The so-called ‘Islamic State’ (IS

Apart from the very title, this amorphous formation cannot be called ‘a state’ by any means, all the more so that these jihadists, according to their own statements, do not admit the concept of state boundaries and in general prefer to do without any institutions inherent to even the smallest states.

As is known, this movement started since the invasion of American troops in Iraq in 2003. The core of the group was the former ‘belief fighters’ – Mudjahidin group, actively participating in the Afghan War in early 1980s.

The experts on ‘Islamic realia’ believe that these groups were formed by the al-Qaeda local militants. However, the new jihadists abandoned their central al-Qaeda ideology and concentrated on the tasks of fighting against the USA and Israel. ISIS started a religious war between Sunni and Shiah since that time, “adding fuel to the flames” of the contradictions between these two trends of Islam.

A number of regional experts noted that they became involved in this conflict so much that started ethnic cleansing of their Sunni ranks very severely, destroying the ‘traitors and enemies’. It’s curious to note that similar actions led to the ‘self-destroying’ of ISIS jihadists, especially in the period of 2007-2008, making their numbers decrease to less than a gang of followers in an Iraqi desert.

Upon initiating different publications on their ‘activities’, the ISIS jihadists often cheek it in order to attract more soldiers of fortune (both Arab and Western) into their own lot and try to gain control over the region on the border of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. For instance, an article by Josh Siegel dated October 28, 2014, published in the American journal ‘The Daily Signal’ says that the terrorist group ISIS recently published a propaganda video depicting a British hostage as a Western news correspondent who allegedly confirms that the long suffering city of Kobani, on the Syria-Turkey border, “will be jihadist any moment.” Dressed in all black (so that even his face is not seen), the journalist Cantlie in the above-mentioned video material ascertains that “Kobani fight is ending in favour of ISIS.” Talking about this ISIS material, ‘The Daily Signal’ points out that the journalist Cantlie was captured by the terrorists as far as November 2012 and could not confirm all this in October 2014.

International and local observers draw our attention to the exceptional cruelty with which these newly emerged ‘fighters for religion purity’ deal with their opponents and also act in relation to women and children. As CNN correspondents (Odai Sadik, Steve Always) informed on November 4, 2014, “ISIS militants’ killed more than 300 members of Sunni population in the region in late October this year. More than 322 people were shot by them during this period, the majority of them being women and children.”

In this respect, the Pentagon representative vice-admiral John Kirby announced that Washington does not have a 100% proof for this data but as he put it: “We have no reason to doubt their authenticity.”

The USA, supported by a number of allied countries including Arab ones, started airstrikes on ISIS positions in Syria on September 23, without permission of the Syrian authorities, which contradicts the international law, and Russia, in the person of the Foreign Affairs minister Sergey Lavrov, pointed to that. As Kazakhstan RIA Novosti informed on November 4 this year, quoting Pentagon, “costs on anti-terror campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq exceeded 700 thousand dollars a day.”

As a result of NATO airstrikes and increasing attacks against the militants, ISIS wants to replenish its numbers and expand the scale of activities by involving extremist groups from Europe and Central Asia in order to reach the ‘common goals’ together. Taking into account the public discontent with the policy of the governments in a number of central Asian republics and various countries of the West, as well as the growing geopolitical standoff, the growth of radical Islamic ideas such as creation of a caliphate constitutes serious risks.

For instance, according to different estimates, more than two thousand young people (both men and women) from Central Asia countries are already standing under the black ISIS flags by now.

The EU commission estimated that more than two thousand radicals, who have their origins in Europe, are fighting in Iraq and Syria. However, many experts believe these figures to be heavily underestimated. Thus, according to the data of Peter Neumann, Professor of International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence at King’s College, London, approximately 12 thousand militants are fighting in Iraq and Syria on the ISIS side, representing 74 countries, including about 1.5 thousand militants of British origin only. As ‘The Daily Telegraph’ put it recently: “British Islamists went to fight abroad before, including to Chechnya, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Libya. However the civil war in Syria, which affected Iraq as well, attracted more foreign jihadists than any other military conflict. And Britain supplies the most of Western recruits.”

According to the information made public by France, the Islamists have already recruited about 900 French citizens, who either already have arrived in the conflict zone in Iraq and Syria or are about to. As the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution informed, more than 400 Islamists, who are German nationals, have left for Syria since 2011. According to German law enforcement agencies, about 100 radicals returned to the Federal Republic of Germany and a quarter of them gained some combat experience and now represent ‘the fatal danger’.

According to many Western experts’ opinions, there is a great danger that jihadists coming back to their countries will spread the Islamic State’s ideology and take an active part in establishing a caliphate as the majority of foreign jihadists fighting on the Islamists’ side in Syria and Iraq have already cherished a hatred against the West.

Under such circumstances, the fight against the ‘Islamic State’ should be at the broadest international level, however strictly observing the United Nations Charter and not solely limiting to Washington’s desire to create a coalition of loyal allies and solve its own geopolitical tasks in these territories.

Valery Maleyev, expert orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

This August shots were heard again on the Indian-Pakistan border. This alarming news was brought from South Asia by news agencies. According to the Indian military officers, five Indian soldiers were killed by Pakistanis earlier this month during a patrol in the Poonch sector on the Line of Control in Kashmir. It is also reported that a Pakistani civilian was recently killed in the same region. On August 20, the Armies of India and Pakistan exchanged shots of heavy artillery in the north of Srinagar – the summer capital of Indian Cashmere. These incidents occurred against the background of the ongoing negotiations between the parties on the termination of military conflicts and the attempts to resolve the conflict, which has lasted for nearly 60 years. We should recall that the confrontation between the two sides, which is decades long, still has not found a peaceful solution. Constant clashes on Indian-Pakistan border have caused some devastating wars between the two countries.

According to international observers, the Indian side welcomed the appointment of Nawaz Sharif as the head of the Pakistani government. This politician has several times led the government of his country. It was during his stay in power when serious steps to normalize Pakistani-Indian relations were taken.

According to some sources, since the beginning of 2013, there were more than 30 confrontations at the line of control in Kashmir, which could have grown into full-scale military conflicts. According to the estimates of the Indian side, the cease-fire agreement in Kashmir has been violated by Pakistan 57 times. This, according to their estimates, is 80% higher than the number of such clashes that occurred in the previous year.

It is difficult to talk about further improvement of bilateral relations, given the border conflicts during the period under consideration. Moreover, as it became known from Indian sources, on August 3 of this year, Pakistani agents made an attempt to blow up the consulate general of India in Afghanistan. The explosion was organized by the terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Tayyiba – LET, based in Pakistan. The Indians say that the number of penetrations of this and other terrorist groups to the territory of Kashmir, patrolled by India, has significantly increased this year.

Observers share this opinion that the Pakistani military establishment is deliberately exacerbating the Indo-Pakistani conflict to show the new government of this country “who is the boss”. It is assumed that the Pakistani army, thus, wants to warn the government of N. Sharif not to go “too far” in trying to improve bilateral relations, as had been the case during the period when N. Sharif was at the helm of the country.

It is worth noting that the previous negotiations round was interrupted, when a decapitated Indian soldier was found in this region. According to the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of India R.P.N. Singh: “If Pakistan wants to improve relations with India, it cannot act like this.”

In their turn, the Pakistani military said, as they usually do, that supposedly “there has been no shooting on the Indian-Pakistan border recently.”

Our readers do not need to be reminded how much effort Russia and the entire world community made “to bring to peaceful terms” these countries. Let us not forget that both countries have nuclear weapons and are not bound by any international obligations not to use them. It is also known that some rich Arab countries are trying to “persuade” the Pakistani leadership “to share the secrets of their manufacturing” in order to ensure the balance of forces in the region.

Shortly before the current border incidents, N. Sharif, after his return to active political life as the head of the government, displayed genuine interest in improving bilateral trade, as well in humanitarian projects (people-to-people ties). Recently, he has publicly stated that he will take concrete steps to provide India the status of “the most favoured nation”, in order to strengthen economic ties between Islamabad and New Delhi.

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh still has a reserved attitude towards Pakistan. His government treated contacts with Pakistan rather coldly, especially after the attack on tourists in Bombay, carried out by the forces of Pakistani terrorist groups (including LET), which took the lives of more than 170 people. However, in view of the impending elections in India (to be held in nine months), he has to balance between the supporters and opponents of improving India-Pakistan relations. Singh expressed his opinion regarding the negotiations with Pakistan on August 14, on the occasion of Independence Day of India, where he said “with regard to the interaction with Pakistan and improvement of our relationship with it, I would like to call on our neighbours not to provide their territory for any kind of anti-Indian actions.”

In conclusion, we can note the following. As it is known, Russia has always and everywhere opted for the peaceful resolution of any conflicts, as far as it is possible. However, it seems that recently, we have weakened this peacemaking process for a variety of reasons, although, we keep talking to our Pakistani and Indian counterparts about the inevitability of an amicable solution of disputes. This has also been proven by the recent mutual visits of the leaders of the three countries.

In this context, a reasonable question appears: Why don’t we go back to the good practice, pursued by Moscow, which implied the organization of Indian-Pakistan talks in our country (Tashkent 1966 – Pakistani President Ayub Khan and Indian Prime Minister L.B. Shastri with the participation of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, A. Kosygin)? At that time, we managed to avert a military confrontation between these states. Maybe now it will be something like “Yekaterinburg-1”. Especially as this city is the right place, considering that it is situated on the border of Asia and Europe.

Valery Maleyev, expert orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

White House spokesman Jay Carney announced a week ago that taking into account the chemical weapons factor, the United States “almost has no choice but to use missiles against Syrian forces on a limited scale.”

Syria’s neighbours have already started preparing for the worst case scenario – potential air strikes by the United States and their accomplices, and this severe threat is hanging over an already nervous Middle East. As CNN reported, correspondents from different information agencies and, above all, Western agencies, have examined the possible reaction of the bordering states to the military attack on Syria.

For example, in Lebanon, the capital of which is less than 70 miles from Damascus, there is growing concern that the Lebanese population could suffer from the military strikes. Many people in that country believe that the U.S. actions are destabilizing Lebanon itself and, excepting Syria, Lebanon will suffer most of all.

As reported by CNN, Talal Arsian, leader of the Lebanese Democratic Party, which supports Assad, announced that the accusation of the use of chemical weapons by the regime in Damascus “only confirms previous dishonesty of the Americans, who invaded Iraq under false pretences. Today, nobody will buy this slander.”

Lebanese parliament member Walid Jumblatt – a steadfast ally of the Syrian rebels – told CNN that “military action of Americans will not be fatal to the Syrian regime while there is a lack of international support for these actions.”

Another anti-Assad Lebanese member of parliament, Ahmad Fatlat, said that the “response to these events by the Hezbollah organization, which backs the government forces and is abetted by Damascus and Tehran, should cause the most concern.”

Thousands of frightened Israelis have rushed to gas mask distribution centres, fearing that military strikes on Damascus “could provoke the Syrian government to use chemical weapons, which would harm the civilian population of Israel.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has officially declared that “the country is ready to follow through with any scenario and respond by force if Israel is attacked by Syria.”

In Amman (Jordan), located an hour’s drive from the Syrian border, there are fears that involvement in the civil war “could lead to attacks on Jordanian territory.” It is known that the King of Jordan and many of his compatriots are in favour of Assad’s overthrow, as their sympathies lie with the Syrian opposition seeking to topple the Alawite regime. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia, an outspoken opponent of Assad, uses Jordanian territory for the transfer of weapons to Syrian rebels.

Iraq, which saw the arrival of 30,000 Syrian refugees at the end of August this year, is alarmed by the possible U.S. military intervention. The government opposes the military action organized by Washington. Iraqi leaders are convinced that the “Islamist Sunnis who oppose Assad have an ultimate goal of seeing the overthrow of the Shiite government in Baghdad.” Regional observers reported Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as saying the following: “What is happening in Syria is a great threat to Iraq and the region. I call on all people, especially politicians, to unite against the growing threat from the West, to overcome the religious differences between Sunnis and Shiites and preserve national unity and sovereignty.”

Egypt, concerned about its own complicated problems, has decided to act in support of Syria if the West decides to overthrow the Assad government. It is interesting to note that this is the position of both the supporters of the ousted president M. Morsi, and the new rulers of this country. In particular, representatives of the Tamarod movement indicated that in the case of Western military intervention in Syrian affairs, they will not remain indifferent. One of the leaders of the Tamarod, Mahmoud Badr, told the CNN’s American correspondent: “For us Arabs, the United States is an imperialist government that destroyed Iraq and wants to do the same with Syria and intervene in the affairs of Egypt.”

According to Egypt’s state-owned news agency, a representative of the Egyptian government “demanded the closure of the Suez Canal if attempts are made by the United States and its allies to move through the channel in the direction of Syria.”

Yemeni authorities also do not support a military solution to the Syrian problem. One of the leaders of Yemen’s Haq party, Ahmed Bahri, told regional news agencies that foreign intervention in Syria would only destabilize Yemen and other Arab states. “Arabs no longer believe the United States, but some Arab leaders are acting against the will of their people.” A young Yemeni activist Nasser al-Absi told a Western journalist: “The U.S. military operation against Syria will lead to another generation of terrorists in the region.”

Local newspapers published an interview with a Yemeni politician who wished to remain anonymous. He specifically said that the Arabs should solve their own problems. “The United States is interfering in the affairs of other countries in order to solve its own problems – it should not carry out a military attack on Syria. Photographs of killed children, published by the Western media, evoke terror, but no missiles will save them now … almost all Arabs are “sick and tired” of Americans, Obama with his current actions has shown that he is not worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.”

The Arab League has taken a half-hearted and ambiguous position on the issue, as on the one hand, as mentioned above, among its ranks not everyone wants a military resolution to the situation in Syria. And on the other hand Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s financial bribery is working hard to persuade individual members of the organization to support Washington’s aggression.

The recent announcement on Syria by Russian President Vladimir Putin against U.S. attempts to use missiles against the country shows Russia’s determination to prevent a potential disaster in the Middle East. But the U.S. and its accomplices in the region are visibly becoming hasteful – Israel, under the pretext of military exercises, has begun to fire missiles in the direction of Syria.

Judging by the mood in the U.S. Congress, it may approve the decision to attack Syria at its meeting on Sept. 9, though formally officials of the Obama administration say that they “can strike at Damascus right now.” But in that case, the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg will not take place, and this may mean that the “Cold War” will once again be knocking on the door and it may destabilize the situation in the world, which the majority of the countries of the world are against.

But the more we hear from the White House about the possible threat of military aggression, the wider the growing wave of anti-Americanism. And not only in the Arab region, but from far beyond!

Valery Maleyev is an expert orientalist. Exclusively for the New Eastern Outlook online magazine

 For an objective perception of complete picture of this phenomenon it is necessary to recall some recent developments.

 World public opinion, getting the events in and around Afghanistan, with hope received message from Kabul that on 18 June there took place a ceremony for the handover of responsibility for security from international troops of the NATO-Afghan authorities. It was attended by President Hamid Karzai and NATO Secretary General A.F. Rassmusen. As stated by the latter, “the NATO forces would not now plan, conduct and command of the security operations, while continue to provide support to the Afghan troops.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on this occasion that the Americans and their allies unnecessarily boost the process of transferring responsibility to the Afghans, not looking at the specific situation in which this transfer occurs. And a confirmation of these fears happened just a week later.

On June,25 news agencies reported that Afghan police repelled a Taliban attack that day at the Presidential Palace and at the Defence Ministry in Kabul. All the militants, according to the press, were destroyed.

But the Americans would not be Americans, if not timed one event to another. In parallel with the accelerated transfer of responsibility for providing security to the Afghans in the country, the Obama administration had planned to begin talks with the Taliban in Qatar, where it was scheduled to open a representative office of the radical movement, leading a war against the United States as well as the Afghan army.

The representative of the American administration for Afghanistan and Pakistan, James Dobbins “moved up” during this period in Doha. He arrived for a meeting with the leadership of the “Taliban”, and, as it turned out, to participate in the “festive” opening of the Taliban Office in Qatar. The leaders of this Organization felt so free in Doha and demonstrated their confidence in apparent support of the Americans, that they had opened the Office on June 16 under the name “the political Bureau of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” and boldly raised the flag of the radical Islamists.

 It is worth to to notice, that just a few days after that, i.e. on June,22 the US Secretary of State John appeared in Doha, where he spoke at a meeting of the “friends of Syria”, where it was decided to support the Syrian opposition, including with arms.

 As we can see, the Qatari authorities “specialize” in hounding Washington on the organization of the motley opposition meetings – whether Syrian or Afghan.

Official Kabul strongly condemned the opening of the “Taliban” office with a fanfare. Raising the flag of Islamists over this “Office” considered violating the principles of the peace negotiations established by Karzai’s Government and Washington. These points, in particular, were singled out by the Permanent Representative of Afghanistan to the United Nations, Zahir Tanin at the meeting of the Security Council on the settlement of the conflict in that country. The diplomat described the opening of the representative office of the “Taliban” in the Qatari capital as “theatrical” and stated that “it is contrary to the fundamental principles that were evolved before by the United States and Afghanistan.” And the President Karzai after the news on the opening of a Taliban Office, stated exasperately that he “interrupts peace talks with Taliban and cancels discussion with United States on security issues.”

The official Afghan authorities rightly perceived recent flirtations of the Americans with the Taliban, including opening of their offices in Doha, as an effort to destabilize Afghanistan, intending to “impose an alternative Government of the Taliban”, that Kabul would never allow.

 Speaking in Berlin at a press conference, President Obama acknowledged that the restoration of peace in Afghanistan will not be easy, “but we think that … Afghans must agree with Afghans how to break the cycle of violence and start up the country together”. There’s no denyingm that these are the good words. But why did then the United States encourage Taliban, up to “share power” with the current Government, and thus provoke divisions within this country?

As the Afghan President Karzai noted, “we see a great contradiction between the actions and the declarations of the United States about peace negotiations.” According to him, the Taliban are supporters of the continuing hostilities in the country. But behind the provocation with the opening of the Office of “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” in Doha, there is not only the United States, but also Pakistan.

 Reportedly, during separate talks between the United States and the Taliban there is a simple “haggling”. The Taliban reportedly promise to the Americans that they will not attack the remaining American bases in Afghanistan after 2014.

Who are the Taliban? The head of their Office in Doha is Tayyab Aga -“right hand” of the ideological Taliban leader Mohammed Omar, also known as Mullah Omar. It is notable that Washington promised a reward of 10 million dollars for the information which could assist in the capture of Mullah Omar. Among other radical oppositionists there are Haqqani Faction, a group of Pakistani Mehsud Faction and permanent Hekmatyar. It is believed that these extremist groups, like the Haqqani group, would continue to fight even if Mullah Omar reached peace with Kabul.

Russia continues to advocate for a leading role of Kabul in resolving the national crisis. “Dialogue with the armed opposition can have a positive effect only under the leadership of Kabul,” said the Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation Alexander Panin at the UN on the above-mentioned meeting of the UN Security Council.

So, almost two years of negotiations of the American administration with H. Karzai and the Taliban for understanding concluded with yet another scandal. You might ask: “who rules the roost? The Americans or the Taliban? The latter, as we have seen, beat the United States, who seem to not fully understand that it is needed to be consistent and take into account the interests of all parties, including Russia. Why not to involve Russia at some stage to solve the “Afghan knot”? We have both good feelings and experience, including a sad one.

Stability in Afghanistan and in the region meets in general the political and economic interests of both regional and global powers. So far it is troubled in this part of the Earth, it is impossible to consider any serious economic project – whether laying oil and gas pipelines, railways, building branches of hydraulic structures and etc. The relevance of these plans is long overdue, including intensification of the struggle against drug trafficking.

As for Qatar, his desire to “cherish in bosom” all kinds of radicals and extremists, even at the suggestion of Washington, is a very risky business. The rulers of this country should think more seriously about the consequences of provocations on the territory of Qatar whether against neighbors, Syria or Russia. One day gonna have to bear responsibility!

Valeriy Maleev, orientalist, exclusively for the Internet magazine “New Eastern Outlook»

International experts monitored the visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry to India at the end of June this year with great interest, considering that it can set the tone of cooperation between the two countries in the coming years, especially in key areas where the interests of India and the United States intersect. First of all it is about security issues associated with the dramatic rise of China’s power, and stabilization of the situation in Afghanistan, especially after 2014. Some economic aspects were also reflected in the course of this visit.

 Some American observers believe that in the long term, the United States should seek common ground with the South Asian giant, endorsing its role in Asia.

 A Chinese expert on United States Jonhong Shi from the Renmin University of China in Beijing said in an interview of China Central television, that the visit of the high-ranking American in India was an attempt to “courtship to Delhi aimed at constraining Beijing”. But, according to Shi Jonhonga, “India has independent foreign policy and its expectations from the relationship with the United States may not coincide with those of Washington.” For example, Indians, in his view, are dissatisfied with the traditional ties of Americans with Pakistan. Especially in New Delhi attention was drew to the United States attempts through the Pentagon to negotiate with the Taliban about interactions after United States troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014. A Chinese scientist has suggested that Kerry’s interest to India, as a representative of the American administration, is dictated by the China factor, though a few weeks before the trip to India, Secretary of State called for a “special relationship” with China.

 Notably, that the voyage of a senior American diplomat was the first voyage of this level since the Chinese invasion in the Indian territory in the disputed area of Ladakh in this mid-April. Chinese troops penetrated into 6 miles to Indian territory and pitched tents there for three weeks. The incident angered the Indian public, who voted to cancel the visit of the Indian Foreign Minister to China, which, however, took place after the withdrawal of Chinese troops. The first foreign trip of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in India occurred on19 May.

 Aware that both countries have been negotiating for over 15 years, but hopes for early resolution are very low. Thus, China claims 35 thousand square miles of territory of Arunachal Pradesh, India in turn considers 15 thousand square miles of territory in Aksai Chin plateau in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to be the art of India.

 In these circumstances, some specialists, in Russia in particular, come to the conclusion that India, in the view of the strengthening of the role of China in the region may have to speed up the process of purchasing weapons abroad. The Russian side seems ready to recover, as it was in the recent past, and to expand MTC with this country. But the United States are also interested with this aspect. At the beginning of this year, Indian Ambassador in the United States Nirupama Rao has acknowledged that the military modernization of China is making new developments in regional security. And the visit of Kerry obviously will help to build a new u.s.-Indian strategic dialogue, according to an American expert from the Heritage Fondation Ll. Curtis, “the opportunity to discuss the new arrangement of forces in the region, boost cooperation between the two countries in the field of defence and security, to coordinate policy in these matters.”

 But not only Chinese subject was one of the last India-U.S. talks. In July this year, Indian Minister of Commerce and finance is to visit Washington, and Vice President J. Baden will arrive in New Delhi. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also plans to visit Washington in September this year. That’s why Kerry, as seen by observers, had a very important task to prepare the ground for the expansion of economic relations and discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan problem, to strengthen the influence in East Asia.

 Discussions on trade and economic issues, according to some U.S. observers, “failed”. According to Indian press, the Indians said to Kerry that significant improvement in this direction requires some changes in Indian law that is unlikely before the elections in may 2014.

 If we talk about Afghanistan and Pakistan, the main event is the withdrawal of Western and especially American troops from Afghanistan in 2014. The Indian party is concerned about Pakistan’s role and its influence on extremist and terrorist groups based in Afghanistan. New Delhi believes that the impact of Pakistan on Kabul and local Taliban group is encouraged by the Americans. Pakistan is worried about the growing influence of India in Afghanistan, primarily through economic and humanitarian projects.

 It is known from American sources about hopes of J. Kerry in New Delhi that India would support the Afghan economy and assist in to conduct normal elections in that country in 2014. It must be emphasized that during the rule of Obama, Americans have become more sympathetic to India’s role in Afghanistan, including security considerations. Apparently, the United States and India, as well as Russia, have common concerns to ensure a relatively peaceful and stable situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 International observers are convinced that the United States must maintain a balance between “work” with Pakistan, particularly on curbing extremist terrorist groups on its territory and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In addition, taking into account the preliminary bilateral consultations of experts the question of “the key role of India in East Asia and the Pacific”was discussed with “comfort”. But Indian officials have expressed concern about unnecessary attention to “ascending China” by Washington, even allegedly to the interests of India according to New Delhi.

 In conclusion it should be mentioned that during the visit both sides have expressed interest in building a system of interaction among the Asian States, with friendly relations prevailed, not confrontational, as it is now in some cases.

Valeriy Maleyev, orientalist, for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The World’s Fair, or Expo as it is also known, is not just one of the most prestigious international events, it also yields significant economic benefits from the influx of tourists and increased business interest in the region. Yekaterinburg is currently fighting for the right to host Expo 2020 as a matter of principle. It is a matter of principle because in the entire history of the world’s fair none has ever been held in Russia. But can Russia count on the support of its long-standing strategic partners during the vote for the right to host Expo 2020, and will Kyrgyzstan, in particular, vote for Yekaterinburg?

That question will be answered soon. The list of applicants includes five cities, among which Russia’s Yekaterinburg and Turkey’s Izmir are deserving of special mention. Hosting an Expo would be an honor for any city in the world. Indeed, it can be considered an indicator of a city’s credit worthiness, investment appeal and ability to organize an event of that magnitude. However, the opportunity to host Expo 2020 is a matter of principle for both Moscow and Ankara. Russia’s leaders have traditionally attempted to hold major international events outside the capital, in the regions, even though prior to holding them they are sometimes unable to boast of having a mature infrastructure, or they do not have enough of it. We do not need to look far in order to find an example of that: the 2014 Olympics in Sochi or the G20 summit to be held in St. Petersburg this coming September. It is no wonder that when President Vladimir Putin met with the International Exhibitions Bureau President Vicente Lossertales in March he said that if Yekaterinburg is chosen Russia will meet all of the Bureau’s requirements.

Turkey’s interest has less to do with the economic benefits it would derive from the fair (although they should not be ruled out) than with its unmet ambitions. On the one hand, Turkey is eager to get revenge for losing out on Expo 2010, which Shanghai won with a small margin of the vote. On the other hand, Turkey wants to show the European Union that it deserves a spot in the Eurozone.

In this principled confrontation, the position of each side in the voting is important, and to some extent it is behind Turkey’s recent showing of greater interest in Kyrgyzstan. Ankara believes that Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev may be an important factor in Izmira’s candidacy. He has long shown an interest in developing relations with Turkey, where he has personal business interests. Also, that is where his son received his education. In addition, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan visited Bishkek in April to secure a bilateral partnership. Together with his Kyrgyz colleagues, he signed several economic, air travel and tourism agreements. Erdoğan said that at present “the volume of trade between Kyrgyzstan and Turkey has reached $320 million, but it could grow to $1 billion in the near term.”

In Bishkek, Erdoğan certainly discussed informally what country Kyrgyzstan will support in the voting for Expo 2020, although Kyrgyzstan has not mentioned that in discussions with Russian officials.

As far as Russia’s relations with Kyrgyzstan are concerned, Moscow treats Bishkek as a long-term strategic partner. Trade between Russia and Kyrgyzstan currently amounts to $2 billion. In consideration of this bilateral cooperation, Moscow agreed to write off the Kyrgyzstan’s debt and signed an intergovernmental agreement to construct two hydroelectric power plants in that country. Completion of the Kambarata-1 hydropower plant will cost Russia at least $2 billion, and as a project that will pay for itself within 5 to 6 years it will bring Kyrgyzstan billions of dollars in profits that will strengthen the entire country’s economy.

Experts in both countries are currently working to draw up a road map that would permit Bishkek’s accession to the Customs Union, which is in its interest. In April, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev held talks in Russia with his Kyrgyz counterpart, Jantoro Satybaldiev, that were a logical continuation of Putin’s visit to Bishkek in September 2012. Medvedev supported Kyrgyzstan’s decision to join the Customs Union and, of course, the common economic space as well.

A solid delegation from Kyrgyzstan visited Yekaterinburg in late January for a series of high-level meetings. Kyrgyz Parliament Vice Speaker Asiya Sasykbaeva led the delegation. She promised the Russian side against a backdrop of speeches about friendly relations and partnership between the two countries that she would initiate a discussion in Kyrgyzstan about supporting Yekaterinburg in the voting for the right to host World Expo 2020. The final vote is scheduled to take place in Paris in late November 2013 at the 154th session of the General Assembly of the International Exhibitions Bureau. Ms. Sasykbaeva assured us that the issue would be discussed in parliament upon her return to Bishkek, following which the matter would be referred to Kyrgyzstan’s president. As far as we know, however, that did not happen.

Oddly enough, there was no reaction in Bishkek to a speech by Mikael Fyodorov, the Expo ambassador from Russia, who appealed to the country’s parliament at a meeting of the Committee on Education, Science and sports. His appeal was not heard by Kyrgyzstan’s leaders, who had recently given assurances that they were prepared to vote for Yekaterinburg. Instead, Bishkek has been looking increasingly sympathetic towards Turkey.

Russia is somewhat concerned that its Kyrgyz partners may again fail to keep their word, as happened earlier with their repeated assurances that they were prepared to close the US Manas base outside Bishkek and has happened on a number of other issues. It appears that Kyrgyzstan may ignore the interests of its faithful partner in pursuing political and economic dividends. If that happens, however, once again its actions will cause a crisis of confidence in relations between our countries to the detriment of the bilateral strategic partnership and long-term Russian investments in the Kyrgyz economy.

According to official data, tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Kyrgyz are currently working at jobs in the Urals region. If Russia’s application for Expo 2020 wins, it will doubtless give those workers jobs for the seven years it will take to complete infrastructure projects in preparation for this major international event. That will enable people from Kyrgyzstan working in the region to help their families back home financially.

Kyrgyzstan has officially given Russia’s Foreign Ministry repeated assurances that it will support Yekaterinburg’s candidacy at the session in Paris. Hopefully, it still intends to do so and we can expect a gesture of goodwill from our traditional strategic partner. Kyrgyzstan’s friends, and we count ourselves among them, hope that common sense will prevail and Russia will not be disappointed by the Kyrgyz government.

Valery Alexandrovich Maleyev is an expert Orientalist. Exclusively for New Eastern Outlook.

The Afghan people’s greatest fear is that after foreign forces withdraw the country will again be plunged into civil war.

Some analysts are convinced that the Americans are using the Taliban to further their interest in maintaining a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan. The Americans are clearly uninterested in a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, and they are attempting to take advantage of the danger that the situation will become worse after 2014 in order to extract a favorable status for US forces. In particular, Washington intends using its military contingent afterwards to project its military power into the region, especially against China, Iran, India and Russia, and it also intends employing it to secure advantages for itself in the exploitation of Afghanistan’s rich natural resources.

It also well known that the Taliban, especially the radicals among them, are already making plans to take power after the troops withdraw, as they did in the recent past. According to Pentagon data, rebel groups of the Afghan opposition are still attacking both troops of the Western allies and, especially, the Americans, and government units. The Americans believe that they are the main threat to the country’s security. Analysts see similarities to the situation prior to the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989.

The local populace has pleasant memories of their role despite the austerities and difficulties that everyone had to overcome during that period. Afghans also celebrate the progress that was made under the Taliban, especially in the field of human rights, quality of education, etc. Thousands of Afghan women attended school for the first time during that period. That is generally recognized as a significant breakthrough in protection of women’s rights in Afghanistan. The country’s current rulers continued that process after the ouster of the Taliban.

It is currently difficult to predict where events will lead the country after 2014. After all, the foreign soldiers who are currently providing relative stability will not be the only ones to depart. Presidential elections are scheduled to take place in April 2014, and Karzai will leave his post as provided by the Afghan constitution, which, on the whole, is still followed. Not only will the troops be withdrawn, things will change politically; Afghanistan will get a new leader. The well-known Afghan journalist Saad Mohseni recently said in a meeting with reporters that political changes in the power structure, i.e., the arrival of new leaders, are paramount for Afghans. He and other knowledgeable Afghans with close ties to the government are convinced that there should be no political upheavals in the country over the next 5-6 years.

However, both the Afghans and Afghanistan’s friends, including Russia, still have concerns. Will it be possible after 2014 to keep things peaceful and tranquil in this society that has been torn by ethnic conflicts?

Analysts believe that Karzai is trying to make sure someone from among his close associates, a Pashtun like himself, of course, becomes the country’s leader. The situation here is similar to that in Iran, which will hold its presidential elections in May. It is highly likely that of the 3-4 possible candidates for Ahmadinejad’s job the person chosen will be loyal to the current President and his associates, although that is not guaranteed, of course. Similarly, the ruling regime in Afghanistan is using all of its administrative resources to make sure that the people “needed” by Karzai and his team get in. The financial and economic aspects of any government are such that those in power do not want to let them slip through their fingers.

The Taliban’s behavior after the balance of military-political forces changes in 2014 makes for an interesting forecast. As far as we know, President Karzai is not allergic to this political force. He realizes that the Taliban will assert itself one way or another even before 2014 in anticipation of participating in deciding the country’s fate.

It is clear that, despite statements by members of the opposition, which includes a number of Taliban, the country’s current leader is willing to resume the “frozen” negotiations with the Taliban and once again include them in the political process. I believe that could defuse tensions in Afghan society and initiate its step-by-step consolidation. In the final analysis, the country’s entire population, especially women and children, are suffering from the instability.

Jawed Ahmad, an ethnic Afghan working for the Asia Program of the Marshall Fund of the United States, believes that the peace negotiations between the warring parties in Afghanistan need to resume. It is only with a total cease-fire by all parties to the conflict that a mutual understanding can be reached and the Taliban convinced to lay down their arms. The question remains, however, will the Taliban leaders agree to that? They will obviously want to remain influential in Afghanistan and acquire their own “area of responsibility” in Afghan society.

Russia is almost free of the post-Afghanistan syndrome. We would be happy to help our neighbors, but that will be impossible until stability is restored and the various clans and ethnic groups, Shiites and Sunnis find a common language and come to understand that even a bad peace is better than any war. We will see in 2014 whether the international community and the Afghan people themselves can bring order to Afghanistan, or whether the country will continue the unceasing conflicts that this long-suffering state has endured for decades.

If both a mutual understanding within the country and a coherence of action by foreign stakeholders (the United States, the Western countries, Russia, China, India and Pakistan) can be achieved, we can expect a gradual normalization of the socioeconomic situation there.

V. A. Maleyev is an expert Orientalist. This article was written expressly for New Eastern Outlook.

Source: Getty Images

In February 2013, President Barack Obama once again assured Americans and the international community that combat operations in Afghanistan would cease in 2014. He was talking about the allied NATO forces in that country, which include a large number of American troops.

Based on our unfortunate stay in Afghanistan, sober-minded analysts, both American and Russian, doubt that the Afghan military and internal security forces will be able to maintain stability in that long-suffering country. According to a Pentagon assessment released in December 2012, only one of the 23 Afghan army brigades is capable of functioning independently. As we know, illiteracy is high in both the country and the army, and many deserters from the army join the rebels who are opposing the Kabul government. There have been many instances of Afghan units attacking their American “comrades in arms.” The reasons for that vary and include computational errors resulting from Afghan soldiers’ lack of professionalism.

US military leaders are putting a “good face on a bad game.” Thus, contrary to all the facts, former US Secretary of defense Leon Panetta has praised the progress supposedly made by the Afghans towards building their army, which he says is becoming increasingly independent. He said the Afghan military carries out about 90% of military operations throughout the country. “We are on the right track in Afghanistan. And we will be able to transition over these next two years to a point where the Afghans themselves can govern and secure themselves.,” he said in early 2013.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai echoed the Americans when he assured them that Afghans welcomed the withdrawal of American forces from the country and are confident in the ability of their military to protect the populace against Taliban militants.

The expert Russian community and more farsighted Western analysts are convinced that the withdrawal of most Western military units alone cannot stabilize the country to an acceptable degree.

These analysts, both in the United States and in other countries, agree that the situation in Afghanistan can only be normalized by developing the country’s economy. And that is simply not happening.

We can draw a parallel with the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. At the time, our country was trying to initiate a variety of economic projects that would establish a balance between the central government and the various warring factions within Afghanistan. The stability was shaken, however, and the country plunged back into civil war almost immediately after the Soviet Union’s lamentable collapse.

Will the West, and especially the United States, consider the bitter experience of our country, which has gone through a similar period? Have the Afghans learned the bitter lesson of history, or could they again fall into the same trap?

We might conclude from the current situation that no one has yet learned a thing, and few understand what will happen to Afghanistan after 2014.

Russian officials believe the Americans and their allies are now taking some extra steps to improve Afghanistan’s economy, beginning with some major industrial and agricultural projects. And in the year and a half remaining, these facilities may only begin to somehow support social peace in this war-torn society.

Russia is aware that it will not be easy for the Western world to invest significant resources in a country located tens of thousands of kilometers from Europe and the United States. The economic crisis has gone global and each individual country needs to deal with it, and the leaders of those countries will find it difficult to justify the extremely high costs both of maintaining their troops in Afghanistan (for many years now) and of projects to save the country from a final collapse. After all, the Afghan Aid Fund was established, and the developed countries, primarily Japan, poured more than $10 billion into it.

I recall very well the position of many Afghans because I have studied the region for a long time and worked in Russian diplomatic missions there. Many of them agreed to accept foreign economic assistance but believed that they should be the ones to allocate it within the country without the involvement of its donors.

V. A. Maleyev is an expert Orientalist. This article was written expressly for New Eastern Outlook.

Pakistan

Along with the impact of Pakistani-American ties on the region, China’s growing economic and political significance in the world, particularly its relations with Pakistan, cannot be ignored. Many experts are inclined to believe that the ties between Pakistan and China have been special throughout the two countries’ history and are still important. To what extent is that true, and is it still relevant today?

As the first Muslim country to recognize China’s independence in 1950, Pakistan undoubtedly became a Chinese ally and, to some extent, a vehicle for its interests in the region and on the international stage, especially since the Chinese government has repeatedly attempted to reinforce that friendship with military-economic “infusions” into its South Asian neighbor’s economy.

Pakistan is connected to China by the Karakoram Highway. Pakistan also had close allied ties with Washington until recently. However, relations between Washington and Beijing currently are not very “warm.” They are becoming serious rivals with each day that passes, both in the world and in the region.

According to one analyst, Pakistan until recently saw China as its “all-weather friend.”  These sentiments were reinforced among Pakistan’s leaders after the temporary problems (2011-2012) with Pakistani-US relations (unauthorized flights of American drones over Pakistani territory, the killing of bin Laden by US special operations forces without proper coordination with their Pakistani counterparts, etc.), which culminated in the suspension of $800 million in US military assistance. For some reason, however, their “all-weather” friend did not rush to Pakistan’s aid, though Beijing was interested in replacing the United States as the financial and political “guarantor” of the country’s security, thereby strengthening its position.

I should point out that Pakistani-Chinese cooperation is not as “serene” as some international observers try to make it seem. it is well known that Pakistan has long supported Uighur terrorism and separatism in China, and that has greatly complicated bilateral relations. It can be said that Islamabad’s activities in the areas bordering on Afghanistan and the Uighur-Xinjiang Autonomous Region have not helped its relations with the two great powers (China and the United States).

If we compare the relatively stable military cooperation between Pakistan and the United States to Pakistani-Chinese military ties, we have to recognize that the latter are in a very embryonic state. The first Pakistani-Chinese military talks took place only in 2002, and the first joint military exercises were held much later — in November 2011. The regional news media point out that Beijing sold Pakistan 50 JF-17 fighters in May 2011.

The latest “cracks” in bilateral relations occurred relatively recently, during the celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of Pakistani-Chinese friendship. In 2012, for example, reports about rioting in Xinjiang began appearing in China at the same time that Pakistani intelligence (ISI) chief Shuja Pasha was flying to Beijing for the celebrations. News reports said that separatist elements in Xinjiang had attacked a police station and committed a number of illegal acts. These provocations were carried out by members of the East Turkmenistan Islamic movement who had entered Xinjiang after receiving training in Pakistan.

Beijing is concerned about actions by the Uighur separatists and links the instability in Western China to Pakistani support for some insurgent groups. If the Islamabad government cannot restore order and take control of Pakistan’s lightly regulated tribal region, it risks losing the “patronage” of both the United States and China.

Shall we now talk about the peculiar US-Pakistan-China triangle that is affecting the situation in the region?

Pakistan is currently attempting to take advantage of its relations with China to demonstrate that it needs a neighbor’s loyalty rather than assistance from Washington, but that is not true. It is more likely to be wishful thinking. The facts, at least right now, suggest that the United States has done things for Pakistan that China cannot and does not want to: provide the Muslim country with substantial financial aid and a great many modern weapons. So until things change, we cannot say that the one ally (China) will replace the other (the United States).

This suggests that no matter who wins Pakistan’s elections in May, the country’s leaders will continue their balancing act between the two great powers. Both the United States and China will pursue their own global interests and continue playing the regional card by using Pakistan for leverage on each other and on India — another major political player, and one whose influence extends far beyond South and West Asia.

What would Russia’s best position be under these circumstances? I would be happy to be wrong, but I have to say that it has only a small role to play at present because it has not yet shown that it wants to influence any of the parties to protect its foreign policy interests in the region. However, the region is certainly very important for maintaining stability on Russia’s southern borders.

V. A. Maleyev is an expert Orientalist. This article was written expressly for New Eastern Outlook.

Pakistan has been a staunch ally of the United States in recent years. Cooperation between the two countries was secured by the Mutual Defense Agreement of May 19, 1954, thanks to which the United States was able to pursue its own course in the region without coordinating with its faithful ally, Pakistan.1 However, events over the last 2-3 years have led many experts to suggest that Pakistani-US relations are at a dead end. To what extent is that a correct assumption?

The elimination of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan by US special operations forces and US drone flights in the Afghan-Pakistani border region have aroused indignation among Pakistanis. These factors, plus the reaction of Islamabad authorities, lead us to believe the allies will not come to an agreement on an important matter like military actions in another country.

Some observers suggest that a central problem in the Pakistani-American “alliance” at this stage is the Pakistani leadership’s support for extremist groups operating near the Afghan-Pakistani border. The Haqqani Network and the Pakistan Taliban are the issue. According to local and international experts, that support is contributing to instability in the region and is weakening the Afghan government. Chris Mansur, a Canadian expert on the region, believes no one should be surprised at that because the Pakistani government and its Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) are known to have helped form the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan officially supported the Taliban movement from the time it came to power in Kabul until its fall in 2001. Islamabad “envisioned the Taliban as [a] client regime to help promote Pakistan’s strategic interests, which included undermining India’s regional influence.”2

Pakistan’s role is on the ascent as the NATO forces’ 2014 withdrawal enters its active phase, and its influence in the region is becoming entrenched. Pakistani authorities may end their assistance to militant groups in Afghanistan and support the central government in Kabul. The facts show that Pakistan would prefer a regime in Kabul like that of the Taliban, with which, as I said earlier, it once had normal relations. That could enable the Pakistani government to strengthen its influence in Southwest Asia and contain the spread of Indian influence in the region, which would also be very beneficial to Washington.

The US government is unhappy that Islamabad is less than willing to support the Karzai government.3 But the American government needs to consider Pakistan’s close ties with groups like the Taliban, which could rise to power in the near future even in a coalition with the government of Karzai and his supporters.

But the main reason Washington cannot ignore Pakistan’s interests in the region is that it possesses nuclear weapons.

According to a recent news report, a bomb was set off in front of the US Consulate General on Friday, March 29, killing 10 people and injuring more than 30. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. . Analysts believe that terrorist attacks like this one show that people in the region view Washington’s representatives as aggressors and reflect increased anti-American sentiments. They certainly complicate Pakistani-US relations, but, given the arguments presented above, such attacks are unlikely to cause bilateral ties to break down.

These facts and others appear to suggest that it makes sense for any Pakistani or US government to maintain normal bilateral relations at this point in time. They simply have no other choice, and there is no compelling reason to believe Pakistani-US ties are weakening. We can assume that the alliance will endure. Its role will be enhanced after Western coalition forces withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014, and it will come to play even and even more significant role as the situation in South and Southwest Asia evolves. Pakistan will remain an important vehicle for carrying out Washington’s plans to subjugate the region to serve US interests.

Valeriy Maleyev is an expert Orientalist. This article was written expressly for New Eastern Outlook.

1 The Agreement specifies the terms under which the United States provides military assistance to Pakistan. It has facilitated the implementation of US strategic plans in South and Southwest Asia.

2 Chris Mansur,” The Search for a New Equilibrium in US-Pakistan Relations,” March 26, 2012. www.geopoliticalmonitor.com.

3 The Pakistani authorities currently are critical of the Karzai government, believing it corrupt and unable to control the country without help.