Restive Gulf (The Indian Express- 8 June 2017)

     A mercantilist approach to the Qatar crisis will not serve India’s strategic and energy concerns in West Asia

    It is tempting to see the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) diplomatic offensive against Qatar as a rerun of earlier spats in West Asia. That seems to be the understanding behind New Delhi’s cautious reaction to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, Bahrain and Yemen cutting off ties as well as transport to Qatar, sparked by an alleged statement of support for Iran by its Emir, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Expressing concern for the over six lakh Indian workers in Qatar, Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, while asserting that the current row was an internal matter for the GCC, said that New Delhi is “trying to assess who and how many are stuck in the middle, and then we will move”. Securing the Indian diaspora in the Gulf is, of course, of paramount importance. New Delhi must, however, look at the current crisis, and West Asia and North Africa as a whole, from a broader prism than just Indian labour in the region.

The latest developments are symptomatic of a structural change in the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia’s worries about Iran’s influence evidently sharpening. Since the “Arab Spring”, the Iran-Saudi rivalry has been playing out in civil wars, diplomatic manoeuvrings and internal conflicts in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Egypt. Against this backdrop, Qatar has often tried to play all sides: It was the only GCC country to support the Muslim Brotherhood — which has officially sworn off violence but is still accused of terrorism by many in the GCC — sided with Turkey in the Syrian civil war, and is perceived to be backing Iran. For the Sunni-ruled countries of the GCC, that has serious implications — Bahrain, for example, has a restive Shia majority ruled by a Sunni monarchy. Qatar is also a US ally and houses arguably its most important military base in the region. President Donald Trump’s reversal of his predecessor’s policy of relative non-interference has not helped.

     The situation in West Asia only looks to be escalating if the serial attacks in Tehran, for which the Islamic State has taken responsibility, are any indication. The pressure on Qatar seems to be aimed at changing its policy direction, making it fall in line with Saudi interests. If Iran intervenes or the royal family feud continues, Delhi should be prepared to evacuate its people. Over the longer term, India can’t continue with a mercantilist approach to the Gulf. The region’s salience to India’s strategic and energy concerns demand a deeper engagement.

Read More »

Diplomatic mayhem (The Hindu- 6 June 2017)

     The Saudi-led bid to isolate Qatar could have far-reaching economic-political consequences

     The dramatic decision by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen to suspend diplomatic ties with Qatar could have far-reaching economic and geopolitical consequences. Tensions were brewing within the Gulf Cooperation Council for the past six years ever since Qatar started actively supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, a political Islamist movement that the Saudis and their close allies see as a threat to stability in West Asia. In 2014, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain had temporarily withdrawn their ambassadors from Qatar over this. But a suspension of diplomatic ties as well as air and sea travel to and from Qatar is unprecedented. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain on Monday asked Qatari diplomats to leave their countries within 48 hours and Qatari citizens within 14 days. Saudi Arabia blames Qatar for “harbouring a multitude of terrorist and sectarian groups that aim to create instability in the region”. But such allegations can be raised against most Gulf countries. It is an open secret that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar back their proxy militant groups throughout West Asia. Take the case of Syria, where the Saudis back Salafi groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, while the Qataris bankroll the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both share the same goal: to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad. In Yemen, Qatar is part of the Saudi-led coalition that has been bombing the country for over two years.

     It is not immediately clear what drove Riyadh to take this extreme step. Emboldened by President Donald Trump’s open embrace and anti-Iran agenda, the kingdom could be making a renewed attempt to rally Sunni countries under its leadership against Tehran. Qatar has historically played off both sides of the Saudi-Iran rivalry. Even as it joined the occasional GCC outbursts against Tehran, it maintained sound economic and diplomatic ties. Qatar’s ruler Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who had a phone conversation with Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani last week, is reportedly critical of the Saudi-led efforts to drive up an anti-Iran agenda. It is to be seen whether Saudi Arabia has overplayed its hand. If Qatar continues to resist the GCC line, it could trigger a wider crisis in the region. Qatar is an economic powerhouse in the Gulf and hosts the headquarters of the U.S. military’s Central Command. The air war command for the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is also in Qatar. So any prolonged attempt to isolate the country would not only have economic consequences — oil prices fluctuated soon after the decision was announced — but also complicate the fight against the IS yet more. What West Asia requires is a united front against terror and lowering of Saudi-Iran tensions. Opening new fronts in the rivalry will only destabilise the region further.

Read More »

The waiting game (The Indian Express- 6 June 2017)

     The London jihadi strikes indicate that there is no easy full stop to terror

     Enough is enough,” said British Prime Minister Theresa May in the wake of Saturday’s terrorist attack in London. But her fighting words only serve to mask the fact that there is no simple way to put a full stop to the wave of jihadist violence that has hit Europe since it went to war with the Islamic State. May, like other politicians before her, lamented the fact that there was “far too much tolerance of extremism in our country”. In the London case, though, there is evidence that the key perpetrator, who moved to the UK from Pakistan with his parents and his child, was far from tolerated. Members of the community not only expelled the alleged attacker from the local Ahlulistiqamah mosque for his political views, but his friends reported him to the police because of his pro-Islamic State views. “I did my bit, I know a lot of other people did their bit, but the authorities did not do their bit,” one of those who reported the perpetrator to the police told the BBC.

     From the point of view of the authorities, it’s hard to know just what to do in these cases. The perpetrator, father of a toddler, made no secret of his pro-Islamic State views, even appearing in a documentary last week. However, he engaged in no behaviour that would have justified placing him — as opposed to several other high-risk suspects — under expensive, human resource-intensive surveillance. If mere expressions of support to jihadists are to be made illegal, it will hinder, rather than help authorities, driving potential supporters underground. Even attempting to shut off all access to jihadist websites and messaging will do little to staunch the flow of jihadist ideas, because of easily available technology most teenagers can demonstrate to their parents.

     The simple truth is that the expensive investments in policing made incrementally after 9/11 have approached their limits. In London, after all, the attackers were shot in just eight minutes; plot after plot has been preempted. There is, however, no means of identifying those vulnerable to a toxic ideology — nor a quick-fix tool to catch all those willing to kill for it. The Islamic State’s toxic ideology will continue to appeal to the nihilistic urges of some Muslim youth until it is decisively defeated. Until then, societies must hold fast to their democratic values, instead of surrendering them to demagogues.

Read More »

London attack again: Democracies must coordinate better to get a grip on terrorism (The Times of India - 6 June 2017)

     The latest terrorist attack in England where three attackers drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge before stabbing patrons in Borough Market – killing seven and injuring another 48 – shows how difficult it is to prevent such terror plots. This was the second attack on a bridge in London within three months. On March 22 a vehicle had similarly ploughed into pedestrians on the Westminster Bridge before the driver fatally stabbed a police officer, killing five people. The modus operandi of the attacks shows they are highly localised and carried out by radicalised individuals with little or no centralised networks, sophisticated weapons or bombs.

     In fact, it would be fair to assume that with the Islamic State (IS) terror group crumbling and losing territory in Iraq and Syria, such lone wolf, autonomous terror strikes will be IS’s chosen mode of operation. The use of cars, trucks and rudimentary weapons such as knives shows that hardly any training or equipment is needed for these individuals to carry out terror plots and get past sophisticated security systems. Second, plural and democratic societies are uniquely vulnerable to terror attacks, which often target citizens enjoying their economic and cultural freedoms.

     The best counter, therefore, would be for democracies to strengthen each other by improving anti-terror coordination and intelligence sharing. Moreover, there’s also a case for Western nations led by the US and UK to avoid radical swings and have a more settled and stable approach in their foreign policies, particularly with respect to volatile regions of the world such as the Middle East. There’s no denying that the US military intervention in Iraq under the George W Bush administration, aided by the UK, followed by a hands-off approach during the Barack Obama years, created conditions for the rise of IS. Today, President Donald Trump oscillates between threatening to bomb IS into history and urging travel bans on people from Muslim nations.

     

     Democracies must realise that Islamist terror groups want to provoke knee-jerk reactions from them so that the extremists can continue to peddle their ‘Islam-under-attack’ propaganda and recruit more foot soldiers to their radical cause. Hence, the best approach would be to deny them such an opportunity, defend democratic and secular values, and pool resources as well as coordinate counterterrorism policy, which must be sharp and specific instead of all-encompassing and vague.

Read More »

Uncertain times: on the security situation in Afghanistan (The Hindu - 01 June 2017)

The major terror strike in Kabul underlines a rapidly deteriorating security situation

Afghanistan is no stranger to terror attacks. Even so, the repeated strikes in the most fortified areas with mounting casualties demonstrate a steadily deteriorating security situation. In April, the Taliban had targeted an army base in Mazar-e-Sharif, killing over 100 soldiers. Now, at least 90 people, mostly civilians, have been massacred in a suspected truck bomb blast in Kabul. The Wazir Akbar Khan area where the blast occurred is one of the most secured places in the city, given its proximity to the presidential palace and embassies, including India’s. Still, a terrorist managed to drive in with a vehicle full of explosives and detonate it. It is not immediately clear who is behind the attack. The Taliban have denied any role, saying they don’t kill civilians. Afghanistan’s jihadist landscape has been diversified. There are multiple Taliban splinter groups that do not accept the current leadership of the insurgency. And then there is the Islamic State, which operates from eastern Afghanistan and had targeted civilians in the recent past. Amid all this, the Afghan government is struggling to win a modicum of public confidence that it can turn things around. Since most American troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 2014, terror attacks have been on the rise. Last year was particularly bloody, with over 11,500 people having been killed or injured even as the Afghan government’s writ shrunk to just over half of the country’s 407 districts.

The problem has political, diplomatic and security dimensions. Politically, the government is seen to be corrupt, incompetent, and unable to get its act together. Vice-President Abdul Rashid Dostum, who faces allegations of sexual abuse, has fled the country. President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah are reportedly not on the same page on key issues. Corruption is pervasive across government departments, and Mr. Ghani is yet to begin delivering on his promise to streamline governance. The diplomatic challenge before Mr. Ghani is to cut off the Taliban’s supplies from abroad. It is an open secret that Pakistan is supporting the insurgency. There were reports recently that Iran and Russia may also be arming them for geopolitical reasons. Unless the Taliban are cut off from their external backers, Kabul’s writ will remain circumscribed. The security challenge, perhaps the most important one, is that the Afghan army, after years of relentless war, is demoralised. Though Afghanistan has a 170,000-strong army, the main combat operations are overseen by a small U.S.-trained contingent. They are stretched on the battlefield, given the challenges from different militant groups. The question is, what is Mr. Ghani’s government doing in the face of these challenges? Do its international backers, including the U.S., have any plan to stabilise Afghanistan, and if so, what priority do they accord it? As things stand, the country is at risk of sliding back to the chaos of the 1990s.

Read More »