One Belt, One Road

(OBOR)/Belt and Road

Initiative (BRI)
Introduction

Unveiled in 2013, “One Belt, One Road (OBOR), also known as the Belt
and Road Initiative (BRI), is a visionary economic development and
commercial endeavour spearheaded by Chinese President Xi Jinping.
This ambitious project centres on enhancing connectivity and
cooperation among numerous countries spanning across different
continents. The project aimed to revive the ancient Silk Route that
historically connected Asia and Europe, encompassing new territories
and a wide array of development initiatives.

Dubbed the “Project of the Century,” BRI currently spans

approximately 150 countries, making it one of the most extensive
international projects in history. The total Chinese investment in BRI
is estimated to exceed $ 8 trillion, allocated through a combination of
grants and loans, facilitating the construction of an extensive network
of roadways, railways, maritime ports, power grids, oil and gas
pipelines, and various other associated infrastructure projects.

OBOR/BRI Corridors
The ‘Belt’ component primarily focuses on the development of land-
based routes connecting China to Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and
Western Europe. Conversely, the ‘Road’ pertains to sea routes linking
China’s southern coast to the Mediterranean, Africa, Southeast Asia,
and Central Asia. It comprises six major economic corridors, each
strategically designed to enhance regional connectivity and trade:

A. New Eurasian Land Bridge: Establishes a vital link between

Western China and Western Russia.

B. China-Mongolia-Russia Corridor: Connects Northern China to

Eastern Russia via Mongolia.

C. China-Central Asia-West Asia Corridor: Links Western China

to Turkey through Central and Western Asia

D. China-Indochina Peninsula Corridor: Connects Southern

China to Singapore via Indochina

E. China-Pakistan Corridor: Establishes a trade route from

southwestern China through Pakistan to the Arabian Sea.

F. Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Corridor: Enhances

connectivity between South China and India via Bangladesh and
Myanmar.

Chinese Objectives
For China, OBOR holds significant importance.

1. Boosting Domestic Growth: OBOR serves as a catalyst for

China’s domestic economic growth and aligns with the
country’s strategy for economic diplomacy.
2. Development of Border Regions: By linking less-
developed border regions like Xinjiang with neighbouring
nations, China expects to stimulate economic activity in these
areas.
3. Regional Leadership: China views OBOR as an
opportunity to emerge as a regional leader with a significant
global footprint.
4. Internationalization of the Yuan: Part of China’s strategy
is to promote the international usage of its currency, the
Yuan, particularly within the OBOR region.
5. Legacy of President Xi Jinping: It represents a personal
initiative of President Xi Jinping, who aims to leave a lasting
legacy in history.
6. Signature Foreign Policy Project: BRI has been
enshrined in the Communist Party’s constitution, solidifying
its status as a signature foreign policy project.
7. Global Ambitions: China aspires to reshape the current
world order, based on the Washington Consensus, with its
own global world order rooted in the Beijing Consensus, with
BRI serving as a central pillar of this ambition.
Global Benefits of OBOR/BRI

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also known as One Belt, One Road
(OBOR), is one of the most ambitious infrastructure and economic
development projects in modern history. Launched by China in 2013,
this initiative aims to connect countries across Asia, Europe, Africa,
and beyond through a network of railways, highways, ports, and other
infrastructure projects. While the BRI has garnered mixed reactions
and generated some controversy, there are significant global benefits
associated with this initiative. This essay explores these benefits,
highlighting how OBOR has the potential to increase global
connectivity, prosperity, economic equality, peace, and recognition of
developing countries.

A. Increased Global Connectivity

One of the primary objectives of OBOR is to enhance global

connectivity by improving transportation and communication
networks. This entails the construction of roads, railways, ports, and
digital infrastructure that will facilitate the movement of goods, people,
and information across borders. This increased connectivity has
several positive implications:

1. Trade Expansion: By reducing transportation costs and

transit times, OBOR facilitates international trade. This can
stimulate economic growth by opening up new markets and
 increasing the efficiency of existing ones. As trade flourishes,
it helps boost the global economy.
2. Cultural Exchange: Enhanced connectivity through OBOR
encourages cultural exchange and people-to-people
interactions. Increased tourism, educational exchanges, and
cross-cultural understanding contribute to a more
interconnected world.
3. Technological Transfer: The infrastructure development
associated with OBOR often involves technology transfer and
collaboration. This benefits developing nations by allowing
them to access advanced technology and expertise.

B. Increased World Prosperity

OBOR has the potential to significantly contribute to global prosperity:

1. Economic Growth: The construction and operation of

infrastructure projects create jobs and stimulate economic
activity. This boost in economic growth can lead to a rise in
the standard of living for people in the regions involved.
2. Investment Opportunities: OBOR provides investment
opportunities for countries and businesses worldwide. As
infrastructure development advances, it creates new markets
for investments, which can result in financial gains for a
diverse range of stakeholders.
 3. Poverty Alleviation: By fostering economic development in
underdeveloped regions, OBOR helps alleviate poverty. This is
achieved through increased trade, job creation, and improved
access to education and healthcare.

C. Greater Economic Equality

OBOR aims to reduce economic disparities between countries and

regions:

1. Development of Underserved Areas: Infrastructure

development under OBOR targets less-developed areas,
boosting their economic potential and reducing regional
disparities.
2. Inclusive Growth: The initiative promotes inclusive growth
by creating opportunities for marginalized communities and
ensuring that the benefits of economic development are more
equitably distributed.
3. Human Capital Development: OBOR often includes
investments in education and healthcare, which are crucial for
human capital development. This helps bridge the economic
gap by providing people in developing countries with the skills
and health needed to participate in a globalized economy.

D. Greater Peace
A less explored but critical benefit of OBOR is its potential to
contribute to global peace.

1. Conflict Mitigation: Economic development and reduced

poverty resulting from OBOR can mitigate the conditions that
often fuel conflicts and terrorism. Stable and prosperous
societies are less likely to resort to violence.
2. Interconnected Economies: As economies become more
interconnected through OBOR, countries have a vested
interest in maintaining peace and stability. This economic
interdependence can act as a deterrent to conflict.
3. Diplomatic Engagement: OBOR fosters diplomatic
engagement and cooperation between countries, reducing the
likelihood of disputes escalating into wars. It promotes
dialogue and negotiation as preferred methods of conflict
resolution.

E. Recognition of Developing Countries

OBOR emphasizes the importance of developing countries in global

affairs:

1. Empowering Developing Nations: Through

infrastructure development and economic cooperation, OBOR
empowers developing countries to play a more significant role
 in shaping global agendas. It strengthens their bargaining
power and influence in international forums.
2. Recognition of Cultural Diversity: The cultural exchange
and collaboration fostered by OBOR underscore the rich
diversity of developing countries’ cultures and histories,
promoting a more inclusive and respectful global perspective.

Western Objections to the Belt and Road Initiative (OBOR)

While OBOR has garnered significant attention and support from

many nations, it has also faced criticism and objections, particularly
from Western countries. In this essay, we will explore the American
and Western objections to OBOR, focusing on concerns related to debt
burdens, environmental impacts, market dynamics, and geopolitical
influence.

A. Increased Debt Burdens

One of the most prominent objections to OBOR is the concern that

participating countries may face unsustainable levels of debt as a result
of the initiative. Critics argue that BRI projects often require massive
investments, which some developing nations may struggle to repay.
This concern has several dimensions:

1. Debt Dependency: Western nations worry that OBOR may

lead to debt dependency, where participating countries
 become heavily indebted to China, potentially compromising
their economic sovereignty.
2. Opaque Financing: There are concerns about the lack of
transparency in OBOR project financing. Critics argue that the
terms of loans and contracts are often not disclosed publicly,
raising suspicions about hidden obligations.
3. Debt-for-Asset Swaps: There have been instances where
countries unable to repay their debts to China have been
compelled to hand over strategic assets or grant China greater
influence in their domestic affairs.

B. Carbon-Intensive Futures

Environmental sustainability is another critical concern raised by

Western countries regarding OBOR. Some argue that the initiative
could lock countries into carbon-intensive development paths,
exacerbating global environmental issues.

1. Lack of Environmental Safeguards: Critics contend that

many OBOR projects lack proper environmental safeguards,
leading to deforestation, pollution, and other adverse
ecological impacts.
2. Emphasis on Fossil Fuels: Some Western nations are
troubled by the focus on fossil fuel projects, such as coal-fired
power plants, as part of OBOR. This could contribute to
 increased greenhouse gas emissions and hinder global efforts
to combat climate change.
3. Missed Opportunities for Green Development: There
is concern that OBOR could divert resources away from green
and sustainable development initiatives, hindering progress
toward a more environmentally friendly future.

C. Market Tilt Towards China

Western objections to OBOR also encompass concerns about market

dynamics.

1. Favouring Chinese Companies: Critics argue that BRI

projects often give preferential treatment to Chinese
companies, potentially limiting opportunities for international
firms in major markets.
2. Lack of Competitive Bidding: Some Western countries
express concerns about the lack of competitive bidding in
OBOR projects, which they see as undermining fair
competition and transparency in global markets.
3. Monopoly in Critical Industries: There are fears that
OBOR could allow China to establish a near-monopoly in
certain industries critical to infrastructure development,
which could limit other nations’ economic influence.

D. Tighter Economic and Political Relationships

One of the most significant objections to OBOR from Western
countries is the potential for the initiative to draw participant nations
into deeper economic and political ties with China.

1. Geopolitical Influence: Critics argue that as countries

become more economically reliant on China through OBOR,
they may be more susceptible to Beijing’s political influence
and agenda.
2. Loss of Sovereignty: Western nations worry that OBOR
could lead to a loss of national sovereignty, as China gains
greater leverage over the internal affairs of participant
countries.
3. Impact on Western Alliances: There are concerns that the
deepening of economic and political ties between participant
nations and China through OBOR could weaken existing
Western alliances and security partnerships.

Conclusion

The Belt and Road Initiative (OBOR) holds the promise of delivering a
range of global benefits. These include increased global connectivity,
greater prosperity, economic equality, peace, and recognition of
developing countries. While challenges and controversies exist, the
potential positive impacts on the world cannot be underestimated. It is
essential for all stakeholders to work together to maximize these
benefits and address any concerns to ensure that OBOR contributes to
a more interconnected, prosperous, and peaceful world.

Comparative Analysis of
the BRI and the IMEC
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the India-Middle East-Europe
Economic Corridor (IMEC) are two ambitious infrastructure and
economic development projects that have garnered significant
attention on the global stage. While BRI, initiated by China in 2013, is
already in motion, IMEC is currently in the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) stage. In this essay, we will compare these two
initiatives based on several key factors, including their scale,
geographical coverage, transportation modes, directionality, and the
scope of the projects involved.

1. Initiation and Progress

BRI was officially launched by China in 2013 and has been actively
pursued since then. It has seen substantial investments and progress
across various regions. In contrast, IMEC is still in the MOU stage,
indicating that it is in the preliminary planning and negotiation phase.
This difference in initiation and progress suggests that BRI has a
significant head start over IMEC.

2. Scale of Investment

One of the most significant distinctions between BRI and IMEC is the
scale of investment. BRI is an extensive project with an estimated value
of around US$8 trillion. This vast financial commitment covers a wide
range of infrastructure and development projects across multiple
countries. In contrast, IMEC is projected to involve investments that
are significantly smaller, possibly amounting to only a few billion
dollars. This significant disparity in scale indicates that BRI has the
potential to create a more substantial impact on the global economy.
3. Geographical Coverage

BRI is known for its extensive geographical coverage, encompassing

approximately 150 countries. These countries are predominantly
developing or emerging economies, making BRI a truly global
initiative. On the other hand, the IMEC is planned to cover around 20
countries, primarily in the Middle East and Europe. These countries
are generally more economically developed compared to the BRI’s
participant nations. Thus, BRI’s reach is far broader than that of IMEC.

4. Transportation Modes

Another key difference between BRI and IMEC lies in the

transportation modes they predominantly rely on. BRI is characterized
by its diverse transportation network, with approximately 70% of the
initiative focused on land-based routes, including roads and railways.
IMEC, on the other hand, primarily emphasizes sea transportation. It
envisions the development of shipping lanes and rail and road
connections. This contrast reflects the geographic and logistical
differences between the two initiatives.

5. Directionality

BRI is a multi-directional initiative with global tentacles. It aims to

connect China with various parts of Asia, Europe, Africa, and even the
Americas. This multi-directional approach facilitates enhanced
connectivity and trade opportunities. In contrast, IMEC is planned to
be unidirectional, primarily connecting India to Europe. While this
focused approach has its advantages, it may limit the diversity of trade
routes and opportunities compared to the BRI’s comprehensive
network.

6. Scope of Projects

BRI is known for its multidimensional package, which includes a wide

array of projects ranging from infrastructure development (roads,
railways, and ports) to energy projects, fibre optics, agriculture, and
industrial zones. It is a comprehensive initiative designed to address
various development needs in participating countries. In contrast,
IMEC’s scope appears to be more limited, with a primary focus on
shipping lanes and rail and road infrastructure. This indicates that
IMEC may not encompass the same breadth of development
opportunities as BRI.

Prospects of the India-Middle East-Europe-Economic

Corridor (IMEC)

Introduction: The India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor

(IMEC) is a transformative infrastructure project that seeks to connect
the Indian subcontinent with Europe via the Middle East, creating a
seamless trade route. It has bright prospects of its success for the
following reasons:
1. It is 90% already complete or operational. IMEC’s
advanced stage of completion is a remarkable feat, with 70%
of the corridor comprising sea lanes, significantly reducing the
need for extensive terrestrial infrastructure. The European leg
of the corridor is already well connected with the railroad
network, further facilitating transportation. The primary
infrastructure requirement remaining is in Saudi Arabia,
where the Chinese, known for their rapid infrastructure
development, could play a pivotal role. Completing this
segment within five years is an ambitious yet achievable goal,
given China’s track record.
2. Financial Viability and the Wealth of Participating
Countries: IMEC’s unique advantage lies in the fact that,
compared to BRI, it is a small project that passes through
wealthy countries and is a project of the “Rich Men’s Club.”
The participating nations, including India, the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) states, and European nations,
have the financial capacity to fund and support the corridor’s
development. This minimizes the financial burden on any
single nation and ensures a shared investment in the project’s
success.
3. Fear of Chinese Dominance: The rise of China has
spurred concerns among many nations involved in IMEC,
driving them to take the project seriously and expedite its
early completion. The corridor tries to provide an alternative
trade route that could reduce dependence on China’s Belt and
Road Initiative (BRI) and offer greater strategic autonomy.
 This fear of Chinese dominance in the region is a powerful
motivator for these countries to work collaboratively towards
IMEC’s realization.
4. Role of the Robust Private Sector: The private sector in
the participating countries, including India, Middle Eastern
nations, and European economies, is well-equipped and eager
to undertake infrastructure projects. They see IMEC as a
lucrative opportunity for investment and growth. Private
sector involvement can significantly expedite project
implementation, as it often operates with greater efficiency
and innovation than purely state-led initiatives.
5. Economic Benefits and Regional Integration: IMEC’s
completion would not only bolster international trade but also
foster regional economic integration. The corridor would
facilitate the flow of goods, services, and investments,
spurring economic growth in participating countries.
Additionally, it could serve as a model for cooperation
between regions that have often been viewed as separate
entities, enhancing regional stability and prosperity. These
prospects of rapid growth through connectivity raise its
prospects.
6. Energy Security: The Middle East is a significant source of
energy resources, and IMEC would strengthen energy security
for both India and Europe. Diversifying energy supply routes
reduces vulnerability to disruptions and price fluctuations,
ensuring a stable energy supply for these energy-hungry
regions.
 7. Environmental Considerations: As claimed by its
proponents, IMEC’s maritime routes and well-connected rail
networks are more environmentally friendly than alternative
transportation options. As global concern for climate change
grows, the corridor’s environmental benefits, including
reduced carbon emissions and lower transportation costs, are
increasingly significant.

Challenges for India-Middle East-European Economic

Corridor (IMEC)

While the India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC) holds

great promise, it is also beset with numerous challenges that could
impede its successful execution.

1. Complex Coordination Among Numerous

Countries: IMEC involves approximately 20 countries, each
with its own set of interests, priorities, and bureaucratic
processes. The coordination required to execute a project of
this magnitude is formidable. Unlike the Chinese Belt and
Road Initiative (BRI), which benefits from centralized
decision-making, IMEC’s multi-country nature makes
decision-making slow and complex. Coordinating regulatory
frameworks and customs procedures and resolving disputes
among such a diverse group of nations is a daunting task that
could lead to delays and inefficiencies.
2. Financial Hurdles and Debt Burdens: Despite being
termed a “Rich Men’s Club,” many of the participating
countries in IMEC are grappling with significant debt
burdens. This financial strain raises questions about where
the funding for IMEC will come from. While India and Saudi
Arabia may have the capacity to finance their portions of the
project, the other countries may struggle to allocate funds for
their commitments. Dependence on foreign loans or
international institutions could exacerbate the debt problem
and compromise the corridor’s economic viability.
3. Geopolitical and Security Concerns: IMEC’s route
passes through some of the world’s most geopolitically
sensitive regions, including the Middle East. Geopolitical
rivalries, conflicts, and security issues could pose serious
challenges to the smooth operation of the corridor. Regional
tensions, such as those in the Persian Gulf, could disrupt trade
flows, deter private-sector investment, and necessitate costly
security measures. These uncertainties could deter investors
and make it challenging to ensure the corridor’s safety.
4. Environmental and Regulatory Issues: The
construction and operation of IMEC could raise
environmental concerns, particularly in ecologically sensitive
areas. Balancing economic development with environmental
preservation and adhering to international environmental
standards will be a complex task. Striking this balance while
meeting the diverse regulatory requirements of multiple
countries along the route is a daunting challenge.
 5. Infrastructure Gaps and Technological
Integration: While IMEC may rely heavily on sea routes and
existing rail networks, addressing infrastructure gaps and
ensuring technological compatibility across borders remains a
significant challenge. Ensuring that roads, ports, railways, and
digital infrastructure are seamlessly integrated to facilitate
trade and logistics is a formidable task, especially when
different countries may have varying levels of infrastructure
development.

Challenges to Pakistan’s Geopolitical Significance from

IMEC

The India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC) has been

widely discussed as a potential game-changer in the region. However,
it’s important to address the exaggerated hype surrounding IMEC and
its potential impact on Pakistan’s geopolitical significance, especially in
the context of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

1. Misconceptions about IMEC’s Scale: One of the primary

challenges facing Pakistan is the misconception surrounding
IMEC’s scale and its comparison to the Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI). While IMEC is undoubtedly a significant
project, it is on a much smaller scale compared to BRI,
particularly the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
The financial magnitude of CPEC alone is several times larger
 than the entire IMEC project. However, the perception in
India, and to some extent globally, has been inflated, creating
unwarranted expectations that IMEC could diminish the
significance of CPEC. It is essential to emphasize that BRI and
CPEC remain massive undertakings that play a pivotal role in
Pakistan’s geopolitical importance.
2. Pakistan’s Unique Geopolitical Location: Pakistan’s
strategic geographic location is integral to the regional
dynamics of South Asia, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Its
proximity to China, Iran, Afghanistan, and India makes it a
critical player in regional geopolitics, trade, and connectivity.
IMEC, as a project primarily focused on India, the Middle
East, and Europe, does not diminish Pakistan’s strategic
importance in the region. Pakistan’s role as a crossroads for
regional trade and energy routes remains unparalleled, and its
significance cannot be easily replaced by projects like IMEC.
3. IMEC’s Dependence on Pakistan: IMEC, if realized,
would require Pakistan’s cooperation and access to its
territory for any overland connectivity between India and the
Middle East. Pakistan’s participation would be essential for
the corridor to function efficiently. This dependency on
Pakistan underscores its continued geopolitical relevance in
the region. Any attempt to bypass Pakistan would involve
much longer and costlier routes through alternative countries,
making IMEC economically unviable.
4. Geopolitical Realities: The complex geopolitical realities in
South Asia, including the India-Pakistan rivalry, further
 highlight Pakistan’s enduring importance. Regional stability
and cooperation are prerequisites for any large-scale
infrastructure project to succeed. Without resolving
longstanding conflicts and addressing security concerns, the
seamless operation of IMEC is unlikely.

Conclusion

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the India-Middle East-Europe
Economic Corridor (IMEC) represent two distinct approaches to
infrastructure development and economic integration. BRI, with its
larger scale, extensive geographical coverage, and multi-directional
network, is poised to have a more significant global impact. IMEC,
while promising, is still in its early stages and is primarily oriented
toward connecting India with Europe through sea and land routes. The
choice between these two initiatives will depend on the strategic
objectives and economic priorities of the countries involved, with each
offering its own unique set of opportunities and challenges.

While IMEC may offer economic benefits and enhanced connectivity, it

is crucial to recognize that Pakistan’s geopolitical significance remains
intact. The exaggerated comparisons between IMEC and CPEC or BRI
should be tempered with an understanding of the unique role that
Pakistan plays in regional geopolitics. Pakistan’s strategic location, its
crucial role in facilitating connectivity, and the necessity of its
cooperation in realizing IMEC make it clear that Pakistan’s geopolitical
significance cannot be diminished by the emergence of new projects
like IMEC. Instead, Pakistan’s involvement and collaboration should
be seen as integral to the success of any regional connectivity initiative.

Six Fault Lines of

Afghanistan
Abstract

Despite being sparsely populated, agriculturally insignificant,

industrially underdeveloped, and not blessed with known
extraordinary mineral wealth up until now, Afghanistan has been
playing a larger-than-life role in world politics throughout history.
One of the reasons Afghanistan witnessed so many invasions,
rebellions, and civil wars, sparking global wars, is the presence of
certain fault lines in this unfortunate country.

This article explains six of these fault lines.

Introduction

Located at the southern edge of Central Asia, the Islamic Republic of

Afghanistan is a landlocked country bordered by Pakistan, Iran,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and in the far northeast, China.
Occupying 652,000 square kilometres (252,000 sq mi), it is a mostly
mountainous country with a population of 32 million.
Six thousand years ago, this region was part of the Indus Valley
Civilisation. Then it came under the Iranian king Cyrus and remained a
satrapy of the Persian empire for more than 500 years. Then came
Alexander the Macedonian, who dealt a crushing blow to the Afghans.

His successors then ruled Afghanistan for 500 years until it became a
province of Indian ruler Chandra Gupt Mauria. Arab Muslims came
from Baghdad in the 10th century, conquered it, and converted
everyone to Islam. Afterwards, it remained either part of the Iranian
Kingdom or the Turkish Empire. The Mongol leader Genghis Khan
conquered Afghanistan and left his legacy in the form of the word
“Khan,” which they very proudly use as part of their name.

Despite being sparsely populated, agriculturally insignificant,

industrially underdeveloped, and not blessed with known
extraordinary mineral wealth up until now, Afghanistan has been
playing a larger-than-life role in world politics throughout history.
Witnessing invasions, rebellions, civil wars, and sparking global wars,
some of its fault lines that have been responsible for its woes are as
follows.

1. Location

If the Middle East as a region has a unique geopolitical significance,

Afghanistan as a country has been enjoying this distinction. Because of
its geopolitical importance, located in the middle of four centres of
power—the Middle East, Central Asia (former USSR), China, and
South Asia, respectively, it provides a vital corridor for the movement
of goods and armies. If for the USSR, it was its soft belly, Afghanistan
is the backyard of Pakistan and the gateway to India. China prizes it as
one of the most important corridors for reaching the Middle East and
Central Asia, while Iran touts it for the same reason as Pakistan-its
backyard, which could cause trouble if not kept in check.

Afghanistan’s significance from an energy standpoint stems from its

geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas
exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes
the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline gas pipeline-one of
the reasons quoted for the launching of the War on Terrorism.

2. Resources

In the past, its strategic location as a corridor for the movement of

goods was its main geo-economic resource. Its mineral wealth was
unknown, and the known ones were inaccessible due to a lack of
infrastructure. However, technological developments have revealed
their vast economic resources. According to conservative estimates,
Afghanistan has around 1500 mineral fields, containing various
mineral resources ranging from coal, copper, gold, and gemstones of
various kinds to iron ore, lead, natural gas, and petroleum.

According to a joint study by the Pentagon and the United States

Geological Survey, Afghanistan has an estimated 1 trillion USD of
untapped minerals, although other sources estimate it at 3 trillion
USD. In December 2013, President Karzai claimed that mineral
deposits are worth $30 trillion, a quantity that would exceed total
global mining revenues (in 2016) by a factor of approximately 60.

3. Boundaries

Its third Fault line, which is a source of conflict, crises, and even wars,
is the boundary conflict it has with its neighbouring countries,
particularly Pakistan. After the dissolution of the British Indian
Empire in 1947, Pakistan, as one of the successor states, inherited the
1893 agreement and the subsequent 1919 Treaty of Rawalpindi as its
boundary with Afghanistan. After some initial reluctance, Afghanistan
accepted it as an international border between the two countries but
reneged in 1948 when a skirmish took place between the two countries.
There has never been a formal agreement or ratification between
Islamabad and Kabul. Pakistan believes, and international convention
supports the position, that it should not require one; courts in several
countries around the world and the Vienna Convention have
universally upheld that binding bilateral agreements are “passed
down” to successor states. However, Afghanistan does not recognise
this boundary line and claims a major chunk of present-day Pakistan
as its territory.

4. Divisions

Afghanistan has been ethnically diverse for millennia (there are 14

recognised ethnic groups, each honoured in the national anthem and
protected by the constitution). However, it is the synergistic effect of
overlapping these ethnic divisions with other divisions within Afghan
society—rural versus urban and rich vs. poor—that has turned the
dream of turning Afghanistan into a modern, prosperous, and peaceful
country into a nightmare. National consensus, even on fundamental
issues, has been problematic, exacerbated by rampant corruption and
the stalled nation-building and state-building processes in the country.

No doubt, Islam as the dominant religion has given Afghanistan’s

population a common denominator, but its sectarian divide has
accentuated their internecine rivalries. While most Afghans are Sunni
Muslims, the Hazara people, living in the region bordering Iran, are
Shias. Having remained a satrapy of the old Persian Empire for several
centuries, half of all Afghans now speak Dari, the local form of Persian.
The rural-urban divide has also galvanised these ethnic divisions.
Many Afghan Tajiks and Hazaras live in towns, while rural areas are
mostly populated by the poor Pashtuns and the Baluchis.

The last straw on the camel’s back is the foreign intervention, covert
and overt, which has spawned the differences. For the former USSR,
Afghanistan was an underbelly where a pro-Soviet Union state and
society were one of its security imperatives. To destabilize the USSR for
achieving its Cold War geopolitical objectives, the USA promoted
religiosity, assisted by Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, and Pakistan in its soft
belly. Fearing too much Saudi influence, Iranians started backing their
sectarian affiliates. Resultantly, the whole of Afghanistan is now a
powder keg rife with ethnic and sectarian divides, sadly co-terminus
with tribal identities. Unfortunately, these ethnic and sectarian
divisions are represented in all of its state institutions, adversely
affecting across-the-board service delivery.

5. Underdevelopment

One of the tragedies of Afghanistan is that it escaped the modern wave

of colonialism, which swept most of the world from the 16th to the
20th centuries. No doubt, western imperialism was a curse, but it did
have some positive spin-offs in the form of infrastructural development
and economic integration of the colonies with the developed world of
the day. Its second tragedy was that it was a playground of the rivalry
between Russia and the British Indian Empire and afterwards between
the USSR and the USA during the Cold War, but it was never properly
occupied by any one of them.

Consequently, despite all the foreign aid, it has received from

international donors, Afghanistan has remained underdeveloped. It is
reflected in all its socio-economic indicators. According to the latest
Human Development Report, Afghanistan is the 5th least developed
country in the world. With life expectancy hovering around the mid-
forties and an adult literacy rate of less than 30, more than 60 % of the
population of Afghanistan lives below the poverty line. Poverty and
inequality, two major manifestations of underdevelopment, are
reducing the buying power of the people, thereby adversely affecting
business prospects. The lack of job opportunities is further alienating
the youth, pushing them to join militant organisations.
6. Weak State

Finally, the fault line in Afghanistan is its ineffective state-building and

the state itself. One of the reasons for this capacity deficit of the state to
provide basic social services to most of its citizens at affordable costs is
the zeal of its successive ruling elites to govern this diverse country and
impose social order from Kabul. Because Afghanistan is one of the
most centralized governments in the world, none of its rulers, with the
exception of a few exceptional years, have succeeded in maintaining
institutionalised law and order, a prerequisite for providing other
essential social services.

Consequently, all its institutions-armed forces, judiciary, law

enforcement, etc.—are dysfunctional, suffering from extreme
inefficiency and massive corruption. It has created a crisis of
confidence among the people about their state, which is being
exploited by non-state actors. They thrive and get support from the
population by maintaining a semblance of stability and providing quick
justice through primitive means in their respective areas of control.

Tailpiece

Afghanistan, to a great extent, is the Lebanon of Central Asia. Just

study the power-sharing formula in Lebanon, and you will have some
idea of the future of Afghanistan.
American Interests in
Afghanistan Abstract
Andrew Korybko has rightly pointed out that “the US’ War on
Afghanistan was motivated by many factors, not least of which was
pure geopolitics in seeking to establish a trans-regional base at the
crossroads of Central, South, and West Asia from which America
could then export its hard and soft influence through various means.”

This article attempts to point out the different motives of the USA in
Afghanistan in 2001.

Introduction

“The war is not meant to be won; it is meant to be continuous.

George Orwell

Although the elimination of global terrorism is the stated aim of

America’s various military adventures in different parts of the world
since 9/11, there are always other objectives for these invasions. Thus,
the USA attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2011, in the wake of the
worldwide sympathy it was enjoying after the 9/11 tragedy, the worst
intelligence failure of the American security establishment, Plans to
remove the Taliban and install a Western-friendly regime in
Afghanistan were already on the cards. It all started long before 9/11,
long before the official start of the War on Terror; it is a simple case of
occupation for strategic and economic reasons.

The geostrategic importance of Afghanistan cannot be

overemphasized; it stems from its location, being in the middle of four
centres of power: the Middle East, Central Asia (former USSR), China,
and South Asia respectively. If for the former USSR, it was its soft
belly, Afghanistan is the backyard of Pakistan and the gateway to India.
China prizes it as one of the most important corridors for reaching The
Middle East and Central Asia, while Iran touts it for the same reason as
Pakistan-its backyard, which could cause trouble if it is unstable.

“The US War on Afghanistan was motivated by many factors, not

least of which was pure geopolitics in seeking to establish a trans-
regional base at the crossroads of Central, South, and West Asia from
which America could then export its hard and soft influence through
various means, be it Color Revolutions, terrorist-driven
Unconventional Wars, or their combined application via Hybrid
Wars. The US failed each of the three times that it tried to do this in
attempting to catalyse a “Central Asian Spring” in 2005 & 2010 and
then trying to use Daesh against the neighbouring countries from
2015 onwards.”- Andrew Korybko on 2019
Consequently, after spending billions of dollars and sacrificing more
than 3,000 of its soldiers, the USA cannot just walk away from
Afghanistan and leave it to its arch-rivals Russia, China, and Iran to fill
the vacuum. The geostrategic importance of Afghanistan is a
compelling reason for the USA to have its military bases in
Afghanistan, even after its formal exit as a result of a negotiated deal
with the Taliban. Writing for the VOA, Ayesha Tanzeem stated that the

“Negotiations between the United States and the Afghan Taliban for a
political settlement to end the protracted war in Afghanistan are
stuck over the issue of maintenance of U.S. military bases in the
country, according to Waheed Muzhda, a former Taliban official in
Kabul who remains in regular contact with Taliban leaders. The “U.S.
wants the Taliban to accept at least two military bases, Bagram and
Shorabak. The Taliban are not willing to accept it,” Muzhda said,
adding the insurgent leaders are unwilling to accept anything more
than a nominal number of troops required to secure the U.S.
diplomatic mission.”

https://www.voanews.com/a/us-afghan-peace/4569725.html

Related to the above is the importance of Afghanistan as a potential

transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the
Arabian Sea and the Subcontinent. It is one of the main causes of direct
invasion of NATO forces and proxy wars by others. To many, the
construction of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline gas pipeline by the
American firm UNOCA was the prime reason for launching the War on
Terrorism.

As the story goes, UNOCAL was interested in exploiting the

hydrocarbon resources, estimated to be more than 200 billion barrels
of oil, in the newly independent Asian republics. Consequently, in
1995, Unocal, in partnership with an Argentinian and a Saudi oil
company, signed agreements with Turkmenistan to build gas and oil
pipelines, which were further extended to include building a 36-inch
natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, via Afghanistan,
and ultimately to India.

On the invitation of Unocal, a delegation of Taliban, ruling Afghanistan

at that time, visited their corporate headquarters in California and
signed an agreement in January 1998 to allow the pipeline to pass
through their country. However, in March 1998, Unocal announced a
delay in the pipeline project, stating an ongoing civil war in
Afghanistan as their reason for this delay. Feeling frustrated by this
betrayal, the Taliban entered into an agreement on April 30, 1999, with
Pakistan and Turkmenistan for the pipeline.

This led the U.S. government to retaliate, placing sanctions on

Afghanistan and delivering the famous ultimatum, “Either you accept
our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”
The refusal of the Taliban to toe the American line was too much for
the USA. 9/11 provided the casus belli for the attack on October 7,
2001, which has unfortunately proved to be a Sisyphean nightmare for
the USA. (In Greek legend, Sisyphus was punished in Hades for his
misdeeds in life by being condemned eternally to roll a heavy stone up
a hill. As he neared the top, the stone rolled down again, so that his
labour was everlasting and futile.)

Additionally, besides its importance as an oil and gas transit route,

Afghanistan’s geoeconomic significance lies in terms of its mineral
wealth According to conservative estimates, Afghanistan has around
1500 mineral fields, containing various mineral resources ranging from
coal, copper, gold, and gemstones of various kinds to iron ore, lead,
natural gas, and petroleum.

As per a joint study by the Pentagon and the United States Geological
Survey, Afghanistan has an estimated 1 trillion USD of untapped
minerals, although other sources estimate it at 3 trillion USD. In
December 2013, President Karzai claimed the mineral deposits were
worth $30 trillion! The USA and its allies would be keenly interested in
restricting the increasing Chinese access to the vast resources of the
region and its accompanying political clout among the regional
countries.

While discussing American interests in Afghanistan, we must not

ignore the corporate interests of the US private sector, which play a
larger role in American foreign policy. Like environmental and climate
change, terrorism also spawns an entire business activity involving the
manufacturing of anti-terrorism goods and weapons, their marketing
and sale, and an entire service sector that provides services for anti-
terrorism measures.

It means billions of dollars invested and millions of jobs created to

counter local terrorism. Now, we need markets for all these goods and
services that we have got. That is where you attack foreign countries in
the name of your high moral values, and the market booms for your
products and expertise. According to the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), major weapons sales in the five years
to 2017 were 10% higher than in 2008–12.

“And it is the United States that is extending its lead as the globe’s
number one arms exporter. It is estimated that the US now accounts
for 34% of all global arms sales, up from 30% five years ago, and is now
at its highest level since the late 1990s.”

In his very thought-provoking article, ” Who is Afraid of Peace in

Afghanistan” Amb. M. K. BHADRAKUMAR (India) has beautifully
explained how the corporate interests of the American military-
industrial complex are hindering the way of peace in Afghanistan

“Wars create corporate interests and the 15-year-old Afghan war, the
longest in US history, has created a gravy train involving tens of
billions of dollars (much of it unaccounted for.) The American war
contractors and the politicians who lobby for them are having a
whale of a time. It now transpires that Pentagon has been spending
billions of dollars as salaries for Afghan “ghost soldiers” who existed
only on paper!”

America’s War on Terror:

Causes & Consequences
Abstract

Though it was the worst intelligence failure of any intelligence

agency in history, the USA took maximum advantage of the 9/11
tragedy and embarked on the mission to accomplish the objectives
outlined in the infamous neo-con paper, known as the American
Century. Calling it a War on Terror, America employed all its forces
—military, diplomatic, and financial, to wage a war of terror on
several countries besides Afghanistan-its starting point.

Whether it was a stellar success as its proponents want us to believe

or a dismal failure as its opponents claim, is a debatable point but it
has cost the world massively in terms of loss of human lives, financial
losses, refugees crises, missed opportunities, and surprisingly,
increased global terrorism.

What were the causes of the failure of the War on Terror, what costs
it imposed on those on the receiving end, and what are its long-term
consequences, are some of the issues touched on in the article

Introduction

“This crusade — this war on terrorism — is going to take a while”

George Bush

Starting in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks inside the USA,
the War on Terror is a generic name for the global military, political,
legal, and conceptual struggle against both terrorist organizations and
against the regimes accused of supporting them. It officially finished
the day Osama has declared killed on 2nd May 2011 although Barak
Obama announced its official termination in 2013 and directed the
American security establishment to focus on specific enemies as a
series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of
violent extremists that threaten America.

Aims and Objectives of the War on Terror

According to the official American version, the War on Terror was

launched to dismantle the terrorist network of Al Qaida after they
carried out a series of terrorist acts against US interests outside the
USA and finally on 9/11 inside the USA. As they had crossed the red
line, their elimination was the basic objective to obviate the possibility
of such attacks in the future. The Bush Administration defined the
following objectives in the War on Terror

1. Identify, locate, defeat, and demolish terrorists and their

organizations.

2. Deny sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists

3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to combat terrorism

by force or by capacity building of states facing terrorism and diminish
the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit.

4. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability

of critical, physical, and information-based infrastructures at home
and abroad.

Perspectives on War on Terror

There are three views on War on Terror namely the American state
version, the Opponents’ views, and the skeptics’ reservations. While
the official US version has been explained above, the opponents of the
War on Terror believe that 9/11 was just a hoax; or it did happen, then,
it was an inside job conducted by the CIA and Mossad to establish
some casus belli for implementing the Neo-Con agenda explained in
their American Century Project to re-assert the American hegemony,
etc

On the other hand, skeptics maintain that 9/11 may or may not be an
inside job but the military-industrial complex used it brilliantly to
advance their agenda of self-aggrandizement outlined in the 1997
document “Project for the New American Century”. Authored by Paul
Wolfowitz, it argued that the United States would remain the “unipolar
global hegemon” and has been the underlying spirit of every National
Defence Strategy and National Security Strategy issued since then. In
2012, General Wesley Clark revealed that the USA had already planned
to invade seven countries in five years.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mXsoYrXaMQ)

Dimensions of the War on Terror

The war on terrorism was an open-ended, multidimensional campaign

with military and diplomatic dimensions working in tandem
domestically as well as globally.

1. Military Dimension: Its military dimension started with

the invasion of Afghanistan but expanded to Iraq and covert
operations in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Now, the Costs of War
Project identifies no fewer than 76 countries, or 39% of those
on the planet, as being involved in that global conflict where
 U.S. drone or other airstrikes are the norm and U.S. ground
troops have been either directly or indirectly engaged in
combat.
2. Diplomatic Dimension: In the diplomatic field, it resulted
in augmenting old alliances in the Middle East while
expanding its military spending, intelligence capabilities, and
criminal outreach, ordering illegal detention, capturing and
killing those perceived to be enemies of the USA, expanding
cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies, and tracking
and interception of terrorist financing. It also included
continuing efforts to construct and maintain a global coalition
of partner states and organizations and an extensive
3. Domestic Dimension: The domestic dimension of the U.S.
war on terrorism entailed new anti-terrorism legislation, new
security institutions, the preventive detainment of thousands
of suspects; surveillance and intelligence-gathering programs,
the strengthening of emergency-response procedures; and
increased security measures for airports, borders, and public
events

War on Terror; Stellar Success or Dismal Failure?

The answer to the question of whether the global war on terror

launched by the USA after 9/11 succeeded in achieving its stated
objectives depends upon the perspective one has in mind. To the
enthusiasts, it was a stellar success in ensuring the security of the
mainland USA by not only dislodging the Taliban government, which
was accused of harbouring the terrorists, particularly Osama bin
Laden, but also dismantling Al Qaida and uprooting their safe havens.

It resulted in the arrest of hundreds of terrorist suspects around the

world, the prevention of further large-scale terrorist attacks on the
American mainland, and increased levels of international cooperation
in global counter-terrorism efforts. Its final crowning success came
when the USA killed its mastermind, Osama bin Laden, on May 2,
2011, in a remotely located house in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Of course, the USA has lost around 2500 soldiers and wounded more
than 20,000 in pursuit of this objective, notwithstanding the trillions
of dollars spent. Yet these losses are worth the purpose for which this
war was launched. The USA is now safe from any 9/11-style attacks.
However, the cost borne by the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
other countries for keeping America safe cannot be adequately
estimated. Never. Similarly, what will be the consequences, short-term
as well as long-term, of this war on terrorism will only be an educated
guess.

Forget the collateral damage in the form of great human misery in

several countries, i.e., millions of people killed, wounded, or made
homeless, property worth trillions of dollars destroyed, and the
economies of several developing countries ruined. The arrival of
hundreds and thousands of refugees in Europe has its own long-term
socioeconomic implications for NATO allies. For a country that has
been responsible for causing more than 20 million deaths since the
Second World War, it is immaterial.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-
people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

However, to its opponents and critics, all the successes claimed so far
in the War on Terror are tactical and not of much significance in a
strategic sense. To them, there are no signs of any clear US victory in
this War on Terror; rather, the USA is seen to be fighting an endless
war, creating more terrorists than it has killed so far. To them, the
costs incurred in terms of human losses, financial burden, and
infrastructural damage outweigh the gains the USA claims in its War
on Terror. Similarly, they argue, the unintended consequences of the
War on Terror are far greater than the goals intended and achieved.
More of these will appear later in the final part of this essay

Causes of American Failure in WOT

There are several reasons for America's failure to achieve its stated
objectives and ensure long-term global peace

1. American Failure to Comprehend the Nature of War

The USA failed to correctly determine the nature of the war it was
going to launch against global terrorism, and hence there was
ambiguity in formulating the objectives of the war and the attendant
strategy to achieve them. It erred in equating a
counter-terrorism/insurgency war with fighting a conventional war.
They should have learned lessons from their past two dismal failures in
Vietnam and Lebanon, as well as from the Soviet Union’s Afghan
fiasco, that fighting against organised state-run forces obeying, at least
literally, the rules of the Geneva Convention is opposed to fighting
against multiple terrorist organisations, each backed by different
hostile states and carrying out acts of terrorism with impunity. The
advantages these organisations enjoy in terms of terrain, tactics,
logistics, and public support demand a different type of strategy to
achieve their end goals.

2. Gung-ho Operation

Secondly, although the stated public aims of the War on Terror were to
dismantle al-Qaeda, and deny it a safe base of operations in
Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power, Operation Enduring
Freedom itself was a gung-ho operation, carried out without any
proper planning or effective strategy to cope with the situation once the
initial objectives were achieved. As such, it was doomed to fail. Once
the Taliban had been ousted and Al Qaeda had been degraded,
America should have tried to establish a broad-based government and
left with a strong intelligence presence to keep an eye on the re-
emergence of Al Qaida. Rather, it started an ambitious project of state-
building and even nation-building—objectives that need decades, if not
centuries. Unfortunately, Americans are still not clear about what they
want from this war, which has just entered its 16th year.
3. Half-hearted Attempts

Thirdly, if the objectives were ambitious, then the USA should have
allocated much larger resources and continued with them till they were
achieved. Keeping in view the peculiar conditions of Afghanistan with
its diverse ethnic composition, mountainous terrain, inadequate
infrastructure, and institutional backwardness, far more troops, and
finances were required. Troop levels in Afghanistan never approached
that level. Instead, those battle-hardened troops were sent to Iraq in
2003, where another similar gung-ho operation was launched,
allowing the Taliban to re-emerge in the vacuum this created.

4. Post-operation Blunders

Fourthly, invading a foreign country like Afghanistan, which is sparsely

populated, mountainous, and bleak, is one thing; maintaining your
occupation for long is impossible. After the fall of the Taliban
government, the USA installed a government that was overwhelmingly
non-Pashtun. Passionate appeals by Pakistan to accommodate the
moderate Pashtun Taliban, who were on the run and amenable to
negotiated peace, were not heeded. Banishing all the Pashtuns from
every decision-making apparatus of the state machinery, not only
created a legitimacy crisis for the new government but also
disempowered 60% of the population in one go in the new socio-
political setup. Currently, it is the Northern Alliance that is calling the
shots in the national government. Three-fourths of the Afghan security
forces are non-Pashtuns.
5. Inefficient and Corrupt Government

Fifthly, despite massive military and financial aid from NATO forces,
the Afghan government could not deliver in terms of security or the
delivery of basic services. Rampant corruption made the situation even
worse. According to a 2009 DFID survey, “Most ordinary people
associate the [national] government with practices and behaviour they
dislike: the inability to provide security, dependence on foreign
military, eradication of a basic livelihood crop (poppy), and having a
history of partisanship (the perceived preferential treatment of
Northerners).” Read the 2016 report issued by the Special Inspector
General for Afghan Relief (SIGAR) showing how mass corruption,
bribery, payoffs, and drug money had fatally undermined US efforts to
build a viable Afghan society.

6. Public Support for the Taliban

Sixthly, errors of omission and commission on the part of NATO forces

in Afghanistan in general and the Afghan government, in particular,
effectively pushed the majority of Pashtuns toward the Taliban, who
needed the space and sympathy of the people to carry out their
mission. Survey after survey suggested that the majority of Pashtun
people were supporting the Taliban not only out of fear but also
because they were more trustworthy as compared to the present
regime. Pashtuns considered the Taliban movement an indigenous
liberation movement without any affiliation with Al Qaida or global
Jihad, a continuation of their centuries-old war against foreign
invasion or occupation-whether British, Soviet, or American. The
proverbial bravery and tenacity of the Pashtun tribes, through their
wars of attrition, ultimately sapped the morale and drained the
finances of the occupying power. The same happened with the USA.

7. Active Support of Russia

After realising that defeat was imminent in Vietnam, Americans

started to destabilise Afghanistan to take revenge on the Soviet Union
for this humiliation. By 1973, the CIA had recruited more than 5,000
fighters from all over the Islamic world and started infiltrating
Afghanistan. The Americans were ultimately successful, and the USSR
had no option but to come to the aid of its ally in Kabul. The rest is
history.

Now it was Russia’s turn to avenge their defeat. That is why Russia
welcomed the American attack on Afghanistan, knowing full well what
was in store for the Americans in the long run. They had learned the
lesson the hard way: it is easy to fall in love or enter a war; it is bloody
difficult, almost impossible, to extricate yourself with some modicum
of respect left. And that is why they gave maximum support to the
Taliban, particularly in the form of military equipment, and ensured
that the USA remained bogged down in this quagmire as long as
possible.

8. Active Support of Iran

Initially, Iran was deadly against the Taliban for the atrocities
committed by them against 20% of the Shia population of Afghanistan
and actively supported the USA in their operations. Once the Taliban
were cut to size, Iran actively supported these very Taleban for its
geopolitical objectives.

9. Active Support of Pakistan

The Taliban used Pakistan’s space for multiple purposes-recruiting

volunteers, collecting finances, taking refugees, etc. No doubt Pakistan
had been vehemently rejecting the allegations that it had been actively
supporting the Taliban, rather than using them as its proxy to counter
the increasing Indian influence. Pakistan maintained that it had very
marginal and mostly moral influence over the Taliban. However, the
fact is that the official borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan,
where the Taliban took refuge, are a No-man’s Land. No army in the
world can succeed against a group that takes refuge in such terrain.
The biggest handicap the Pakistan government was facing was the fear
of the blow-back of any action in the form of increased terrorist
activities inside the country by the Taliban themselves or their
supporters, who are millions, living in Pakistan

10. American Announcement to Withdraw

Ironically, by announcing its withdrawal from the Afghanistan

quagmire in 2014, the USA repeated the same mistake that the USSR
made in the case of its ally Najibullah in September 1991. Boris Yeltsin,
determined to cut back on the country’s international commitments,
announced that from January 1, 1992, no more arms, gasoline, or food
supplies would be delivered to Kabul. This announcement was
catastrophic for the morale of Najibullah and his supporters, who had
otherwise survived for more than two years and could have gone for
much longer.,

Similarly, the above-mentioned announcement by Obama and later an

invitation to the Taliban for negotiations for their possible induction as
partners in the government was enough to keep up the morale of the
Taliban, who might have yielded to Pakistan’s pressure for a negotiated
settlement with the Afghan government.

Costs of War on Terror

Any conflict, crisis, or war imposes huge costs on economies, including

massive destruction of infrastructure and housing, disruption of trade,
transport, and production, not to mention the loss of lives and
widespread human suffering. Some of the losses are

1. Human Losses

According to a report by Brown University’s Watson Institute for

International and Public Affairs, about 500,000 people have died
violently in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan due to the US “war on
terror”. The report says the tally does not include all people who have
died indirectly as a result of war, including through a loss of
infrastructure or disease, Combatants as well as non-combatants,
including children and women, have lost their lives during the 18 years
of the war on terror in Afghanistan. If we include more than a million
wounded, it means approximately 12% of the entire population of
Afghanistan is either wounded or has been killed. Some areas of the
country have been affected disproportionately by the war; by some
estimates, as many as a third of all deaths have occurred in and around
Kabul.

2. Financial Losses

According to Collier (2003), civil wars permanently reduce the per

capita GDP of a country by about 10 to 15%. When it comes to a
specific country in conflict, estimates vary significantly. The same is
the case with the countries targeted directly or indirectly during or as a
result of the War on Terror; estimates will vary according to the
parameters used and techniques employed. The 2017 MENA Economic
Monitor report puts the estimated cost of the damages to
infrastructure in six Syrian cities at $7.2 billion at 2007 prices or $41
billion at current prices. A Syrian Center for Policy Research (SCPR)
and UNDP report estimates the destruction of physical infrastructure
at around $67.3 billion. Other estimates point to different numbers.
The loss in GDP relative to the “no war” Counterfactual in Afghanistan
alone is estimated at $100–200 billion.

3. Human Development Loss

The war on terror has resulted in another type of loss that is even more
difficult to estimate than the human or financial losses mentioned
above, namely loss of human development. Millions of children have
been unable to attend school; thousands of patients have died from a
lack of medical facilities; and millions of people are suffering from
trauma. Inadequate provision of public services resulted in the spread
of formerly rare infectious diseases, compounded by poor sanitation,
access to hygienic water, deteriorating living conditions, and the non-
availability of timely vaccination.

4. Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees

Estimates vary; while Pakistan is accommodating nearly 2 million

Afghan refugees, Iran is providing shelter to another 1 million. No one
has an exact figure of internally displaced Afghans. Similar is the case
in Syria; according to Al-Jazeera, 10.9 million Syrians, or almost half
the population, had been displaced by March 2015. Out of these, nearly
3.8 million had been made refugees in neighbouring countries, namely
Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan, creating socio-economic and
political problems in these countries.

5. Human Rights Violations

In any conflict, truth and human rights are the first casualties; the
same happened in Syria. According to various human rights
organizations and the United Nations, human rights violations have
been committed by all the warring parties. Armed forces on both sides
of the conflict blocked access to humanitarian convoys, confiscated
food, cut off water supplies, and targeted farmers working their fields.
Residents of towns and cities under siege invariably faced death by
starvation due to fighting between the warring factions, preventing
food distribution by UNRWA.

ISIS forces have been accused by the UN of using public executions,

amputations, and lashings in a campaign to instill fear. Enforced
disappearances and arbitrary detentions have also been a feature since
the Syrian uprising began. At least 70 journalists have been killed
covering the Syrian war, and more than 80 were kidnapped.

Even the USA has been accused of these human rights abuses; actions
that it deemed necessary to fight terrorism have been considered to be
immoral, illegal, or both. These included the detention of accused
enemy combatants without trial at Guantánamo Bay and several secret
prisons outside the United States, the use of torture against these
detainees to extract intelligence, and the use of unmanned combat
drones to kill suspected enemies in countries far beyond the
battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

6. Loss of Cultural Heritage

One of the most unfortunate aspects of the Syrian crisis was the
wanton destruction of the cultural heritage of Syria-one of the oldest
civilizations in the world. According to UNICEF, the war has affected
290 heritage sites, severely damaged 104, and destroyed 24. Five of the
six World Heritage Sites in Syria have been damaged. While several
culturally important sites got damaged due to the fighting among the
warring parties, Palmyra and Kark des Chevaliers were deliberately
destroyed by the fighters of the ISIL as a part of enforcing their brand
of Islamic Sharia. Illegal digging and museum thefts became common
as war-stricken people resorted to looting their treasures and selling
them on the lucrative black market.

Consequences of the War on Terror

Besides the human, financial, and economic costs and losses inflicted
upon the people and the states of the countries targeted during the
War on Terror, there are far-reaching geopolitical consequences with
long-term ramifications for the global world order. Some of these are

1. Spread of Terrorism

Ironically, a war that was started to end terrorism has resulted in its
spawning and growing into a global phenomenon. While the USA
became a safe place, Europe and the Middle East are now suffering
from the menace of terrorism. Military presence and operations by
NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and their associated collateral
damage have increased public resentment and terrorist threats against
the West. The war in Afghanistan had effectively scattered the al-
Qaeda network, thereby making it even harder to counteract.
It also increased anti-Americanism among the world’s Muslims,
thereby amplifying the message of militant Islam and uniting disparate
groups for a common cause. They allege that the War on Terrorism was
a contrived smokescreen for the pursuit of a larger U.S. geopolitical
agenda for controlling global oil reserves and countering the strategic
challenge to the global hegemony of the West.

2. Decline of the USA as a Superpower

There are several reasons for the loss of American preeminence in

global affairs; however, its misadventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
and Syria in the name of the War on Terror will be counted among the
most prominent reasons for this downfall. It inflicted a severe blow to
the US economy and its reputation as a responsible global leader. The
prestige of the USA as a world power is now at its lowest-Afghanistan
proved to be a worse disaster than the Vietnam fiasco, more
humiliating than the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. The Soviets left
Afghanistan as a result of an international agreement and with all
pomp and show. America and its allies left Afghanistan in disgrace.

3. Emergence of a Multipolar World

While the War on Terror was gradually seeping the energies of the USA
and draining its economy, it was a God-send opportunity for emerging
China and a resurgent Russia to change the global balance of power. It
pushed several countries, such as Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt,
etc., towards the Russian-Chinese nexus, leading to the emergence of a
multipolar world. At the same time, it also changed the regional
equation in the Middle East. Iran has emerged as a regional power as
an unintended consequence of the War on Terror, which helped Iran in
three ways.

1. Firstly, it broke the back of its worst enemy, namely the Sunni
extremist Taliban in Afghanistan.
2. Secondly, it eliminated Iran’s sworn enemy and rival for
Middle East leadership namely Saddam Hussain, and
3. Thirdly, the War increased the price of oil, the main export of
Iran, which helped it sell it in black even at higher prices and
avoid or reduce the impact of the sanctions.

4. Increased Sectarian Threats

While the Shia-Sunni rivalry is centuries old, its intensity and

internecine warfare have increased tremendously during the War on
Terror, both by design and by default. The Syrian crisis started as
popular demands for good governance and soon turned into an Anti-
Assad movement. As Assad belongs to the country’s minority Alawite
religious group, an offshoot of the Shia, vested interests converted the
whole movement into the Shia-Sunni conflict.

Within a short period, it engulfed the entire Islamic world, pitting

Shias against Sunnis. In Syria, the majority of the population and most
of the opposition are Sunnis, who started targeting Alawites,
particularly by the dominantly Sunni rebel fighting groups like al-
Nusra Front and the FSA. Finding themselves in a Catch-22 situation,
Alawites had no option but to back Assad to the hilt. It is estimated
that a third of the 250,000 Alawite men of military age have been
killed fighting in the Syrian civil war. This has repeated in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other Muslim-majority countries

5. Spreading Crime Wave

In any conflict where clear-cut lines cannot be defined between friends

and foes, criminal gangs thrive and add fuel to the fire by gunrunning,
money laundering, committing bank robberies, supplying mercenaries,
helping people settle personal scores on payments, and other such
services. The economic downturn caused by the conflict and sanctions
also led to lower incomes, leading to an increase in poverty-related
crimes. The breakdown of law enforcement and the criminal justice
system in big cities exacerbated the situation; rates of rapes, sexual
assaults, and kidnappings increased manyfold when the crisis peaked
in 2014–15.

In several regions, law and order became acute when even local
commanders of non-state militias got engaged in war profiteering
through protection rackets, looting, and organized crime. The arrival of
the foreign fighters to assist their respective militant outfits was the
last straw on the camel’s back. Most of them were irregular
mercenaries without any proper military training, which played havoc
as they began stealing civilian properties and engaging in kidnappings.
Rebel forces invariably relied on criminal gangs to generate funds for
purchasing arms, ammunition, and other supplies

6. Spillover Effects

The American War on Terror had some unintended consequences with

spillover effects. The Iraqi invasion changed the regime but also
hastened the collapse of the state, resulting in massive disruption of
social service delivery and the virtual Balkanization of the country;
Racial and sectarian tensions, which had been held in check by
Saddam’s repressive regime, were unleashed by his removal.

Similarly, initially, Syrian crises were confined within the Syrian

borders; with the space created by the state collapse in Iraq and Libya,
ISIL, a militant organization with a pan-Islamic mission, emerged,
attracting Jihadists from different countries. ISIL fighters took control
of large swaths of Syrian, Iraqi, and Libyan territories and created their
own Islamic Caliphate.

Even Lebanon was not spared; fighting between rebels and

government forces also spilled over into Lebanon on several occasions,
resulting in increased sectarian violence. A similar thing happened in
Afghanistan, which for several years had seemed to be under control,
soon followed a similar trajectory, and by 2006, the U.S. was facing a
full-blown insurgency there led by a reconstituted Taliban.
One other spillover effect was the arrival of hundreds and thousands of
war refugees in Europe, leading to xenophobic sentiments and the rise
of the far-right in several European countries. One of the reasons for
the overwhelmingly positive response to Brexit in the UK referendum
was the fear of Turks migrating to the UK masquerading as Syrian
refugees. About 667,000 people sought refuge in Lebanon, disturbing
the ethnic balance in the total population of 4.8 million.

The arrival of several Syrian Sunnis is undermining Hezbollah’s status

based on Shia Lebanese. The same is true in Jordan, where Palestinian
refugees have been eclipsed by Syrian ones. Turkey is now hosting
more than three million Syrian refugees, surpassing Pakistan in
accommodating more refugees.

7. Weapons Proliferation and Arms Race

One of the most unfortunate but inevitable consequences of the War on

Terror has been the proliferation of arms and ammunition in the
Middle East, Afghanistan, and its neighbouring countries at three
levels: state, non-state, and private. A cursory glance at the amounts
allocated to the defense and procurement of sophisticated weapons by
these states is staggering. At the same time, several groups of non-state
actors, acting as proxies of the global/regional powers in various
conflict zones have access to modern arms and ammunition.
Unfortunately, a sizable portion of these arms and ammunition have
been sold in the black market to drug mafias and warlords, who feel no
qualms about using these arms for their criminal activities
Not only conventional arms and ammunition are easily available in the
region, but Sarin, Mustard agent, and chlorine gas have also been used
during the conflict. Numerous casualties on account of the use of
chemical weapons led to an investigation by the UNO, which
confirmed the use of Sarin gas on four occasions. All parties blamed
one another for the use of these banned items.

8. Return of Footloose Jihadists

According to conservative estimates, more than 25,000 footloose

jihadists, foreign fighters not attached to well-known militant outfits
like Hamas or Hezbollah, participated in the Syrian crisis to express
their solidarity with their respective sectarian causes. Most of them
came from Islamic countries, but it is estimated that at least 10% were
from European countries. Foreign fighters, who survived this ordeal,
are returning to their respective home countries with ideas and
intentions to replicate the ISIS model collectively or as lone wolves.

The arrival of these highly motivated, battle-hardened ex-fighters is

creating security crises for governments. Not all returnees present the
same degree of threat; as such, treating all former fighters as high risk
may radicalize them further through unwarranted persecution. Some
ex-terrorists could become powerful voices against the groups they
once joined. The government should thoroughly screen these returnees
to identify the more dangerous among them as well as select credible
and trustworthy individuals who could counter their recruitment
narratives.
Conclusion

There is no doubt the War on Terrorism succeeded in its stated

objectives of dislodging the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, accused of
harbouring known internal terrorists. Similarly, it initially succeeded
in dismantling terrorist networks and forced them to seek refuge in the
mountains

However, due to the incompetency of the US in handling post-Taliban

Afghanistan coupled with its zeal to accomplish too much in a brief
time with fewer resources and planning, it got itself embroiled in a war
that went beyond the stated objectives of the War on Terrorism. There
were no signs of any clear US victory; rather, the USA was seen to be
fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan. And it ultimately lost it for the
same reasons it lost in Vietnam, lost in Iraq, and is losing in Syria.
9 Drivers of the America-
China Cold War
Abstract

The relationship between the USA and China has been quite complex,
bordering on a typical love-hate relationship. While both countries
have an extremely extensive economic partnership, and their
economies are too closely intertwined to afford a long-term rivalry,
there are quite serious issues between the two, resulting in the start of
the Second Cold War.

This article discusses the nine crucial issues souring relations between
the two superpowers of the day.

Introduction

Diplomatic relations between the USA and China started during the
presidency of George Washington and remained very cordial until 1949
when the Communist Party under Mao Zedong succeeded in the civil
war by defeating the Nationalists backed by the USA. Misreading
history more than the ideological differences, the USA recognised the
renegade province of Taiwan as the legitimate government of China
and thus did not establish relations with the People’s Republic of China
for 25 years. Both countries fought against each other indirectly during
the Korean War in the early 1950s and then in the 1960s and 1970s
during the Vietnam War.

The rift between China and the USSR in 1969 created an opportunity
for both countries to come together; Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to
China resulted in a diplomatic thaw. Since then, relations between
these two countries have remained cordial; both countries cooperated
to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by providing arms to the
Mujahedeen during the 1980s. Afterwards, American FDI was the key
factor in the rapid technological development of China, making it the
global manufacturing hub. China is the second-largest creditor of the
USA, while American firms have invested billions in China.

However, these relations came under stress in 2010 when Barack

Obama announced his Asia pivot strategy and supported Japan in the
Senkaku Islands dispute. Since then, the relationship between the USA
and China has been quite complex, bordering on a typical love-hate
relationship. While both countries have an extremely extensive
economic partnership, and their economies are too closely intertwined
to afford a long-term rivalry, there are quite serious issues between the
two, such as
1. Ambitions for Global Hegemony

No doubt, the United States is the most dominant global power thanks
to its economic clout, technological sophistication, military might,
territorial security, and dollar dominance. It possesses enormous
assets to maintain its predominance, including military primacy,
multiple alliances, powerful Western-led international organizations,
and unmatched soft power. But, slowly and surely, its margin of
superiority is shrinking due to internal weaknesses and changing
global power equations.

While an economically emerging China has eroded the economic

preeminence of the USA and is threatening its dollar dominance, one
of the main pillars of American hegemony, a resurging Russia is
challenging its military supremacy in every theatre of conflict. Thus, to
preserve its global hegemony, it has a set of strategies that utilize all
the diplomatic and other means at its disposal.

In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz wrote a document arguing that the United

States would remain the “unipolar global hegemon”. It became the
input for the now notorious 1997 document “Project for the New
American Century”. It was developed further into the declaration in
2011 of the Pivot to Asia. All these various doctrines have been codified
into the US National Defence Strategy and National Security Strategy.

Essentially, what these documents are claiming is that China, Russia,

Iran, North Korea, and violent Islamic extremist groups are the
enemies of the United States and existential threats to the U.S. and the
U.S.-imposed world order. China, as the most significant power, is the
greatest threat and must be treated as such.

Since its publication, all successive American presidents have put

countering the military rise of China at the forefront of America’s
national security strategy and its national defence strategy. Pentagon
officials see China as the country to beat and worry that China’s
increased military spending, growing global footprint, and extensive
technological research will close the gap that has ensured America’s
global military dominance, raising the prospect of a flare-up based on
miscalculation or deliberate provocation.

Focusing mainly on countering China, it is trying to block China to gain

an advantage in several emerging technologies. Additionally, the
United States seeks to prevent it from establishing a dominant position
in the Asia-Pacific Region by maintaining, deepening, and expanding
America’s alliance ties there and placing intermediate-range ground
missiles in the region.

On the other hand, after 200 years of ignominy at the hands of

European colonialism, China is rightfully trying to regain its
preeminent global position. Chinese know that despite strong Sino-US
economic and trade interdependencies, the USA is ideologically
committed to confronting and containing China, economically,
politically, and militarily. That’s why China has repeatedly warned its
neighbours including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, not to allow
the US deployment in their territory.

2. Clash of Ideologies

Believing in Francis Fukuyama’s End of History thesis, the American

media, establishment, and public were expecting Pax Americana 2.0 in
the post-Cold War era, in which Western values and practices would be
the norms of statecraft all over the world. However, the rapid rise of
China has just shattered their dream; China is condemned because it is
destroying the liberal world order and is substituting its own for it
which is not democratic, not egalitarian, not focused on international
law, etc.,

The “Beijing consensus,” meanwhile, challenged democracy on a

worldwide scale. China’s much better economic performance than the
Western democracies — even though democracy was supposed to
facilitate economic growth — worked miracles in reducing poverty and
maintaining social order and progress China’s rise is thus a trend that
needs to be reversed, says the liberal media.

3. Taiwan’s Independence

The most dangerous dimension of the Sino-US ‘contest’ is the prospect

of a US challenge to China’s claims on Taiwan. China rightfully claims
Taiwan as its renegade province; there is a possibility that Washington
may reopen the ‘One China Policy. As President Xi recently reiterated,
China will use all its capabilities to defend its ‘territorial integrity. A US
miscalculation could lead to conflict. It was therefore a shock when
Trump broke with decades of precedent by speaking directly with the
leader of Taiwan.

The call threatened to reopen a largely dormant ideological fight over

self-determination and democracy in the Communist regime. ” Taiwan
is China’s core interest,” Gen. Wei said. “On these issues, it’s extremely
dangerous to challenge China’s bottom line repeatedly. If anyone tries
to separate Taiwan from China, China’s military will take action at all
costs.”

4. Trade War

The USA wants China to fix the trade deficit; instead of decreasing, it
increased. This was partly a product of the US economy improving and
thus stimulating America’s demand for more Chinese products.
President Trump was embarrassed and angry that the trade deficit
grew. He understood that the deficit was the cause of factories closing
in the US, the loss of jobs, and a huge and dangerous debt, and that
using shock treatment was the way to successful negotiations. Trump’s
chosen strategy was to place tariffs on Chinese goods entering the US,
knowing China depended more on exports than the United States.

Thus, in March, the Trump administration announced tariffs on USD

60 billion of Chinese imports. At the time, Trump cited the results of
Section 301 (of the Trade Act of 1974)'s investigation into China’s
unfair trade practices: disregard for rules on intellectual property,
discrimination against foreign (e.g., American) firms, and industrial
policies that favoured Chinese companies. The tariffs had a significant
impact on China, both economically and politically.

The growth of China’s GDP slowed. Its stock market sputtered. There
was a slowdown in construction. Productivity declined. There were
increasing worries about domestic debt (now said to be 250 percent of
GDP). The yuan fell, and this threatened China’s influence in
international finance. Chinese leaders felt compelled to answer tit-for-
tat. China imposed tariffs on American products exported to China.
Fares on some items, such as soybeans, were aimed at Trump’s
favourite voting constituencies. Meanwhile, China’s media accused
President Trump of launching a trade war.

5. Cyber-warfare and Technology Theft

Despite making tremendous strides in technological development and

diffusion, China is at least 20 years behind the USA in sophisticated
technology. It is therefore in the prime interest of the United States to
restrict China’s access to and development of those advanced
technologies that it thinks could bolster China’s global technological
ranking.

It also became glaringly evident that China’s “Made in China 2025”

strategy launched in 2015 was on a collision course with President
Trump’s “Make America Great Again” policy. The former would make
China the foremost country in the world in advanced manufacturing
and much more. This is not an ‘arms race’ as in the Cold War era. This
is akin to what Marie Boas Hall, the great historian of science, called
the ‘Scientific Renaissance’ to designate the Scientific Revolution
1450–1630. Russia and China are in the vanguard; Trump wanted to
fix America’s economy, restore America’s global leadership in high-
tech, and a lot more. Thus, the conflict grew.

6. Currency Manipulation/Banking Issues

The USA has been accusing China of currency manipulation and other
malpractices to gain an undue advantage in international trade. US law
sets out three criteria for identifying manipulation among major
trading partners: a material global current account surplus, a
significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States, and
persistent one-way intervention in foreign exchange markets. China
was last designated a currency manipulator under the Clinton
administration in 1994.

In May 2019, although the USA refrained from declaring China a

currency manipulator based on new, tougher criteria measuring a
country’s global current account surplus, it kept China on an enhanced
monitoring list due to a “misalignment and undervaluation of the RMB
relative to the dollar”.

7. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)

Another significant bone of contention between the two global powers
is the highly ambitious Chinese project of BRI; $4 trillion of promised
investments in 65 countries representing 70 per cent of the world’s
population, 55 per cent of its GNP, and 75 per cent of its energy
reserves. The BRI aims to stabilize China’s Western peripheries,
rekindle its economy, propel non-Western international economic
institutions, gain influence in other countries, and diversify trade
suppliers/routes while circumventing the U.S. pivot to Asia.

Although Americans express their reservations about the BRI in terms

of its non-transparent terms, inadequate standards and practices, and
erosion of Western development norms, it is its geopolitical
implications that frame Americans’ views of BRI. The initiative is
sometimes viewed as a deliberate attempt to economically marginalize
the United States, to create a Eurasian sphere of influence, or as a
pretext for expanding China’s overseas military presence. At the very
least, perceptions that China is embarking on a new, “assertive” phase
of statecraft elevate the scrutiny BRI faces.

8. Human Rights and Democracy

One of the stated aims and goals of the foreign policy of the USA is the
promotion of democracy and human rights all over the world but is
used selectively. While the USA is silent about the lack of democratic
setup and violations of human rights in its allies particularly in the
Middle East, it is accusing China of mistreatment of its Uigur Muslims
and Hong Kong protesters. China is extremely sensitive about these
two issues and blames the USA for fomenting trouble in these areas.
They know that the USA had been training Uyghur Muslims in various
war theatres for their possible use inside China.

9. South China Sea

The South China Sea is a nexus of the China-US contest for dominance
in the region; the United States has frequently accused China of
“militarization”, assertiveness and even bullying”. However, in China’s
view — as well as that of several Southeast Asian countries, it’s the US
that has militarised the region by assertively and aggressively
projecting power there. The US, unlike China, has long had military
bases in countries bordering the South China Sea, including the
Philippines and Thailand.

Moreover, the US has recently significantly increased its naval and air
operations in and over the South China Sea, including its freedom of
navigation exercises. The warships and planes the US sends on such
operations challenge China’s territorial and judicial claims. China sees
the US freedom of navigation patrols as “gunboat diplomacy” or even
bullying. As President Xi recently reiterated, China will use all its
capabilities to defend its ‘territorial integrity. A US miscalculation
could lead to conflict.

Future Scenario
According to general perception, US-China relations during the last 40
years have followed a fairly predictable 4-year pattern corresponding
with the American election campaign cycle. During every election
campaign, American politicians need a scapegoat to rally their
respective supporters. After the fall of the Soviet Union, terrorism and
China were the two most effective bogeymen for all presidential
candidates during their respective election campaigns.

Whether it was Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton on the one hand or

George Bush or Barack Obama on the other, they always castigated the
incumbent American administration for their weak stands against the
Chinese. However, once in power, all of them adopted the same set of
policies as their predecessors, whom they always ridiculed during their
campaigns.

They were expecting that during the 2016 elections, Trump would use
the China card the same way his predecessors had been doing and
hoped that he would not follow what he stated. However, all their
hopes were dashed by the actions taken by the Trump administration
during his four-year term. He did not follow the usual practice of
appeasing the Chinese once in power and broke the tradition with
serious consequences for the global economy, besides causing damage
to bilateral relations. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic further
acerbated relations as the beleaguered Trump blamed China for this
pandemic.
Consequently, during the recent elections, both parties, needing some
tangible election issues, found China a “whipping boy” and portrayed it
as a menace to America. As the common American's knowledge of
China is superficial, their mindset is formed mainly by the biased
coverage of China by the mainstream media of the USA, the number of
Americans who believe China is a threat has tripled in the last year.
Under this atmosphere of acrimony, there is scant hope of any
improvement between the two countries in the near future.

Tail Piece

The width and breadth of acrimonious relations between the two global
powers of the day were visible during the high-level talks in Alaska
between China and the USA in March 2021. These signalled a historic
shift in Chinese attitudes, summed up neatly in those three resounding
sentences from the Chinese foreign minister Yang —

“So let me say here that, in front of the Chinese side, the United States
does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China
from a position of strength. The U.S. side was not even qualified to
say such things even 20 or 30 years ago, because this is not the way
to deal with the Chinese people. If the United States wants to deal
properly with the Chinese side, then let’s follow the necessary
protocols and do things the right way.”
Comparing Middle East
Policies of the USA and
China
Introduction

Thanks to its rich reserves of oil, strategic location, and complex

political dynamics, the Middle East has long been a focal point of
geopolitical maneuvering and diplomatic engagements, attracting the
attention of global powers seeking to shape the course of events. In this
context, two prominent actors, China, and the United States, have
emerged with distinct foreign policy approaches that reflect their
unique national interests, historical contexts, and strategic priorities.

China’s ascent as a global superpower and its expanding economic

interests have propelled its engagement with the Middle East to new
heights. China recognizes the region’s significance as a crucial source
of energy and a market for its goods, making it a vital component of its
ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
This approach is characterized by a pragmatic stance that prioritizes
stability, non-interference, and economic cooperation, often avoiding
entanglement in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations. China’s
emphasis on economic diplomacy has enabled it to foster strategic
partnerships with various countries in the region, challenging the
traditional dominance of Western powers.

On the other hand, the United States has maintained a longstanding

and deeply entrenched presence in the Middle East, driven by a range
of geopolitical, security, and economic interests. Historically, American
foreign policy in the region has revolved around maintaining regional
stability, safeguarding its allies, countering terrorism, and ensuring the
free flow of oil.

The United States has pursued an interventionist approach,

characterized by military deployments, alliances, and interventions
aimed at protecting its interests and exerting influence. American
Middle East policy has also been shaped by its commitment to
democratic values and human rights, often advocating for political
reform and democratization in the region.

This essay aims to provide a comprehensive comparative analysis of

the Chinese and American Middle East foreign policies, shedding light
on their similarities, divergences, and potential implications for
regional dynamics.

Issues at Stake in the Middle East Chessboard

Out of the multiple issues in the geopolitics of the Middle East, the
following six have emerged as key concerns for both China and
America:

1. Energy security

2. Global Terrorism

3. Nuclear proliferation,

4. Israeli hegemonic designs,

5. Regional conflicts

6. Democratic Deficit

Let me discuss them briefly

A. Energy Security and Oil Price Stability

Given the Middle East’s significant oil reserves and its impact on global
energy markets, both, China and America and its allies, have high
stakes in the region. Although, after the successful commercial
extraction of its vast offshore hydrocarbon resources, America is not an
energy-importing country now, it must ensure energy security and oil
price stability for its allies in Europe and Southeast Asia.
However, China’s need for oil and gas resources stems from two
reasons: first, it lacks sufficient hydrocarbon reserves, and second, its
growing population and its across-the-board rising living standards
have further contributed to the country’s soaring energy needs. At the
same time, it needs vast energy resources to sustain its industrial
sector, which has been a key driver of its rapid growth.

While China and the United States are keenly interested in the Middle
East’s oil and gas resources, they have different strategies for ensuring
uninterrupted access to these resources. The USA and its allies
encourage their private sector entities to enter joint ventures with
state-owned enterprises in the Arab countries and support them
through diplomatic engagements and military cooperation. That’s why
the United States maintains a significant military presence in the
Middle East to help ensure the security of shipping lanes and critical
infrastructure.

At the same time, the U.S. forms alliances and security partnerships
with countries in the region. These alliances, such as those with Saudi
Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), provide strategic
cooperation and military support, thus ensuring the West’s dominant
role in the oil policies of the countries, not only to have easy access to
energy resources for its allies but also to limit its access to China. For
this purpose, it uses its dollar dominance as a coercive tool

On the other hand, China shuns the use of military presence to ensure
its energy security and prefers to enter into state-to-state agreements
to ensure its energy security, increasing its economic ties with
countries in the Middle East. Through investments by Chinese state-
owned enterprises, infrastructure projects, and trade agreements,
China aims to secure access to energy resources in the region. That’s
why China’s BRI includes projects, such as pipelines, ports, and
transportation networks, that facilitate the flow of energy resources
from the region to China.

B. Arab-Israel Relations

Keeping in view the geopolitical and geostrategic importance of Israel

in their respective Middle East foreign policies, both China and the
United States have distinct strategies when it comes to their
relationships with Israel and other Arab countries in the Middle East.

The United States has a longstanding strategic partnership with Israel

and provides substantial military, economic, and diplomatic support to
Israel. Treating Israel as a key ally in the region to safeguard American
interests in the region, this support includes defence cooperation,
intelligence sharing, and diplomatic backing. It ensures that not only
no other country in the region should ever think of attaining nuclear
parity with the Israeli clandestine nuclear capability but none of the
militaries in the region should be powerful enough to pose any
conventional military threat to Israel

For this, the USA has been making all-out efforts through its various
Camp David accords and other similar initiatives to ensure that Arab
countries recognize Israel and conclude peace agreements with Israel,
and there should never be any anti-Israel alliance in the Middle East
like the one formed in 1967. Similarly, the main focus of its counter-
terrorism strategies is to degrade the capabilities of all anti-Israel
militant groups in the region

On the other hand, China, while recognizing the importance of Israel in

the geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East, is not prepared to give
it the importance that it deserves as a major country in the region.
Consequently, China maintains diplomatic relations with both Israel
and Arab countries, aiming to maintain a balanced approach. It seeks
to avoid taking sides in regional conflicts and pursues diplomatic
engagement with all parties involved. China seeks to enhance energy
cooperation with both Israel and Arab countries. It invests in energy
projects, explores oil and gas opportunities, and promotes
collaboration in renewable energy and energy infrastructure
development.

C. Nuclear Proliferation

While both China and the USA e keen to control nuclear proliferation
at the global and regional levels, they have different approaches
regarding Arab countries' access to nuclear technology. Keeping in
view the cost-effectiveness of nuclear technology and its multiple uses
in several fields, China is not averse to the peaceful use of nuclear
energy in Arab countries, emphasizing the development of nuclear
power for electricity generation, desalination, and other civilian
purposes. It sees nuclear technology as a means to support economic
development and meet energy demands.

China has a history of engaging in nuclear cooperation with Arab

countries. It has been involved in providing nuclear technology,
including the construction of nuclear power plants and the transfer of
nuclear know-how, to some Arab nations. However, China is a
signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) and therefore insists on proper safeguards and oversight to
ensure the responsible use of nuclear technology by Arab countries and
adherence to international non-proliferation obligations.

On the other hand, America tends to be cautious and selective in

allowing access to nuclear technology by Arab countries, even for
civilian use, while maintaining a calculated ambiguity about Israeli
ambitions. The United States typically negotiates bilateral nuclear
cooperation agreements, known as 123 agreements, with countries
seeking access to American nuclear technology. These agreements
outline strict conditions, making it next to impossible for any Arab
country to acquire any sophisticated nuclear technology. Not only that,
it maintains strict export control regimes to prevent the unauthorized
transfer of sensitive nuclear technology or materials to Arab countries.

D. Global Terrorism

Like all other issues, both China and the USA have the common aim of
controlling the spread of global terrorism but adopt different
approaches to deal with the threat of global terrorism emanating from
the Middle East. Both Superpowers are keen to contain global
terrorism. However, while the USA believes in its military solution with
the help of intelligence & technology, China stresses a developmental
approach, removing the root causes of terrorism-poverty, inequality,
and conflicts.

Following the devastating 9/11 attacks, the U.S. launched a global war
on terror, focusing on military interventions, intelligence operations,
and multilateral partnerships to dismantle terrorist networks and
promote stability in the region. The U.S. strategy has involved targeted
military operations, such as the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and
subsequent efforts to combat extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and the
Islamic State.

The United States has also provided substantial military and financial
aid to Middle Eastern countries to enhance their capacity to combat
terrorism. Additionally, the U.S. has utilized diplomatic channels to
build international coalitions, encourage regional cooperation, and
advocate for counterterrorism measures at the United Nations and
other international forums.

China, on the other hand, has pursued a more cautious and nuanced
approach to address the threat of global terrorism in the Middle East.
China’s primary concern has been to safeguard its national security
interests and maintain stability in its restive Xinjiang region, where it
has faced separatist movements and acts of terrorism. China has
implemented a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy, that includes
a combination of security measures, socio-economic development
programs, and ideological campaigns. China has sought to build
diplomatic ties with Middle Eastern countries and leverage its
economic influence to secure their cooperation in counterterrorism
efforts.

While the approaches of the United States and China differ, both
countries recognize the gravity of the global terrorism threat
emanating from the Middle East. Despite their differing priorities,
there have been instances of cooperation and coordination between the
two powers, particularly in intelligence sharing and efforts to counter
specific terrorist organizations. However, differences in political
ideologies, regional interests, and concerns over sovereignty have
limited the extent of their collaboration.

E. Regional Conflicts

While the overt aim of both China and the USDA is to maintain
regional security and stability, their actions are diametrically opposed
to each other. The USA and its allies are not only fanning regional
conflicts in pursuit of their national interests but have been actively
engaged militarily in several such conflicts, either directly or through
their proxy militant outfits. Their open involvement in the Syrian
crisis, the invasion of Iraq, and overthrowing Muammar Qaddafi are
too obvious, but their involvement in suppressing the Arab Spring, and
the Yemen civil war is not properly highlighted. It has often taken a
more interventionist stance, engaging in military operations, providing
military aid to regional allies, and directly supporting certain factions
in conflicts. The US has also been instrumental in brokering peace
agreements, usually through coercive means, simply to benefit its
staunch ally, Israel.

However, China has been very cautious in getting involved in these

regional conflicts, knowing full well that one of the prime objectives of
American involvement in these conflicts is to oust Russia from the
Middle East and stop the growing influence of China through its
developmental approach.

It has traditionally pursued a more non-interventionist approach in the

Middle East, emphasizing principles of non-interference in the internal
affairs of other countries and respect for national sovereignty. China’s
primary focus has been peaceful resolutions of regional conflicts,
maintaining friendly relations with multiple actors in a conflict, and
avoiding taking sides or getting deeply involved. Instead, it tends to
prioritize stability and seeks to build economic ties and engage in
infrastructure projects through initiatives like the Belt and Road
Initiative. The masterpiece of this Chinese Middle East policy has been
the rapprochement between two traditional rivals, namely Iran and
Saudi Arabia, brokered by the Chinese.

F. Democratic Deficit
The Democratic deficit, globally and in different regional theatres, has
been one of the sore points of contention between these two
superpowers of the day. The United States has historically advocated
for and openly professed to promote democratic values and
institutions in the region. Claiming democracy, particularly that of
Western style, as a key component of stability, peace, and human
rights, the USA has supported democratic movements, provided
assistance for democratic transitions, encouraged political reforms.
and used diplomatic and economic tools to incentivize democratic
progress. However, it is more rhetoric than substance, more optics
than real intentions. One cursory glance at the political governance
systems of the countries the USA has been friends with for the last
seven decades would expose the hollowness of all its claims.

China, on the other hand, takes a different stance when it comes to

democracy in the Middle East. China places a greater emphasis on
non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, including
their political systems. It generally avoids making explicit calls for
democratic reforms and does not actively promote democracy as a
priority in its foreign policy. China prioritizes stability and maintaining
good relations with governments in power, regardless of their
democratic credentials.

China’s approach is rooted in its own political system and historical

experiences. It often highlights the importance of respecting different
paths to development and national sovereignty. China focuses more on
economic cooperation, investment, and trade, seeking to enhance its
own interests through economic partnerships with countries in the
Middle East, regardless of their political systems.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the United States and China have adopted distinct

approaches in their relations with Middle Eastern countries to
safeguard their respective interests. The United States has historically
pursued a policy of active involvement, employing military
interventions, diplomatic negotiations, and economic aid to promote
stability and secure its strategic objectives in the region. This approach,
characterized by a focus on democratic values, human rights, and the
protection of American interests, has often generated mixed results,
with both successes and failures.

On the other hand, China has pursued a more pragmatic approach,

prioritizing economic interests, energy security, and non-interference
in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries. By engaging in
extensive trade and investment agreements, China has secured access
to vital resources and markets, solidifying its position as a major player
in the region. However, this approach has drawn criticism for its
disregard for human rights concerns and potential long-term
implications for regional stability.

While the United States and China differ in their approaches, both
countries recognize the strategic significance of the Middle East and its
impact on global affairs. As the dynamics in the region continue to
evolve, it is essential for these global powers to strike a delicate balance
between pursuing their interests and engaging in constructive
diplomacy. The challenge lies in finding common ground and
cooperating on issues of mutual concern, such as counterterrorism,
nuclear proliferation, and regional stability.

Ultimately, the divergent approaches of the United States and China in

their relations with Middle Eastern countries reflect the complexities of
global power dynamics and the pursuit of national interests. As the
Middle East remains a region of profound significance, the future of its
relationships with these superpowers will undoubtedly shape the
geopolitical landscape and have far-reaching consequences for the
international community. Thus, finding avenues for cooperation and
understanding between the United States, China, and Middle Eastern
countries becomes imperative in order to foster a more stable and
prosperous future
Russia- Ukraine Standoff:
Global Implications
Background

While there have been tensions between Russia and Ukraine since the
breakup of the Soviet Union, the roots of the present crisis go back to
2014 when the pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych
was ousted from office as a result of the pro-European Euromaidan
and the Revolution of Dignity. The Russians blamed the CIA for its
involvement in this uprising.

Shortly afterwards, unrest erupted in Ukraine’s eastern and southern

regions, heavily dominated by pro-Russia groups. Alleging genocide
against these ethnic Russians, unmarked Russian troops moved into
Ukraine’s Crimea and later occupied it. Russia soon annexed Crimea
after a highly disputed Crimean status referendum.
Similarly, in April 2014, pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine’s eastern
Donbas region proclaimed the establishment of the Donetsk People’s
Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic with tacit support from
Russia.

In February 2015, an agreement known as Minsk II brokered by

Germany and France to end the violence there through a political
settlement was signed between Russia and Ukraine in an attempt to
end the conflict, but the agreements were never fully implemented. The
war in Donbas settled into a violent but static conflict between Ukraine
and Russian proxies, with frequent brief ceasefires but no lasting peace
and few changes in territorial control.

Russia had been criticizing the American plans to enlarge NATO by

including the countries bordering Russia. It demanded that Ukraine be
barred from ever joining the military alliance, and the West gave a
legally binding guarantee that NATO would not hold any military
activity in eastern Europe or Ukraine; however, the West never
responded.

However, the situation began getting out of control in early 2021, when
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged US President Joe
Biden to let Ukraine join NATO. This angered Russia, which started
sending troops near its Ukraine border for “training exercises”.

On February 21, 2022, Russia officially recognized the Donetsk

People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic as independent
states. Three days later, Putin announced a “special military operation”
in Ukraine with the following three stated objectives:

1. Demilitarise Ukraine: That would make it unable to join

NATO, ensuring Ukraine’s neutral status and thus stopping
NATO’s expansion into countries that were once within
Russia’s sphere of influence. His declared aim was to protect
people subjected to what he called eight years of bullying and
genocide by Ukraine’s government.
2. De-Nazify Ukraine: Russia has for years complained about
political ultra-nationalism in Ukraine. In fact, the Azov
regiment, a volunteer militia merged into the National Guard,
still wears the medieval Wolfsangel insignia made infamous
by Nazi German SS units. Russia’s complaint is tied to a
history of Ukrainian nationalists collaborating with Germany
in World War II to break free of the Soviet Union and create
an independent state
3. Stopping the Genocide of Ethnic Russians in
Ukraine: His declared aim was to protect people subjected to
what he called eight years of bullying and genocide by
Ukraine’s government. Putin and his allies accused Ukraine’s
government of “genocide” against ethnic Russians and native
Russian speakers in the Donbas.

Strategic Objectives
In international relations, what a nation-state publicly announces is
sometimes diametrically opposed to what it wants to do tacitly. This is
the case in this conflict; there were more strategic objectives for Russia
in its invasion of Ukraine than those stated above. Some of these are

1. Historical Baggage

Both countries trace their beginnings to the same medieval kingdom,

called Kyivan Rus, founded in the 800s by a group of Vikings, the
Slavs, who are the ancestors of today’s Russians and Ukrainians. As the
Russian Empire started in Kyiv, Russians still considered Ukraine to be
part of it. They cannot afford to see their historical soulmate become
friendly with their rivals.(Same as India’s strategic thinking about
Pakistan!)

In imperial Russia, some saw Ukrainians as brothers to the Russians,

but Ukrainians considered themselves different. When the Soviet
Union came into existence in the 1920s, the majority of Ukrainians
didn’t want to join the new Soviet empire. However, the Soviets
defeated their movement and created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic instead. Now Russians claim that Ukrainians and Russians
are one people as brother nations with Russia as the” older brother”, it
should get to be in charge. Almost everybody in Ukraine understands
and can speak Russian. Ethnic Russians are the largest minority group
there, making up 17% of the population

2. Securing Russia’s Soft Belly

Ukraine is the soft belly of Russia, just as Afghanistan was the soft belly
of its predecessor, the USSR. And no global power can afford to poke at
its soft belly. If the USA has its Monroe Doctrine to ensure its
territorial integrity by not allowing any foreign power to meddle in
Latin America, Russia has its own version known as safeguarding its
“near abroad”. It includes the neighbouring republics, including
Ukraine, that formed the Soviet Union and which they consider vital to
their security.

The West promised back in 1990 that NATO would not expand an inch
to the East but did so anyway. Russia demanded that NATO turn the
clock back to 1997 and reverse its eastward expansion, removing its
forces and military infrastructure from member states that joined the
alliance in 1997 and not deploying “strike weapons near Russia’s
borders”. That means Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Baltics.
By subduing Ukraine, Russia intends to achieve its aim of creating a
buffer state between the EU and Russia.

After seizing the two big eastern regions and creating a land corridor
along the south coast, east from Crimea to the Russian border, and
seizing territory further west along the Black Sea coast towards Odesa
and beyond to Transnistria, a breakaway area of Moldova, where
Russia has some 1,500 troops, Russia has effectively created a land-
locked neutral Ukraine.

3. Economic Interests
Ultimately, every war has been fought to gain access to resources or
deny its access to rivals. Ukraine is rich in mineral wealth and
agricultural commodities. Russia does not need these resources but
would never allow this hen to lay golden eggs in others’ courtyards.
Ukraine is also one of the biggest markets for Russian products and
also a source of its supplies. It is too integrated with the Russian
economy. Going to the EU means losing this huge market and also
letting its rival use Ukrainian resources.

That’s why, apart from ideological and political considerations, Putin

had desperately sought Ukraine’s membership in a Moscow-dominated
free-trade bloc, namely The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC).
Launched in 2000, it united several ex-Soviet republics. With a
population of 43 million and a powerful agricultural and industrial
output, Ukraine was supposed to be the most essential part of the
EAEC after Russia, but Kyiv refused to join.

Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has rightly pointed out

that to create a self-sufficient market, one needs a population of about
250 million. With a dwindling population, Russia is desperate to add
as much population as possible to this free trade bloc, which will be
virtually a Russian lake.

4. Imperial Ambitions

Although Russia is slowly and surely losing its status as a superpower,

its ambitions to act like that will take time to die down (Think UK and
France!). Its interventions in Syria, Yemen, etc. are indications of its
global ambitions

If the USSR was the inheritor of the old Russian Empire, Russia is that
of the USSR. It takes centuries to forget history. Most of the
policymakers are veterans of the USSR who are still living in that
nostalgic era. Putin expressed this desire when he described the fall of
the Soviet Union as the “disintegration of historical Russia”. He wants
to reverse that; Ukraine is the first step. He has claimed Russians and
Ukrainians are one people, denying Ukraine its long history and seeing
today’s independent state merely as an “anti-Russia project”.

As stated above, that is one of the reasons that Russia is so desperate to

include Ukraine (and Uzbekistan) in a Moscow-dominated free-trade
bloc, namely The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC). Uniting
several ex-Soviet republics, it was widely seen as a first step to
reincarnating the USSR.

5. Domestic Politics

Who doesn’t want to leave his or her footprints in history? And

dictators are known to harbour this desire. Putin is a dictator vying for
his fourth term in office and leaving a lasting legacy as the second after
Peter the Great to have restored Russia’s preeminence in global
politics. A comprehensive victory in Ukraine would ensure both.
Standard strategies of dictators all over the world throughout history.
When in doubt, invade. Putin needs a victory to present to his
constituency at home. Before he launched his Ukraine offensive,
Putin’s approval ratings were going down as Russians were decrying
the economic hardships brought on by the pandemic. He remembers
his stratospheric ratings of almost 90 per cent after Crimea’s
annexation; the Ukraine offensive has boosted those ratings to almost
the same heights.

6. Creating Disunity in Europe

Putin’s main battle is not in Ukraine but in the EU heartland. With the
pro-Putin far-right gaining power all over Europe, from Spain and
Portugal right down to the streets of Eastern Europe, the political
stability of the EU is under paramount threat. The “Pro-Western”
government in Bulgaria collapsed, and the Five-Star movement in Italy
was completely defeated. During Biden’s visit to Israel, the sitting
government collapsed, which was put in power hardly a few months
ago. Sweden, where the sitting Social-Democrat PM resigned, and for
the first time in Swedish history, the far-right is the second-largest
party in Parliament, having considerable control over whoever forms
government.

With Economic fractures, collapsing industries, and disrupted

communal harmony, Europe’s progress could spiral backwards by two
decades, and all this without even attacking the EU militarily?!
In this article, I am going to explain how Russia’s Ukraine adventure
has affected global politics and the international economy in multiple
ways. Some of these are

1. Global Geopolitical Realignments

Although the world sleepwalked into the Cold War after the publication
of the Neo-con Agenda and the announcement of the Pivot towards
Asia strategy in the 2010s, the Ukraine war became the catalyst for this
emerging world order consisting of three different groups of nations:
those who sided with Russia and its allies, those who pledged support
to Ukraine and its backers, and a group of non-aligned nations
resisting involvement and/or hedging their bets.

Ironically, it led to unifying the US and the EU through the expansion

of NATO, which strengthened NATO’s deterrence posture and
increased its forward presence in Eastern Europe. It leapfrogged into
Russia’s declared security zone with larger exercises, more readiness,
and reinforcement strategies. Finland and Sweden, two countries that
had previously shunned NATO membership to avoid antagonizing
Russia, decided to join the alliance in a historic shift.

At the same time, it accelerated the emergence of the third block of

non-aligned countries when only five countries opposed the UN
censure of Russia with fifty-one. The world is now firmly in Cold War
mode reminiscent of the 1970s and 80s
2. Global Food Shortages

With Russia and Ukraine together accounting for one-third of the

global wheat trade, 17 per cent of the global maize trade, and almost 75
per cent of the global sunflower oil trade, the conflict has caused
disruptions in their supply chains and raised prices for these
commodities in both developed and developing countries. It is
estimated that around one million pieces of agricultural machinery
have been totally or partially damaged, four million tons of grains and
oilseeds have been destroyed or stolen, and storage for more than one
million tons of agricultural products has been damaged or destroyed.

Although the implementation of the Black Sea Grain Initiative

brokered by the UNO in August 2022 enabled Ukraine to export over
22 million tons of foodgrains through its Black Sea ports, these account
for only half of Ukraine’s pre-war maritime agricultural exports.
Similarly, the exemption of Western sanctions on Russia’s food and
fertilizer exports has not eased the situation because of higher prices of
natural gas, an important feedstock for nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Coupled with the dwindling global foodgrain stocks and stagnant yields
in several foodgrain exporting countries, these supply disruptions have
severely affected the global food security situation Today, WFP reports
that a record 349 million people across 79 countries face acute food
insecurity. This all-time high represents an increase of 200 million
people compared to pre-Covid-19.
3. Global Fuel Crisis

To punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, heavy economic and

financial sanctions were imposed on Russia by the USA and its allies,
not only to isolate its economy but to cripple it financially by freezing
its assets in Western banks. These measures did not prove too
effective, but rather resulted in Russia and Iran benefiting enormously
due to increased demand and prices for their exported hydrocarbon
resources, improving their current accounts and financial stability. At
the same time, there were some other unintended consequences.

Firstly, Russia retaliated by cutting its gas supplies to Europe, resulting

in skyrocketing fuel prices, which predictably led to public resentment
in many European countries against their governments and the USA.
Consequently, many European countries witnessed the acceleration of
far-right populism, which had already taken firm roots due to
increased immigration from those countries suffering from conflicts,
crises, and regional wars.

Secondly, fearing long-term fuel supply disruptions due to the Ukraine

war, rich countries started massive buying and stockpiling of these
commodities. It further increased their prices, resulting in
consequential budgetary crises in vulnerable countries.

Thirdly, patterns of international trade started shifting in accordance

with the shift in global geopolitical realignments. The most
fundamental change has been Europe’s shift away from reliance on
Russian gas. Europe has now started buying oil from the USA,
cementing American clout in Europe even further while
correspondingly reducing Russian influence.

With trust broken, Europe will never return to meaningful dependency

on Russian fossil fuels, even after these crises are over. As a result,
Russia started looking further and has concluded long-term contracts
with India and China. At the same time, those African countries
blessed with hydrocarbon resources have seen increased European
interest in their affairs.

Fourthly, the quest for renewable energy has got a quantum boost as
more resources are being diverted to tap alternatives to fossil fuels for
fuel security. Before the Ukraine War started, the EU had pledged to
reduce emissions by 40 per cent and attain 32 per cent energy. The war
has seen those targets raised to 57 per cent and 45 per cent
respectively, leading to an almost fully decarbonized power sector
across the EU by 2030/35 with unparalleled expansion in the capacity
of offshore wind, solar, and other sources. It would also see a marked
change in the geopolitical importance of the Middle East.

4. Global Economic Recession

Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the USA and Europe
were still amid a weak post-pandemic recovery and experiencing
inflationary pressure due to problems with global supply chains
brought about by the pandemic. However, this painful surge in
inflation was further fuelled by the war’s effect on food and energy
prices. It resulted in interest rate hikes, which tipped several European
economies into recession. While the UK was already facing
recessionary pressure due to Brexit, Japan has been in stagnation for
the last two decades. Consequently, the world is slowly but surely
inching toward a recession. African and Middle Eastern countries have
suffered, especially as they import massive quantities of food, as have
poor countries worldwide with little financial leeway.

5. New Military Technology/Warfare Doctrines

The development and deployment of new military technology is one of

the spin-offs in almost every war, but the Ukraine War has
transformed warfare in multiple ways. Besides the use of hypersonic
missiles, several other new and highly disruptive technologies, such as
artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, big data, quantum
technology, biotechnology, and novel materials, are being tested in
Ukraine.

Similarly, drones, which have been used in many war theatres during
the last few years, have seen innovative uses. Using decentralized
networks on the internet, Ukrainian techies have repurposed cheap
consumer drones to put grenades on them and combat Russia’s Orlan
surveillance drones. Maritime and aerial drones have been dispatched
to attack Russian vessels in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol, which
some military observers have dubbed “a glimpse into the future of
naval warfare”.
6. Beginning of Russian Balkanization

It is an overstatement to say that the Afghanistan fiasco heralded the

end of the former USSR, but its Ukraine adventure does have ominous
implications for the survival of Russia in its present form. Its
predecessor, the Soviet Union, had more than 100 distinct nationalities
and nations under its fold (sack of potatoes-Churchill), the majority of
them aspiring for independent nation-states of their own.

Russia is also beset with this problem; it contains around 50 of those

nationalities, several of whom are living in areas closer to foreign
countries than Moscow. If history is any guide, the weakening of the
central power in Moscow has always unleashed serious centrifugal
forces around the country. In the case of persistent disruptions and
bottlenecks in transportation, it’ll make much sense for them to declare
independence with the help of foreign powers.

In fact, the USA and its allies will leave no stone unturned to help them
in this respect. They do not consider Russia a superpower or a threat to
their security but believe that Russia has become too big for its shoes,
challenging the USA and its allies everywhere. They are perturbed over
their Middle East and Afghanistan fiascos and rightly blame Russia for
their defeats in these two war theatres. To them, Russia, because of its
dwindling population but huge territory, is no longer a viable state that
needs to break into pieces.