South Asia

Click here for full event report.

Click here to view online broadcasting of the conference sessions.

"One did not expect much from Hamid Karzai’s visit to Pakistan to try and rebuild our frayed ties and revive the peace process with the Taliban," says Sehgal. "Karzai stayed true to character, all honey and sugar in Islamabad and then reverting to bad-mouthing Pakistan once he was back in Kabul," he continues.

Ultimately, Sehgal argues Karzai’s contradictory rhetoric is politically motivated, serving to project power and legitimacy domestically, even at the expense of alienating his Pakistani audience. 

To read full published article, click here.

"One did not expect much from Hamid Karzai’s visit to Pakistan to try and rebuild our frayed ties and revive the peace process with the Taliban," says Sehgal. "Karzai stayed true to character, all honey and sugar in Islamabad and then reverting to bad-mouthing Pakistan once he was back in Kabul," he continues.

Ultimately, Sehgal argues Karzai’s contradictory rhetoric is politically motivated, serving to project power and legitimacy domestically, even at the expense of alienating his Pakistani audience. 

To read full published article, click here.

The Parliamentarians Network has developed into a unique actor of change in the international conflict prevention architecture. It has been policy relevant, as it engages decision makers, it has networked across institutions and continents, it has shared knowledge and experience, and it has led an action oriented dialogue on issues that have a bearing on stability and peace, locally, regionally, nationally and globally.

Conflict situations are usually characterized by stalemate at the strategic level, lack of political will for genuine dialogue at national and local levels, lack of societal desire for reconciliation, and all sides at all levels seek to attach political conditions to urgent humanitarian and development needs and activities. The onus is on the international community to take the initiative to make progress both on the ground and at the strategic level.

This shows: preventive diplomacy is a frustrating business to be in. But the Parliamentarians engaged in it are not wasting their time. Preventive diplomacy remains a moral imperative, an economic necessity, a humanitarian must, and a political obligation. The Parliamentarians Network drives this home to governments through its very existence on a daily basis.

In China, there is a story about a doctor, who always cured his patients shortly before they died. For this reason he was famous in the whole valley. There was another doctor, whose patients never fell ill in the first instance. This doctor was unknown. Which doctor do you think was the better one?

Conflicts are essential in order to foster societal change.The yardstick is whether societies manage their conflicts peacefully. Therefore, conflict prevention is not exclusively about preventing violence, it is also about channelling conflicts into peaceful procedures. So conflict prevention is a process rather than a policy.

There is no opposition to preventive diplomacy. In fact, there is a broad consensus about its importance. But experience has shown that rhetorical support for it does not always lead to appropriate action. And where the international community gets engaged, it focuses too much on crisis management and too little on preventive diplomacy; one of the reasons being that crisis management is visible, preventive diplomacy is not: it is quiet diplomacy, it cannot be conducted through the media.

There are two flaws in conflict prevention that the Parliamentarians Network has been trying to overcome: the lack of a prevention lobby in our societies and a lack of a top-down approach in governmental agencies. Remedying these deficits is part of the difficult domestic and international political will-building strategy the Network has been engaged in.

During the next years, tensions and conflicts over access to water and energy continue to endanger stability and security in many parts of the world. Also, the last undivided spaces of the earth: i.e. the cosmos, the oceans, and the cyber space, are likely to cause problems in the future. States with a global vision tend to spread out into these areas, as binding international agreements are lacking in order to regulate the competition here. Furthermore, religious rights of minorities are violated in many regions, especially in Northern Africa and the Middle East. This problem needs special attention, locally and internationally.

The Network should tackle all these challenges through institutionalised dialogue between all stakeholders and with a view to create win-win-situations for all.

Today, we find ourselves in a unique situation in that all decisive forces in world politics, including Russia, China, India and the Muslim world, share, objectively, common basic interests. This is a chance to work for the creation of a cooperative international order by reaching out to decision makers to sensitize them that conflict prevention needs to become part of their decision making. State borders and state power are no longer decisive reference points. Transnational problems require transnational solutions.

In the years to come, the Parliamentarians Network should lead the way in this direction, conscious of what Albert Einstein once said: “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”

Click here to read the editorial on the Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention website. 

In 2014, power will be transferred to a new president in Afghanistan. The army of the United States of America will complete its withdrawal and the Afghan National Security Forces will assume responsibility for the country’s security. All these transitions seem precarious.

The new president will have to be a coalescing figure, a Pashtun with cross ethnic support, capable of providing leadership in exceedingly difficult domestic circumstances, and able to work smoothly with external partners—altogether a tall order.

The follow-up to the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement—the bilateral security agreement defining the status of residual U.S. forces in Afghanistan—is facing hurdles. If the U.S. fails to secure a suitable agreement as in Iraq, it is threatening a “zero option,” which actually demonstrates how thin its options are.

The ANSF may have the numbers and may be performing well but that does not guarantee that it can control the post-U.S. withdrawal situation as a cohesive unit, especially if the U.S. departs under the shadow of a political discord with the Afghan government. The ANSF lacks heavy weaponry, air power and sophisticated intelligence capability.

The economic prospects are uncertain despite external pledges of aid. A potential zero military option would not be compatible with generous long-term economic support. Big investment plans in Afghanistan by regional countries will not only depend on internal stability but also long lead times would preclude any significant immediate impact.

General instability around Afghanistan vitiates prospects too. Pakistan’s internal situation remains fraught despite recent elections. Iran has a new president but the nuclear dossier and attendant sanctions create instability. The Arab world is in turmoil, with the so-called Arab Spring having withered very rapidly. Religious extremism is spreading, and it bolsters the forces at play in Afghanistan.

India is acting responsibly in Afghanistan, supporting the emergence of a sovereign, stable, democratic and prosperous nation where extremist forces are contained and human rights, especially those of women, are respected. India is not interfering in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, arming any particular group, or providing safe havens for terrorists to carry out violent activities against the government.

We have legitimate interests in Afghanistan and every right to be present there. The international community must reject any curtailment of Afghan sovereignty by requiring the Afghan government to give precedence to the interests of any one country over another. It is for the Afghan government to take independent decisions in a responsible manner.

India has established a strategic relationship with Afghanistan that is anchored in a long-term bilateral and regional geo-political perspective. Afghanistan and Central Asia are landlocked, and this poses particularly difficult development challenges. The entire region needs the broadest possible choices for economic partnerships. As southern Asia‘s biggest economy, we can substantially contribute to regional development. Afghanistan has huge mineral resources that await exploitation. India is ready to make large investments in this sector, beginning with iron-ore extraction. This requires easier Indian access to Afghanistan, which Pakistan is as yet unwilling to provide.

India is investing in the Chabahar port in Iran for access to Afghanistan as well as in Central Asia. Sanctions by the U.S. and the European Union on Iran hinder such projects to give Afghanistan alternative options for trade routes and encourage foreign investment there. Indian investments in Iran, directed specifically at stimulating the Afghan economy, which are at present dependent on foreign assistance and income derived from foreign military presence on its soil, should not be opposed by the U.S. government. India took the initiative to organize a Delhi Investment Summit on Afghanistan in June 2012. India’s bilateral aid to Afghanistan has reached $2 billion. Some external critics see this as an effort to seek undue influence in Afghanistan. If we consider India’s overall foreign assistance program and the billions Indian companies are investing abroad, this is not too large a sum.

The U.S., Britain and other nations are reaching out to the Taliban in a troubling way. The red lines drawn up by the international community for a dialogue with the Taliban are being blurred by Nato’s anxiety to withdraw by 2014, whatever the ground situation. This strengthens the negotiating hands of the Taliban groups in Pakistan as they know time favors them.

The rhetoric remains that the reconciliation process should be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned, but direct U.S. overtures to the Taliban discount this. Latest statements from the close circle of President Hamid Karzai express deep concern about potential U.S. understandings with Pakistan on Afghanistan and the possibility of south and eastern Afghanistan being handed over to the Taliban, leading to the country’s division and an all-out conflict.

The end-game in Afghanistan is being played out in an atmosphere of suspicion and bickering amongst the principal players. The manner of the opening of the Taliban’s Doha office has worsened matters. In declaring themselves the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban made their own end-game clear. The argument that the Taliban’s various currents, including ‘moderate’ ones eligible for accommodation, needs to be questioned after what has transpired in Egypt where the same arguments of distinguishing among the various strands in the Muslim Brotherhood and welcoming its assumption of power (an interim government is running the country now) have been proved wrong.

India does not want conditions of ethnic conflict to be created again in Afghanistan. The root of the problem is external support for Afghan extremists for attaining Pakistan’s military ambitions. So long as safe havens for extremists exist outside Afghanistan, the country will remain under the shadow of violence. It is a hugely perverse notion that the real problem in Afghanistan is the rivalry between India and Pakistan. Those failing in Afghanistan should not point the finger at India. India is not responsible for the rise of religious extremism in the region or the civil war in Afghanistan after the Soviet departure. It did not put the Taliban in power in Kabul or have a hand in sheltering Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. It bears no responsibility for the U.S./Nato military intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban/Haqqani groups are not killing Nato soldiers at India’s behest. India is not the cause of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan.

We are not seeking an exclusive relationship with Afghanistan and accept that it should have friendly relations with all its neighbors. India and China are now conversing on Afghanistan. India can discuss Afghanistan with Pakistan constructively, including the question of transit facilities. The new government in Pakistan should think along such lines, rather than allowing the nation’s policies to be guided by the ambitions of its armed forces. We have been constructive in our dealings with the U.S. on Afghanistan and mindful of its interests there, despite serious provocations from Pakistan, including the terrorist attack against our embassy in Kabul. The U.S. should not penalize India’s interests while according Pakistan an enhanced role in Afghanistan.

Apropos the dialogue with the Taliban, the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan, James Dobbins, said that while the U.S. did not know how this dialogue would develop and whether it would lead to peace, it was worth trying. India would hardly find re-assuring such an uncertain strategy of talking to a retrograde force supported by a State whose truck with terrorism is well known and whose military is bent on advancing its disruptive strategic ambitions in the region. The attack on the consulate in Jalalabad validates our concerns.

Click here to read the article in The Telegraph. 

To read the article in full, click here. 

The many reasons that Pakistan is now the 'ground zero' of terrorism are well known. It is mostly our own fault for giving this threat time and space. We allowed others to fight their proxy wars on our soil and, even worse, we actively collaborated in fighting their proxy wars. Negotiations are part of the 'soft-sell' mechanism to counter terrorism. Both the government and the opposition are on the same page on this. This must be done within the framework of the constitution with no ambiguity about what to talk about and who to talk to.

Appeasement is not an option. The militants have been single-mindedly targeting mosques, schools, hospitals, funerals, etc and the innocent blood of many women, children and the elderly is on their hands. This minority cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to dictate terms at gunpoint to the great 'silent majority.'

The non-violent initiatives required to combat terrorism are: (1) dispensing equitable justice; (2) providing sound education; (3) curbing religious militancy; (4) building viable political institutions; (5) spurring the economy; (6) creating effective police forces; and (7) maintaining absolute credibility.

The misery of the people of Pakistan cannot be assuaged without the good-governance mechanism of local bodies (LB) working effectively. Without this democracy is a farce. Why are our ruling politicians averse to democracy functioning at the grassroots level? Citizens must be active stakeholders in the peace, stability and prosperity of their communities. The local police, with their extensive informer network, are usually aware of the presence of terrorists. However, they seldom pass on the information for fear of reaction by the militants. Active information flow regarding every locality and vigilance concerning strangers denies terrorists 'safe houses' to operate from.

Three concentric spheres support the process of death and destruction that terrorists employ to create fear and apprehension among the people. Money provides the necessary logistics – arms and explosives, hideouts, travel and the surveillance of soft vulnerable targets, etc. Within the innermost circle are the terrorists themselves, surrounded by a second wider circle of direct supporters, planners, commanders, and religious personalities serving as the terrorism infrastructure. The third circle is of religious, educational and welfare organisations. Promoting hatred, lies and ignorance, they operate mostly through mosques, madressahs and other religious establishments.

The only way to break this evil chain is to make the second circle the primary target. One must be mindful not only of hatred being viciously propagated through incitement in the media but the dissemination of false information by blatant hypocrites.

Corruption not only supports but morphs naturally into 'organised crime.' In urban areas this takes the form of the land, water, transport and sand mafia, and 'protection' rackets. 'Organised crime' thrives in our feudal system, and criminally monopolises the civilian administrative mechanism to hold the population in virtual bondage. Exceptions aside, most of the local police are willing partners in both corruption and organised crime.

There is a nexus between corruption, organised crime and terrorism. Motivated by ideology, terrorists need arms and money, while criminals are motivated by greed. Organised crime linkages include money-laundering, fabricating official documents, providing safe houses, supplying explosives, providing couriers who can smuggle drugs, arms and human beings across countries. Drug trafficking supports both criminal and terrorist activity.

Terrorist organisations also include common criminals with special skills or access to networks or criminal opportunities. Criminal groups sometimes turn ideological over time. It may be impossible to destroy the logistical network supporting terrorist groups without striking major blows at supporting criminal networks. With increased criminal activity replacing ideology, profit and greed are major motivating factors for the operations of some terrorist groups.

Technology has become an essential weapon in the 'war against terrorism,' and it is being developed and enhanced to counter militancy. Conversely, terrorists can also acquire existing technology with relative ease and narrow the huge resource gap they have to contend with. Developed countries facing the 'terrorist sword' are fast developing technologies to reduce vulnerability and increase counterterrorism efforts.

Politicians engaged in corruption, or on the fringes of it, will always be averse to the National Counter Terrorism Authority (Nacta) becoming a powerful body. Law and order may be a provincial subject, but terrorism is a federal problem. Nacta was made non-functional during Rehman Malik's tenure

Only the very best professionals must be inducted into Nacta, without any political interference or manoeuvring, for it to be an effective body. It must be given the tools and funding necessary to make risk and site vulnerability assessments; promote crisis, disaster and emergency situation management; develop and implement national security strategy, policies and procedures; and assess the quality of current security services with recommendations for improvement.

Identifying the most dangerous threats and likely targets thereof, Nacta must be able to: (1) detect people organised in terrorist activities, and monitor their movements; (2) detect the sources of supply of explosive materials; (3) mobilise defence capability to recognise and counter specific threats; (4) mobilise adequate and coordinated intelligence capability, utilising both human and electronic intelligence; (5) focus on air, sea, rail and road travel as potential terror targets; and (6) use both electronic and physical means to guard the country's frontiers, involving monitoring and observation of thousands of miles of our borders.

The Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) set up in the 1990s to eliminate the drug problem can be used as a model for setting up a Counter-Terrorist Force (CTF). The ANF reduced poppy growth from 30,000 hectares to less than one thousand hectares. The ANF Act covers the collection of information, investigation, complete judicial process, forfeiture of property, destruction of poppy growth, treatment and rehabilitation of drug users and providing alternate means of livelihood to the people involved in this mess. It also has latitude to interact with international agencies and bodies. Well-funded to handle its informers, it pays good reward money to its enforcement component.

The ANF has its own intelligence setup to identify the flow of drug money. In a symbiotic relationship, terrorists thrive on drug money and drug barons provide protection to the drug trade. The ANF can be successful in a counterterrorism role if the following conditions are met: (1) anti-terrorist laws are passed by parliament; (2) the requisite judicial reforms are introduced to make electronic evidence admissible in courts (to convict terrorists); (3) a psyops organisation is created to feed the media, to change the dogmatic thinking of the people; (4) as highlighted by the Abbottabad Commission, an effective mechanism is created to coalesce and coordinate 'activate intelligence;' and (5) adequate funding is allocated. The ANF Act can be amended for the ANF to conduct anti-terrorism operations itself. Capable serving and retired armed forces personnel and police officers must run the CTF.

Given the militants' focus on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the PTI's contribution is important for political consensus. The APC is an important milestone to save the country from sliding into an abyss, and the federal government must translate the combined political will into reality.

Ikram Sehgal is a security analyst and chairman of PATHFINDER GROUP.

To read full published article, click here.

“Natural resource issues are rising on the agenda of traditional security actors,” Ferenz said. Pointing to recent commentaries by members of the U.S. military and intelligence communities on resource shocks as drivers of economic and political crises as well as of regional tensions, she added: “The three issues where there are clear disagreements between China and the U.S. are maritime security, trade and Tibet. All three of those have underlying resource conflicts attached to them.”

Groff made several key points concerning the increased role water will have in human security, emphasizing what he called “a crisis around governance” and highlighting the role the private sector can play when appropriate policies and accountability frameworks are in place. He also noted the increased awareness of the complex challenges facing water governance.

“A lot of our institutions have begun to realize that you don’t just think about water in terms of scarcity or in isolation,” Groff said, noting that this will require intensive policy dialogue with governments. “With nexus kinds of things, it’s harder to do the math around it, and it’s harder to make the case for the math.”

Kőrösi stressed the importance of building networks of cooperation within nations and between nations. He also highlighted some of the operational challenges, noting that there must be an exponential increase in the number of water experts in much of the developing world in order to head off a global disaster.

Roundtable participants, representing diverse organizations, offered expert perspectives from their fields. Annette Huber-Lee, until recently the director of the Asia Center at the Stockholm Environment Institute, made the point that scientists have to emerge from their silos to address these cross-cutting challenges. “The scientists studying water must confer with those studying energy, as we all know their findings and studies influence each other,” Huber-Lee said.

Panel members also offered concrete examples of areas in which progress has been made. Groff said that within the past decade the ADB has integrated climate-resilience in its infrastructure investments while regional energy cooperation has made strides in Asia.

Others pointed out that the pace of change is often the fastest at the local level where choosing the right terms of engagement can have a big impact. According to Mandy Ikert, director of the Water and Adaptation Initiative of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, cities are now more willing to work together to create an environment of global sharing. “In many cities it may not be politically favorable to talk about climate change, but you can re-brand it to things that make sense to them locally,” Ikert explained.

Her organization currently facilitates technology exchange between Beijing and New York City, as Beijing searches for a means to employ a zero-energy fresh water supply system.

“We have Beijing that is solely reliant on one remaining clear reservoir working now with New York to determine whether they can actually have-zero energy fresh water supply as New York does,” Ikert added. “There’s a lot of global sharing happening at the local level.”

View more photos from the event on our Flickr page. 

CHINA 

“Is Taiwan Part of the ‘Chinese Dream?’” Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2013.

Ever since President Xi Jinping made it clear that the “Chinese Dream” would be at the center of his 10-year term, the world has been scrambling to work out exactly what the “dream” is. “China’s dream won’t be realized until Taiwan, which was separated from the mainland when the losing side in a civil war fled there in 1949, [returns] back into the fold.”

“China’s Foreign Ministry sets up cyber security office.” Xinhuanet, June 14, 2013.

China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has set up an office responsible mainly for diplomatic activities regarding cyber affairs. China believes that cyberspace needs neither fighting nor hegemony, but it does need regulations and cooperation.

RUSSIA

“G20 summits: Russia and Turkey react with fury to spying revelations.” The Guardian, June 17, 2013.

Mere days before the opening of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland, The Guardian released NSA documents showing that U.S. spies had intercepted communications between former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and other top Russian officials during the 2009 G-20 summit in London, casting another shadow of mistrust on already troubled U.S.-Russia relations.

“U.S. and Russia sign pact to create communication link on cyber security.” Washington Post, June 17, 2013.

The U.S. and Russia agreed to open communication links on cybersecurity, including the refitting of a Cold War-era “hotline” to serve as a direct line of contact between the U.S. cybersecurity coordinator and his or her Russian counterpart. The agreement was announced Monday at the G8 summit.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

“Why You Shouldn’t Get Too Excited About Rouhani.” The Atlantic, June 17, 2013.

The election of moderate candidate Hassan Rouhani to the Iranian presidency inspired hope that Iran may be headed in a more constructive direction, particularly with respect to its nuclear program. Mark Dubowitz of The Atlantic warns, however, that Rouhani is in fact a loyal devotee of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds ultimate sway in policymaking, and that his demonstrated approach to nuclear negotiation is more deceptive than conciliatory.

“Russia signals nuclear arms cuts will not come easy.” Reuters, June 19, 2013.

Speaking in Berlin this week, President Obama called on Russia to agree to further nuclear arms reduction agreements with the U.S. The appeal was met with a chilly reception in Russia, where Vladimir Putin expressed concerns over U.S. and NATO deployments of anti-missile shields and the development of high-precision non-nuclear weapons, which Russia fears may “disturb the strategic balance.”

Follow EWI on Twitter @EWInstitute and Facebook for continuing updates.

Compiled by Haolin Liu and Andi Zhou.