tuan said:
Intelligence dominance is the only way to adequately manage the threats that stem from China and Russia, argues Kagusthan Ariaratnam.

Combining Three Tiers of Intelligence-Gathering Is Key to Keeping Russia and China at Bay
https://thegeopolitics.com/combinin...ng-is-key-to-keeping-russia-and-china-at-bay/
Click to expand...

If intelligence is the key we are screwed as ever since Iraq Western intelligence has been on a downward spiral in terms of people trusting it, Trump is at war with his own intelligence agencies and I doubt the west in general has any faith in US intelligence at all.
Currently I would suggest that the west is a leaderless entity as the usual ones have either become laughing stocks or abdicated the role, given this circumstance it isn't hard to see why countries have turned to China and Russia for support.
 
MontyB said:
If intelligence is the key we are screwed as ever since Iraq Western intelligence has been on a downward spiral in terms of people trusting it, Trump is at war with his own intelligence agencies and I doubt the west in general has any faith in US intelligence at all.
Currently I would suggest that the west is a leaderless entity as the usual ones have either become laughing stocks or abdicated the role, given this circumstance it isn't hard to see why countries have turned to China and Russia for support.
Click to expand...

Good point, Monty! That's why politicians should not meddle into the spycraft of intelligence communities and hence national security and intelligence agencies must be independent of and superior to politics; nevertheless, I would argue that there should be a watchdog and appropriate oversight in place to monitor and inspect their operations.
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
Good point, Monty! That's why politicians should not meddle into the spycraft of intelligence communities and hence national security and intelligence agencies must be independent of and superior to politics; nevertheless, I would argue that there should be a watchdog and appropriate oversight in place to monitor and inspect their operations.
Click to expand...

Not sure watchdogs are the answer either as they tend to stiffle operations and the more bureaucracy you have in place the less people trust them.

The problem is that the West no longer trusts it's administrative institutions it sees them as incompetent tools of the state and very few if any think their government is good for much, political parties are run by those that fund them and politicians are selected by the parties who promptly adhere to party dogma.

In its current form the west is on a par with 4th century Rome, only instead of bread and circus's we have fast food and reality TV.

What we need is a wholesale revamp of our politicians and the electoral processes that see these idiots and ideologues selected to run for office and the removal of this system where the people have to choose between the most palatable of two idiots foisted on them by out of touch political parties.
 
Last edited:
Is China creating a debt trap to rule the world?

The charge against China, in the West, is that it is deliberately using its Belt and Road projects to construct infrastructure in developing countries as neocolonial "debt traps", so that China can take over strategic assets, influence transnational policies, and thus rule the world. In 2019, the Rhodium Group, a New York-based consultancy, reviewed 40 cases of China's external debt renegotiations for Belt and Road (BRI) projects.

Key findings include: Debt renegotiations and distress among borrowing countries are common,and may increase in a few years as many Chinese projects were launched from 2013 to 2016, along with the loans to finance them - but asset seizures were a rare occurrence. Debt renegotiations usually involve a more balanced outcome between lender (China) and borrower (host country), ranging from extensions of loan terms and repayment deadlines to explicit refinancing, or partial or even total debt forgiveness.

Despite its economic weight, China's leverage in negotiations was shown to be limited. Many of the cases involved an outcome in favor of the borrower, a conclusion that undercuts various criticisms. It's the fallacy of using isolated cases to represent the whole.

Notwithstanding sensational stories in foreign media, burdening host countries with excessive debt is not China's strategy. It may be in the illicit interests of some companies working cozily with local officials in BRI host countries, but it is not at all in China's interests. Chinese authorities are now toughening standards and tightening controls. These are mid-course corrections - and China is especially good at making them. That's why China's four decades of reform and opening-up was astonishingly successful: start with bold, experimental projects, see what works and what doesn't, make changes, and roll them out further.

And that's why I deem it a positive sign that Belt and Road investments have declined in recent years. Long term success depends on planning, structuring and operating projects with highest standards of analysis, monitoring and controls. Let me lay out the flow of my argument. First, there is no empirical evidence that China has engaged in a debt strategy to entrap developing countries; in fact, the evidence supports the reverse. Second, it is natural for creditors to build protective covenants into commercial loans; this is well-accepted best practices.

Third, while it is true that specific projects have borne excessive debt, higher than could be supported whether due to inexperience, over exuberance, or corruption, these cases in no way reflect China's leaders' open intent or policy directives.

Fourth, recognizing the problem of heavy debt loads on poor host countries, China is now requiring more careful analysis and intense scrutiny of projects, especially their debt-carrying capabilities.

What China has learned from its remarkable domestic development, it is applying internationally, to the Belt and Road Initiative. The developing world benefits; the entire world benefits. But there are challenges.

I'm keeping watch. I'm Robert Lawrence Kuhn.

Scriptwriter: Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Cameraman: Morgan Compagnon, Conor Charles

Video editor: Hao Xinxin

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)
Click to expand...
 
The US-Led NATO And Its Allies Need Dominance In Afghanistan Over Global Powers, Not Over Their Proxy Taliban

As US-led NATO forces prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan, General Scott Miller — the United States’ longest-serving military commander in the area — told the BBC that the priority of NATO troops is “the risks to our forces” and “the risks to the future of Afghanistan.” General Miller’s comments come before September 11, 2021, which marks the 20th anniversary of the so-called “war on terror.” He underscored his prediction that Taliban violence would worsen, but that history would have to write the story of Afghanistan.

Former Afghani president Hamid Karzai told BBC World News that the NATO deployment over the past 20 years delivered mixed results. Reconstructing the country’s infrastructure, facilitating education, and helping nation-building all produced positive outcomes for the country and are welcome. However, Karzai emphasized that NATO’s military strategy to fight extremism and terrorism has failed.

In turn, Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen responded that any US forces remaining in Afghanistan after September 11, 2021, would violate the Doha agreement and warned that the Taliban would “react” to any continuing international military presence. He called for a complete withdrawal of all international forces from the country.

So, what factors play into how Afghanistan’s history is written? And which players will be involved moving forward?

From a strategic and historical point of view, the war in Afghanistan is significant for many global powers. NATO forces were deployed in Afghanistan primarily to obliterate Al Qaeda which had carried out the 9/11 attacks. So the notion that NATO failed in this military mission is to some extent abhorrent. Although NATO forces had significant success in degrading Al Qaeda in the region and removing its “cephalothorax” in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the remnants of their operatives have dispersed throughout the Arabian Peninsula, reorganizing to form the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

If present-day ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda, then Al Qaeda itself is an offshoot of the Afghan Mujahideen and the Taliban. Behind the scenes, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan played key roles in creating the Afghan Mujahideen and Taliban to fight the former Soviet Union. What happened in 9/11 and the subsequent global war on terror (GWOT) that began in Afghanistan, followed by the American invasion in Iraq and the conflict in Syria, are therefore interconnected by-products of protracted Cold War–era proxy wars instigated by major powers.

Today, a resurgent Russia competes for influence in Central Asia. On the one hand, it claims at the UN to be “ready to engage in cooperation with the People’s Republic of China (PRC)/China, USA, and other international partners, including through the meetings of Troika plus Pakistan to facilitate for the Afghan parties an ‘acceptable-to-all agreement’ that would establish a sustainable peace in the country.” On the other hand, Russian military intelligence is involved in “black-ops” to arm, train, and fund the Taliban to destabilize the US-led NATO presence in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, an increasingly aggressive Beijing cooperates with Moscow, Tehran, and Islamabad to reconnect and revitalize its relations in Afghanistan as well as its ties with the Taliban in particular. China sees the Taliban as an important ally to advance its multi-trillion-dollar mega projects: the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Without a stable Afghanistan, Beijing’s anticipated strategy to increase connectivity and trade between Central Asian and Eurasian nations will not become a reality.

But Ameya Pratap Singh argues that the PRC has a legitimate concern regarding the withdrawal since there is a strong possibility of the resurgent Taliban potentially linking up with the East Turkestan Movement and providing safe haven to Uighyur Muslims. Nilofar Sakhi notes that Beijing and Moscow are hoping to subvert Washington’s intentions in Afghanistan. Since “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” China and Russia are “now more aligned than they’ve been since the mid-1950s.”

Alternatively, Iran continues to provide crucial economic, military and political support to proxy militants — especially the Afghan Taliban — all in the name of regional stability and, to some extent, counterterrorism. Although Tehran does not want an ideologically Sunni Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in its backyard, it does recognize the Taliban in order to gain political leverage in the region and beyond. Tehran has just hosted a meeting between Afghan, Taliban, and Iranian Foreign Ministry officials. With this meeting in its capital, Iran has demonstrated its commitment to being a major power in Afghanistan.

Against this backdrop, the US-led NATO needs to strengthen partnerships with newfound regional allies such as India to have a sphere of influence over other regional rivals. Such an Indo-American partnership depends on India, Russia, and China: on India if it wishes to move into the American orbit, on Russia if it wishes to maintain its 50-year friendship, and on China if it plays a more proactive role in Afghanistan. In all likelihood, India will once again balance its relationships between the US and Russia but will work to counter China’s moves. Recently, India has found it difficult to gain influence in Afghanistan since the PRC provides massive foreign aid, development assistance, and political support to Kabul.

India has always believed that it is a vital military and economic power. The withdrawal of almost all US and NATO forces from Afghanistan will create a power vacuum that China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan will most certainly exploit. This Beijing–Moscow–Tehran–Islamabad axis would impact New Delhi, thus India must continue to engage the Taliban in Doha.

India has already deviated from its previous policy of disengagement with the “Taliban, and its security officials had discussions in Doha, Qatar, with Taliban factions and leaders that are perceived as being ‘nationalist’ or outside the sphere of influence of Pakistan and Iran.” Despite India’s lengthy involvement, it has never had a dedicated policy for Afghanistan. Most powers would not have considered an American and NATO withdrawal in 2021. Only now that it stands alone is India interested in speaking with the Taliban. Sameer Patil has told the authors that “India will make sure that it remains a player in the Afghan reconciliation process because that is the only way for it to neutralise the activities of other adversarial players like China and Pakistan and prevent both from joining hands with like-minded countries like Russia and Iran.” Both Russia and Iran provided support to non-Taliban factions whereas Turkey aligned more with the Taliban.

For Pakistan, Afghanistan has always served as strategic depth against India in both offensive and defensive postures. Offensively, Afghanistan is Pakistan’s staging ground, with established training and logistics bases just over the border. Defensively, Pakistan could retreat to Afghanistan if Indian ground forces successfully crossed the Indo-Pakistan border, also known as the Line of Control (LoC). As in 1989 when the Soviets left Afghanistan, India once again faces incursions over the LoC. Except this time, without US-led NATO forces in the neighbourhood. Pakistan’s foreign intelligence agency — Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) — will, for a second time, direct Taliban’s hardcore Islamist, trigger-happy leaders and factions towards Kashmir to infiltrate and attack Indian territory. This had been Pakistan’s primary element in its “make India bleed from a thousand cuts” policy, but since India’s counter-infiltration grid has been enhanced over the last decade, the primary element might be drones.

Despite the current military, political, and diplomatic stalemate, the United States, Russia, China, Iran, India, and Pakistan remain critical players in all negotiation settlements regarding the conflict in Afghanistan. Therefore, any significant change in this conflict will only be achieved when these sovereignties intervene solely on their legal and moral responsibility to protect, rather than advancing national interests, hegemonic culture, or selective bias.

As the departing lead power in Afghanistan, the US must involve other global powers in the Doha peace process so that they too can discuss their concerns with Afghan political factions. Only when all national stakeholders engage in fruitful dialogue can a serious attempt be made to facilitate a stable Afghan government working for its people. The US will need dominance over these “proxy-masters” instead of the proxy itself to attain peace in Afghanistan. And it will most certainly need its allies to do so.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top