Political Musings: Asia in the Spotlight

By Dr. Sanu Kainikara

This book is a collection of 14 essays written through the year 2015 and reflect the events that have influenced the Middle-East and South Asia during the period. The sub-title, ‘Turmoil in the Middle-East’, indicates that a majority of the essays are focused on that region, although two essays examine troublesome incidents that took place in Bangladesh and Pakistan. A number of the essays were also published in the Eurasia Review, where they received critical acclaim and generated some debate and discussion.
The primary objective of the essays has been to analyse contemporary events and to delineate the influence that they would have on the nations of the region and also on the international community. In today’s interconnected world, it is not possible for any single nation to remain isolated and unaffected by the major events in another part of the world. The analysis of the events that took place in the Middle-East demonstrates this truism like no other.

• Language: English
• Publisher: VIJ Books (India) Pty Ltd
• Release date: Apr 1, 2017
• ISBN: 9789385563898

Dr. Sanu Kainikara

Dr Sanu Kainikara is a practising military strategist, currently residing in Canberra, Australia. He is an ex-fighter pilot of the Indian Air Force who retired voluntarily in 1992. He holds a Master of Science in Defence and Strategic Studies from the University of Madras, and a PhD in International Politics from the University of Adelaide, Australia. Currently he is a Visiting Fellow at the University of New South Wales. Dr Kainikara has been widely published and is the author of numerous articles and papers on national security, military strategy and air power. He has also presented at various international conferences across the world. Sanu has an abiding passion for Indian history which he continues to nurture through research and providing lectures to students. This is the first volume of a series which will eventually cover the full spread of Indian history up to the nation’s independence from the British Raj.

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

A YEAR FOCUSED ON ASIA…

Throughout 2016, the broader Asian continent, which includes the Middle-East, was the focal point for almost all global events. The only exception was the rigmarole of the US Presidential elections. The results of the US elections did surprise almost all political pundits and the Trump presidency is definite to affect the flow of events in the Middle-East and Asia-Pacific regions. China’s reaction to the President-elect Donald Trump has been edgy, to say the least, and by the time this collection of essays is published, further developments would have taken place. China has made it clear that foreign policy being conducted through twitter is not appreciated. The next steps that would be taken by the US, China, Russia and other nations are difficult to fathom, especially since President-elect Trump has so far been extraordinarily unconventional in his statements and actions. There is bound to be interesting times ahead.

THE MARCH OF DEMOCRACY

There is no doubt that democracy is on the march and that the concept is seeing some unusual alterations. It has become obvious in the information age that democracy as it has been practised so far has some obvious discrepancies in a large number of areas. Further, in the more established and stable democracies of the world, mostly in the Western societies, democratically elected leaders are becoming increasingly autocratic in a bid to cement their positions and cater to the vociferous nationalistic trends in their societies. The result has been that in most of these nations, the entrenched political ‘aristocracy’ subscribing to traditional democratic ideals, and to a set of global values have been shunned by the voting public. The democratic ideals have lost its sheen and global values are not sacrosanct anymore. While some changes have taken place, the public across the democratic world has not been satisfied with the pace of reform and change. The current times demand instant gratification.

The tilt towards nationalism at all costs strikes at the root of traditional human values that have so far found purchase as global values. The trend is a backward march towards zealously guarded physical borders in an age of borderless trade and travel. The two are not compatible and one or the other will have to give way to the other. The battlelines have been drawn and the tussle will intensify in the future.

Democracy is evolving. For one, the general public has started to question the right of the elected politicians to ‘rule’ for three, four or five years without seeking a direct input from the same people who voted them to power. This has come about because technology has evolved and now permits ordinary citizens to play an active part in governing the nation, on a daily basis if necessary, rather than purely during the election time. Decentralised governance has become a reality and questions the authority of the elected representatives to enact legislations without any public consultation or input. This push by the general public towards direct and insistent participation could be a reaction to the encroaching corruption in politics and the perceived lack of integrity of the political leadership at the strategic level.

Modern history demonstrates that change occurs much faster than is expected. Today’s rate of information exchange is such that a single advance of an idea in a particular field can have cascading effects in a number of others, spurring inevitable—and at times, irreversible—changes. Democracy is at the threshold of being affected by such an avalanche.

THE MIDDLE-EAST

The world focus has been on the Syrian War and its fall-out in terms of the Refugee Crisis in Europe. The conflict against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq, which is equally ferocious is also of equal consequences for the stability of the region. The focus on these two conflicts has been such that the ongoing rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional hegemony, which could conceivably outlast either of the conflicts, has gone largely unnoticed in the international arena. There is an on-going proxy war between Iran and Saudi-Arabia in Yemen that continues unabated. This inconclusive war has almost become Saudi Arabia’s Vietnam. What was supposed to be a quick campaign culminating in a laudable victory has turned into a quagmire for Saudi Arabia. The Saudi rulers realise that they are riding a tiger but have no clear exit strategy, a direct result of miscalculations regarding the complexity of intervention in a sectarian conflict.

Saudi Arabia – Under Pressure

Early in 2016, Saudi Arabia started to crackdown on Shiite activities, as a measure of the government’s intention to tighten its grip on the sectarian divide in the nation that is visible to any observer. The Shiite minority in the kingdom has always been marginalised and the government has put in place decidedly anti-Shiite initiatives, exacerbating an already deep divide. The other Gulf nations, though Sunni ruled, are treading with much more caution on the issue. Across the entire region, sectarian unrest is percolating beneath the veneer of a placid surface and the governments are wary of feeding the frenzy that could erupt at any time.

Saudi Arabia has been attempting to unify the Gulf States to take aggressive action against Iran, their own anti-Shiite activities being the example. However, there is only limited unity within the Gulf Cooperation Council. Along with the slightly estranged relations with the US, Saudi Arabia is finding the challenges of functioning as the sole leader in regional politics a difficult burden to bear. Without assured US backing, Saudi initiatives lack the veracity required to succeed. Saudi Arabia is currently under great economic stress because of the low oil prices. The government has been forced to curtail its welfare programs and even alter the long-standing cradle-to-grave welfare system. This has led to disenchantment within the middle class in the kingdom. However, the young and inexperienced princes currently in the leadership role is continuing to maintain a hard-line stance on most domestic issues. Some observers indicate the possibility of a palace coup, which will be the death knell of the Al-Saud dynasty.

The current ruling elite have two options regarding the way forward. One, is to become more rigid in enforcing the Wahabi traditions that have unified the kingdom so far. After all these traditions have been the primary source of religious legitimacy for the Al-Sauds. However, the financial outlay required to perpetuate this initiative will be enormous. Further, international scrutiny has clearly traced the root of most Islamic terrorist activities to Wahabism, propagated and spread by Saudi Arabia for decades. Adopting a stricter version of Wahabi traditions to retain power at home will not stand up to the demands being made by global authorities to dismantle it. Therefore this cannot be considered a viable option.

The second option is to liberalise the society. This is unchartered territory for Saudi Arabia and needs to be done carefully in a balanced manner. The recent acceptance of uber taxis in the kingdom could well be an indication of liberalisation being considered as a possible option. The downside of adopting this option is that any liberalisation of society will lead to the dilution of absolute control that is currently in place and will invariably lead to revolt and rebellion demanding more freedoms. If this happens, the repercussions will be felt across the entire region in all the Arab monarchies.

Saudi Arabia is not aligned with the efforts to bring Iran back from the cold into the international fold. However, there is also realisation that it is not possible to isolate and contain Iran, considering the success that Iran is having in the conflict in Syria and Yemen. While it may be a bitter pill for this fundamentalist Sunni kingdom to swallow, a conciliatory approach would be the best option that Saudi Arabia has in dealing with Iran. The acceptance that a participating Iran is critical to regional security is essential to establish any kind of stability in the region.

The Islamic State – on the Retreat?

Even though the IS had held on to the advantages that it had gained in the previous year, by the end of 2016, it was being beaten back from the territories it held, especially in Aleppo in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. These government victories came at extreme cost to the cities concerned and the creation of humanitarian disasters of gargantuan proportions. However, it was clear proof that the IS was not invincible and could be beaten, and that it was gradually running out of steam. In the past few years, the IS has created a state of anarchy in the Middle-East. The autocratic monarchies of the region—Saudi Arabia and its allies—have been struggling to contain IS activities within their state boundaries.

The IS derives its power from two distinct sources: its inflexible application of radical jihadi ideology and an exaggerated narrative of its victories. The victories become propaganda pieces, especially when the global media, which is perpetually on the lookout for eye catching images and stories, made a big deal of the atrocities that the IS were committing. The fact that the IS continues to hold ground even after the recent reversals, indicate that the government is unable to provide security and governance across the entire country. The Western nations are reluctant to consider IS as a nation-state and therefore continue to adopt counter insurgency strategies to battle it. This approach may not work. The recent successes against IS have been based on strategies meant to defeat a State—targeting financial resources and other sources of national power, as well as isolating its allies. While it has been relatively easier to defeat IS in the battlefield, especially after the recruitment to its ranks have been effectively curtailed, it has been more difficult to ‘defeat’ the concept of the ideology. The Western nations have not been able to delegitimise the IS in the eyes of its supporters, essentially because there has been no coherent narrative to disprove the myth that is being perpetuated.

IS is built around a religious ideology that is both fundamental and rigidly enforced. Its primary objective is the creation of a Caliphate without borders, which will subsume the Muslim ‘umma’, or brotherhood, in a stateless manner. They equate this to the old Ottoman Empire. However, the leadership of IS and their blind followers do not have any understanding of the liberal and scientific outlook that had made the Ottoman Empire great and capable of holding on to power for centuries. The narrow, sectarian and oppressive culture being propagated by the IS is diametrically opposite to what was practised by the Ottoman emperors. Unfortunately, the strategies being devised to defeat IS are still based on military defeat of the entity. They do not take into account the fact that an ideology can only be beaten by articulating another more powerful and inclusive concept. At least for the time being no counter-narrative is being offered.

The Middle-East is a hotbed of disenfranchised youth who are somewhat educated and need to be brought back into the mainstream. It is critical to achieve inclusive economic development to create any tangible forward momentum in this process. The civil war in Syria has created the biggest refugee crisis since World War II in the region and Europe. The IS has already taken advantage of this turmoil to spread terrorist violence in the region and even overseas. In the past 12 months or so, the territorial holding of the IS has reduced significantly. However, it is difficult to measure the spread of its influence and whether there has been any constraints on its influence because of the loss of territory. The IS has also started to take credit for most of the lone-wolf and copycat attacks that have taken place in the Western nations. This could be an indication of its diminishing capability and an attempt to stay in the media limelight, which is essential for its long term longevity.

The influence that IS wants to have is not always in ensuring personal indoctrination of an individual. It aims to alienate the Muslim population resident and embedded within Western societies through actions that will invariably bring about retaliation in a religious and racially profiled manner. From its recent actions, it is evident that the IS has started to concentrate on this activity. It is clear that IS has almost lost the capacity to mount strategically viable campaigns and also that its tactical operations are slowing down. The entity is on its back foot and the coalition of nations fighting it should now make a concerted attempt at destroying it. Whether this will happen or not is difficult to predict because of the large number of variable factors involved.

The anti-IS coalition that is led by the US suffers from disunity with different nations supporting individual rebel factions with contrary objectives. This weakness is compounded by the reluctance to inflict even the most minor collateral damage while applying lethal force against the insurgents. There is also a certain amount of mistrust amongst the local leadership regarding the ultimate intention of the Western coalition, after the chaos that has been created in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya through misguided interventions. The Western coalition generally does not accord the same status of sovereignty to Syria and the Assad regime, which is incorrect. Syria was and continues to be a sovereign state with the same status as any other nation under international law. The debate regarding regime change is therefore an aberration and unlawful. More importantly, removal of the Assad regime will play into the hands of the IS since it thrives in conditions of uncertainty and chaos.

There is no doubt that the Russian military intervention has been the major reason for the recent IS setbacks and the primary cause for its loss of territory and influence. The US statements that Russia is not helping them fight the IS has to be analysed with a large amount of scepticism since the US has been involved from the beginning of the Civil War and has not been able to achieve any of the objectives that it set for itself. It is also a fact that the US seems to be aiding rebel groups that have subsequently aligned themselves with al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.

The Iran-backed militia is the most powerful ground force that faces the IS. However, the percolating Saudi-Iran rivalry is an advantageous situation for the IS. The other actor of relevance for the IS is Turkey, which is playing a completely independent game by itself. Turkey has set a list of priorities of its own, based fundamentally on denying the Kurds even the semblance of semi-autonomy. They are conducting a vicious campaign of repression against Turkish Kurds within their border. The intensity of the campaign is increasing and the Kurds are retaliating in an equally ferocious manner. Turkey had also turned a blind eye to foreign IS fighters entering Syria through their porous borders for the first two years of the war. Now that the borders have been closed under great deal of pressure form the US, IS has turned against Turkey. Turkey is now part and parcel of the mayhem in the Middle-East, the result of its own misbegotten policies.

Russia in the Middle-East

Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which started in September 2015, is the first time that the country has explored the possibility of military action in such a scale after the ill-fated invasion of Afghanistan by the erstwhile Soviet Union that finished in 1989. This discounts the minor actions in Georgia few years earlier. More than a year later, and with the advantage of hindsight, it is clear that the intervention was carefully planned to achieve a set of clear objectives. It is also true that in the fog of battle some calculations did go awry.

By the end of 2016 however, Russia had conclusively stemmed the progress of the IS; reclaimed the strategic town of Aleppo; strengthened the Assad government’s hold on power; and forced the rebel groups to come to the negotiating table. The uneasy peace that was enforced is still holding as this is being written, with only sporadic fighting being reported. The Russian ‘success’ has shown up the lack of strategic objectives and policy initiatives that have bogged down the US campaign in the Middle-East. Without any exaggeration it is clear that the troika of Russia, Iran and Turkey now call the shots regarding the future of Syria. The US has been exposed as a washed out power with neither a clear vision of the future nor the intrinsic resolve to impose its will through well-crafted policies.

There is a distinct difference between the campaigns undertaken by the US and Russia in Syria. President Obama traded the US military might to gain international political plaudits by insisting that the application of lethal force will be done purely on a proportionate and discriminatory manner. This extreme stringency is not demanded within the Law of Armed