Southwest Asia

According to the "Global Economic Prospects"report, South Asian regional growth declined from 7.4 percent in 2011 to an estimated 5.4 percent in 2012, mainly due to a sharp slowdown in India. Home to many of the developing world’s poor, the economic future of the region depends upon regional cooperation bringing about the Asian Century, supporting regional networks to promote cooperation and focusing on trade in goods, services, electricity, people-to-people contact, and cooperation in water resource management. 

To give impetus to the key challenges facing the regional countries in having access to adequate, reliable and affordable energy, the EastWest Institute (EWI) organized a conference in Islamabad from September 2 to September 4. Representatives of regional governments, parliaments and the private sector as well as experts from China, the U.S. and Europe gathered with the aim to identify productive opportunities for economic growth based on Afghanistan’s potential as a transit route for energy supplies from Central Asia to energy markets in South Asia. 

Ambassador Beate Maeder-Metcalf, regional director of the EWI Brussels, set the tone for the conference emphasising the EWI’s determination to hold the "Abu Dhabi Process" consultations in Pakistan despite the security situation. Federal Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources Khaqan Abbasi underlined the importance of securing energy, giving details of Pakistan’s own resources and those available in the adjoining region.

The federal minister was very positive about the outcome of the conference. Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif was meant to be the keynote speaker but had to cancel without notice, most unfortunate given that energy is a key factor in his plans and the participants were looking forward to an interaction with the CM.

Energy transit routes are of crucial importance for the mutual benefit of both exporting and importing states. Analysts cautioned about barriers in using Afghanistan as an energy route, the civil war and political instability making possible routes insecure. Not only a historical but a natural trade corridor, it has a great potential for economic growth. 

Energy is of fundamental importance to any country. Private sector involvement in energy trade can mitigate the risk on non-recovery of cost of import. South Asia encompasses one-fifth of the global population, and energy trade can be an influential tool for economic integration. Three most important projects in this sector are the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline (IP), the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline (Tapi) and Central Asia South Asia (CASA)-1000. These projects will benefit Central Asian republics by providing them with new markets. 

Although Sartaj Aziz had to leave for Karachi in a hurry, he nevertheless made it a point to attend the concluding session. He emphasised good relations with all the neighbours and said intra- and inter-regional energy trade would help overcome the energy demand and supply gap in the region and economically stabilise the region. Political disturbances and civil war can be a setback to development as in the case of Tapi, but its construction will certainly be undertaken once the situation gets better. 

Dr. Frederick Starr from Johns Hopkins University was thrilled at Pakistan’s determination to go ahead with Tapi. One of the early proponents of the Tapi pipeline, Dr. Starr said, “Obviously, serious challenges will remain, the greatest of which will be to design the project (Tapi) so that it is viable in free-market terms. Doubts abound, but there are now sober optimists as well.”

The environment-friendly nature of renewable energy compels people to focus on unconventional and reliable energy sources other than oil and gas. To overcome the hindrances to socio-economic growth, Pakistan must look into the potentiality of solar, wind, bio-fuel, and hydro power as renewable resources. 

Given the disadvantages of burning fossil fuels, renewable energy has become the need of the time. As a result of the political nature of hydel energy Pakistan is forced to import large quantities of oil and oil products. Even then many cities have to undergo severe loadshedding for more than 12 hours a day. This increases trade deficit, high inflation, unemployment, depreciation of rupee, and mainly leads to lowering of living standards. The gap between demand and supply is increasing by the day despite the fact that there is tremendous potential of renewable energy sources in Pakistan. 

Discussing "Central Asia Energy Resources and Potential for Trade," speakers talked of Central Asia becoming one of the world’s top five oil producers within the next decade. Ranked 15th in the world for proven gas reserves, Kazakhstan has become a net exporter of natural gas in 2009. 

Uzbekistan is planning a major expansion of its domestic electricity infrastructure. It plans to raise $3.5bn between 2009 and 2014 to finance the increased capacity by around 2,700MW. Turkmenistan holds the world’s fourth largest reserves of natural gas amounting to 7.504 trillion cubic meters. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are less attractive to investors in terms of fossil fuel reserves. 

An expert panel focused on "Afghanistan as Energy Importer and Producer," the country being critical to developing inter-regional cooperation. Despite many differences, Pakistan and Afghanistan are moving towards joint management of common rivers starting with the proposed construction of a 1500MW hydropower project on the Kunar River. 

The panel on "Towards Regional Cooperation for Energy Security" focused on the increasing realization within South Asian countries about the importance of regional cooperation in the area of energy. There is talk of India providing electricity to Pakistan. In the field of energy security, China is cooperating with Turkmenistan in the construction of the gas pipeline opened in 2009. 

Pakistan’s primary power supplies from conventional energy sources cannot meet the country’s demand. Electricity generation has become dependent largely on petroleum fuels and faces a huge gap of 4500MW between demand and supply that has far-reaching consequences on development. For this reason, renewable energy alternatives must be developed urgently. 

Despite the enormous potential of indigenous energy resources, Pakistan remains energy deficient, relying heavily on the imports of petroleum products to satisfy its present needs. A recent study by the Energy Information Administration based on a study done by Advance Resources International (ARI) has estimated Pakistan’s recoverable shale gas at 105 trillion cubic feet (tcf)—up from 24 tcf. Oil estimate have increased dramatically 30 times from 300 million barrels to 9.1 billion barrels. In contrast, India is estimated to have 96 tcf and 2.7 billion barrels of oil recoverable from share oil reserves.

The EWI initiative to have its energy conference in Pakistan despite the critical security situation here has highlighted the need of the country. Energy is crucial not only to meet socio-economic challenges, but the inter-dependability inherent in the acquisition process will further the cause of peace in the region.

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

To read full published article, click here. 

Click here for more information about the event.

"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. 

Can you outline the basic tenets of the Arms Trade Treaty and discuss what it aims to accomplish?

Prior to the arms trade treaty, there was no real global set of rules governing the trade, export or transport of conventional weapons. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) sets up standards for the cross-border transfer of eight categories of weapons; tanks, combat vehicles, all the way down to small and light weapons. It seeks to curb the irresponsible and illegal trade of weapons and prevent their sale into illicit markets.

Prior to authorizing any sale of weapons, the exporter has to assess whether the transfer is going to be used to facilitate or commit genocide, crimes against humanity, or other international humanitarian laws. If there is a known risk, they are prohibited from making that sale or transfer. Countries will then be held accountable through annual reporting requirements on arms transfers.

What are some objections to the treaty? Can you summarize the treaty’s main limitations?

The three countries that objected to the treaty are North Korea, Iran and Syria. I should say that the objections that these three countries held were echoed by a number of other countries. North Korea didn’t like the idea that exporters would be judging the humanitarian rights record of the importing countries. Iran, for their part, said that, “they didn’t approve of the transfer of conventional arms to foreign occupiers,” which is a thinly veiled reference to Israel. Syria objected because they didn’t like the fact that transfers or exports to armed groups or non-state actors (e.g. rebels in Syria) were not covered.

The treaty is also criticized for its relatively narrow scope; it doesn’t cover gifts and loans, which is a significant loophole. Furthermore, there’s no enforcement mechanism – that’s left to states to resolve.

Though the United States, the world's biggest arms exporter, voted yes on Tuesday, what are the chances of the U.S. ratifying the treaty? There’s stiff resistance from the National Rifle Association and conservatives in the Senate, where it needs a two-thirds majority to win ratification.

The focus of this treaty is entirely on the international trade and transfer of conventional weapons. The preamble of the ATT explicitly acknowledges that states retain their sovereignty and their authority to regulate the internal transfer and internal domestic possession of conventional weapons. It no way infringes upon private ownership. In fact, the American Bar Association was commissioned to do an analysis of the ATT and they found that the treaty is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.

In the short term, there will definitely be opposition to the treaty in the U.S. The New York Times reports that over 50 senators are against it. So I don’t think this is going to happen anytime soon. But in the long term, the position of the NRA and other treaty opponents will likely be undermined. The current gun safety debate in the U.S., triggered by the Newtown massacre, weakens their position. And considering the fact that the only three countries that currently oppose the treaty are Iran, Syria and the North Korea, the NRA’s alignment with that trio certainly does not put them in a good light.

Why have Russia and China, two leading sellers of conventional weapons, abstained from voting? What does this mean for export control?

In short, China was opposed to the fact that the treaty was approved in a setting that did not allow every state veto power. It was previously negotiated at the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, but consensus was blocked by opposition from Iran, North Korea and Syria. The ATT was then moved to the UN General Assembly, which requires only a simple majority to adopt a treaty. Wary of establishing a precedent, China argued that this move weakened the treaty.

Russia, for its part, felt that a number of the definitions, such as the term “genocide,” were not sufficiently clarified. Should these definitions be more appropriately defined, I believe it would be more acceptable to the Russians.

Russia is the second largest exporter of conventional weapons and China the fifth largest. The fact that these two countries did not approve the treaty outright obviously does not bode well for its implementation.

Anna MacDonald, the head of arms control for Oxfam International, has said, “This treaty won’t solve the problems of Syria overnight…but it will help to prevent future Syrias.” How might this treaty affect the current situation in Syria, if it were to be ratified today, and how might it prevent armed violence in the future?

Even by the most optimistic estimates, we are still one to two years away from this treaty’s ratification and entry into force. If it did enter into force today, it would make Russian sales of weapons to Syria much more difficult. Eventually, post-ratification, this will develop into an international norm. This is what happened with nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemical weapons. It takes years, but eventually, it will develop into a norm, and this will raise political costs for countries that contravene the norm.

Another thing that the treaty will do is publicly name violators, ostracizing these countries within the international community. In terms of preventing future Syrias, the treaty will fill gaps that currently exist in the global arms trade. Only about 50 countries currently have related laws on the books, so once this treaty is approved with broad support from the international community, it will serve to diminish the now flourishing illicit market for these weapons.

What challenges will stand in the way of effective enforcement of this treaty?

It remains to be seen if countries are willing to subordinate their economic interests to fulfill their obligations under this treaty, so it’s entirely likely that countries will enact laws on the books without enforcing them. We saw this with China’s national export control system in the 90s and well into 2000s; they had laws on the books but they lacked the will or the capacity to enforce many of them. As a result, Chinese missile and nuclear weapons technology found its way into illicit markets.

It’s going to take some significant work on the part of the international community to push countries to actively enforce this treaty and fill these gaps. The ATT is a good start, but it’s a framework for international export control systems; more work needs to be done to build a robust regime that prevents these guns and weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

EastWest Direct is an ongoing series of interviews with EWI experts tied to breaking news stories.

"Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyber intrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale,” said Donilon. “We have worked hard to build a constructive bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern.  And the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, both dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem.”   

Donilon’s speech came in the wake of a widely cited report by the computer security firm Mandiant, which accused Beijing of sponsoring cyber espionage and theft of corporate secrets in the United States. During his annual State of the Union address on February 12, President Barack Obama presented an executive order to protect U.S. critical infrastructure from cyber threats. 

In his speech, Donilon outlined three requests for Beijing related to the cybersecurity issue. “First, we need a recognition of the urgency and scope of this problem and the risk it poses—to international trade, to the reputation of Chinese industry and to our overall relations,” he said.  “Second, Beijing should take serious steps to investigate and put a stop to these activities.  Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive direct dialogue to establish acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace.”

In response, the Chinese government adopted a defensive posture, while emphasizing its willingness to cooperate with Washington. "China has always urged the international community to build a peaceful, secure, open and cooperative cyberspace and opposed turning it into a new battlefield," said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, who argued that China is also a major victim of cyber attacks. 

Hua added: “Cyberspace needs rules and cooperation, not wars. China is willing, on the basis of the principles of mutual respect and mutual trust, to have constructive dialogue and cooperation on this issue with the international community including the United States to maintain the security, openness, and peace of the Internet."

Hua’s response echoes earlier comments by outgoing Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, on Saturday, rebutting accusations of Chinese hacking. “Anyone who tries to fabricate or piece together a sensational story to serve a political motive will not be able to blacken the name of others or whitewash themselves,” said Yang. 

Writing in The Washingtonian, Shane Harris argued that Donilon’s remarks, which evoke “carefully tuned language,” bring “the private sector into the problem as a key player, not a bystander.” 

Speaking to CNBC, Michael Chertoff, a former director of Homeland Security and EastWest Institute board member, said he hoped that the Chinese business community could put pressure on Beijing to rein in cyber attacks. “I’ve been in a number of public events recently, where people including myself have been very outspoken to audiences that include Chinese investors and businessmen about what is going on with intellectual property theft,” he said.

Chertoff continues: “I think what may happen is that these business people will go back home to China and they’ll start to tell their government, ‘Look, we’re going to be pushed out of global markets, we’re going to be global pariahs, if we don’t agree to reining in what’s been going on.’ So I’m hoping some business pressure may be part of the solution here.” 

James Lewis, a senior fellow and director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Christian Science Monitor that Washington’s message to Beijing was unusually straightforward. “This is really the first time a senior U.S. official has come out and given Chinese officials three specific steps on what we need to do to work on this cyber spying problem,” he said, adding that “no one has ever publicly come out and said this directly to the Chinese before—that we want recognition by them of the scope of the problem, we want direct investigation of these cases—and direct dialogue on international norms.”

While Chinese hacking of U.S. computers remains a pressing challenge, it is important to keep the background of this issue in mind, especially in the wake of the Mandiant report and Obama’s executive order on cybersecurity. As EWI’s Franz-Stefan Gady pointed out in US-China Focus, the Mandiant report, “did not reveal anything new to experts in the field”; many nations, especially the U.S. and China, are known to already engage in significant cyber espionage, he added. 

Beijing’s efforts to that end will likely “continue and intensify regardless of what the United States does,” EWI Professorial Fellow Greg Austin argued in the The International Herald Tribune. “The real issue,” wrote Gady, “is how to avoid that these sort of [cyber] attacks lead to escalating tensions between the two great powers on a strategic level.”