President Biden changes course after Afghan debacle, forms AUKUS (The Sunday Guardian)

 

India’s commitment to ‘All Alignment’ has added credibility to the view that the Quad has no relation to security. This is in contrast to AUKUS, which is entirely about security, and which it would be beneficial to the Quad members to integrate into a more formalised and capable alliance.

New Delhi: There has been a swift international and domestic reaction to US President Joe Biden’s adoption of Trump’s surrender to the Taliban in 2020 at Doha. Sino-Wahabi elements in the Administration had manipulated focus groups in their successful effort to convince Biden that the 46th President’s denuding of kinetic capabilities from Afghanistan would make him immensely popular. Biden is aware that unlike his predecessors Obama and Trump, he has no base of his own. There is no voting bloc that has been loyal to Biden in the manner that liberals have been to Barack Obama and nativists to Donald Trump. The Sino-Wahabi lobby (including within White House staff) convinced the US President that cutting and running from Afghanistan, despite thereby handing it over to a known extremist group, would win him support from both the nativist as well as liberal camps. The reverse took place. Biden’s popularity (and confidence in his leadership) is at a lower level than was the case under his erratic predecessor, who spoke of a fightback against the Wahabi International (and backed those words by supporting anti-Wahabi rulers such as Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia) and yet cosied up to President Erdogan, indulging the Turkish leader who has sought in his country to replace the vision of Ataturk with that of the Wahabis, who were used by the British to assist in the  demolishing of the Turkish caliphate in the Arabian peninsula in the early part of the previous century. In his courtship of Erdogan, Trump even surrendered the Kurds to his newfound ally, despite that ethnicity being almost entirely moderate and doughty fighters against Wahabi extremists. His surprising kowtow to the Wahabi International (which is the closest ally of the Chinese Communist Party leadership) was followed up by another surrender, the agreement at Doha to hand over the keys to Kabul to the Taliban just as Bill Clinton did a generation back.

Returning to Biden, it would appear that the blowback from his adoption of the Sino-Wahabi playbook on Afghanistan has made the politically sensitive US President appreciate the political risk not just to himself but to his party in the 2022 midterms of the White House accepting the policy directives mapped out by elements promoting Sino-Wahabi interests within the Biden administration and the Democratic Party. The first sign that Biden had understood the danger of following Trump (in the latter’s propensity to pander to Sino-Wahabi preferences despite claiming the opposite) was the announcement that there would be an in-person meeting of the four Quad leaders in Washington on 24 September. The next was the announcement of the AUKUS security alliance and its technological implications, including in the fields of nuclear capability and joint development of Artificial Intelligence systems. India would be a superb fit within AUKUS, given this country’s (a) technological and scientific capabilities, (b) essentiality in keeping the Indo-Pacific and the Eurasian landmass free from dominance by any single power, (c) vast reserves of youthful human-power that could be trained and equipped for battlefield conditions including training and logistical help, and (d) the hundreds of millions of citizens who speak English, the lingua franca of the US, Australia and the UK.

AUSTRALIA LOOKS TO U.S., NOT CHINA

That Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison made the correct decision when he walked away from the deal with France for conventional submarines is obvious. There is a universe of capabilities that separate nuclear from conventional submarines. Also, from an overall geopolitical standpoint, the US is more consequential than France, impressive though that country’s achievements have been since Charles De Gaulle took charge of the country in 1958. The 360-degree approach towards decisions such as multi-billion dollar defence contracts is different from that followed in India, where a much narrower view gets taken even in matters such as major purchases of weaponry or aircraft. This is a fallout of the silo system of decision making that has been the rule in India since the 1970s, where issues are looked at and decided upon not based on overall national needs and interests but those of a segment of the government. Defence procurement is decided based on the specific needs and views of the particular service needing such systems, so that considerations such as overall geopolitical desirability fail to get factored into the decisions. An example is the UPA decision to go in for 126 combat aircraft from France in place of alternatives such as the setting up of production facilities in India for the manufacture of selected US aircraft. From the narrow view of the service involved and in the short term, this may have been a correct decision, but in the overall context, passing up an opportunity to expand domestic aircraft production platforms through US companies outsourcing facilities to India may have deserved a closer look than was given by the UPA government at the time.

So far as AUKUS is concerned, following the lead of Australia and teaming up with the US to produce nuclear-powered submarines would be better for India than passing up such an option, assuming that it has been presented by the Biden administration. Rather than view matters as “Either Or”, what may be preferable is to add on capability through other sources rather than depend on a single supplier for defence equipment. That India may become a major platform for the production and maintenance of US-made weapons systems is a matter of worry for the Central Military Commission in Beijing, which over the decades has been more than generous in ensuring that GHQ Rawalpindi be given weapons and capabilities that are meant to be used only against India (and possibly a post-Taliban Afghanistan in the future). Thus far, whether out of an absence of interest in the US side or the Indian side, such an unwelcome scenario for the PLA has not been actualised. At least in public, India has been careful to emphasize a commitment to what may be termed “All Alignment” to a degree that has added credibility to the oft-expressed view that the Quad has no relation to security. This is in contrast to AUKUS, which is entirely about security, and which it would be beneficial to the Quad members and to the UK to integrate into a more formalised and capable Quad. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was forceful in private during the BRICS conclave about the importance of ascertaining the origins of SARS-Cov-2, just as he was publicly about the risk posed to moderate members of the SCO by radicalism and extremism. This may be the time for the External Affairs Ministry to replace the often elliptical (and difficult to comprehend for those unschooled in diplomatese) verbal and written formulations made public by officials with others that are as direct (while being polite and respectful of the need for avoiding unpleasantness in exchanges) as the sentiments expressed by PM Modi to the 20th summit of the SCO. Given the tensions that have become more palpable in recent times, such a change in tone may be warranted and beneficial in terms of signalling to friends and foes alike the mind of the central government on matters of extreme concern.

AVOIDING CONFLICT THROUGH DETERRENCE

Over the decades, the Chinese Communist Party has created a narrative that makes it difficult for the party to backtrack from the open resort to force that has become the hallmark of Xi Jinping Thought as applied to the external environment. From their formative years, the young in China have been schooled not just to believe that (a) a PRC-centric world order is desirable for the whole of humanity, but that (b) such an ascent to primacy and later dominance is inevitable, given the rising kinetic and other capabilities of the PRC. It is noteworthy that care seems to be taken since the 1990s in showcasing tall and conventionally “good looking” individuals. They parade before the media as role models for the Chinese people to follow. “Effeminate” men and those who appear less than Spartan about their deportment and attitude to life are looked down upon in the CCP leadership’s efforts at creating a New Chinese Man (and Woman) for the latest version of New China, which is guided by Xi Jinping Thought. Another characteristic is to seek to be more than merely first among equals in every field of “hard” activity, whether it be in defense, sports, technology or external relations. Xi is working on establishing the primacy and eventual dominance of the PRC over all other countries (not just the US or India but Russia as well, looking at the inroads being made into Eurasia by the BRI), just as the CCP General Secretary is seeking to dominate the Indo-Pacific. In following such a strategy, Xi is returning to the playbook of the US in the period before the dilution in US influence following the 2008 financial crash and the military disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria and most recently Afghanistan. No ally of the US was treated as an equal, not even Japan, the UK or France. The only exception was China during the period since 1972 when Beijing and Washington worked together to demolish the USSR. The PRC was treated as an associate of Washington rather than as a supplicant, subsidiary or junior power. These days, the role of significant US associate could fall to India, in case policymakers in the Lutyens Zone decide to make use of Cold War 2.0 between the PRC and the US for India’s benefit, the way the PRC used Cold War 1.0 between the USSR and the US during the 1980s and until the 1997 Hong Kong handover. Such a move would necessitate a much more robust utilisation of present-day opportunities than the imprecision and zigzags that have characterised much of policy thus far.

The setting up of AUKUS has shown the importance of the security dimension in all major power relationships in an era of a new Cold War. Should President Biden go further along the path that he is following (through holding a Quad meeting in Washington and setting up the AUKUS alliance) and should he understand that a repeat of the 2001 US strategy of assisting the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban is needed in 2021 as well, prospects for major power conflict will ease as a consequence of the greater level of deterrence such clear and resolute steps will create where the revisionist superpower is concerned. In the 1930s, the leaders of France and the UK failed to act in time to prevent the 1939-45 war and accompanying genocide by Hitler, despite CPSU General Secretary J.V. Stalin pushing them to do so before the 1939 invasion of Poland by Hitler. Efforts were made through USSR Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, but failed as a consequence of the policy of appeasement and inability to understand the depth of Hitler’s obsession with dominance through conquest. Earlier in the 20th century, in much the same way, ambiguities in signalling on the part of London Moscow and Paris assisted the incomprehension of the German Kaiser about the resolve and capabilities of Berlin’s perceived foes. This was the toxic compound of misjudgements that resulted in the 1914-19 war. A similar ambiguity by those defending a free and open Indo-Pacific and a lack of comprehension in the reviionist superpower about their resolve and unity may result in a repeat of the tragedies of 1914-19 and 1939-45.

 

THE PRC WORLDVIEW

Analysts who have a detailed knowledge of the everyday “mechanics” of the functioning of the world’s biggest political machine, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but not the actual “chemistry”, fail to understand that the assertive, indeed aggressive, policy line being pursued by the CCP General Secretary has its origins in the birth pangs of the party almost a century ago. The CCP in essence is a party of Han nationalism, that mandates efforts towards the return of the Middle Kingdom as the centre point of global geopolitics, initially by stabilising the country ruled by the party internally, and later by establishing first primacy and subsequently dominance over the Eurasian landmass and the waters of the Indo-Pacific. More than two decades ago, the present writer had pointed to the initial years of the 21st century as heralding the period when the levers of authority down the chain of command within the CCP (and the governmental machinery controlled by it) would vest in the hands of single male children, the inevitable product of the One Child policy pursued by the CCP since 1980. Given the latitude given to them by parents and grandparents, single male children are liable to be headstrong and confident of having their own way. When this cohort took over full control of the (heavily male-dominated) CCP leadership by the initial years of the 21st century, it was inevitable that the policies of the PRC would become more assertive and subsequently more aggressive. This was the case since the second term of CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao, but became undeniable since the assumption of power in 2012 by General Secretary Xi Jinping. Earlier, from Jiang Zemin’s years in power onwards, a concerted effort had been launched to bring back artifacts of ancient China from the homes and museums that they had found their way into over the centuries. Knowledge of their civilisational heritage and its assumed superiority were reinforced in this manner. From the mid-1950s, school curricula as well as popular literature focused on the centrality of the ascent of the PRC to the “betterment of the world”. This was to be achieved by expanding influence across the world, and bringing into the fold more and more countries that would accept the CCP creed that doing what Beijing wanted was good not only for their own countries but for the world as a whole. When a spokesperson in the Atlanticist powers speaks of the international order, what is meant is the post-1945 construct created after the 1939-45 war. What is meant by “international order” when the term is mentioned by CCP spokespersons is the ordering of the world with the PRC as its centre of gravity. Both sides seek an adherence to the “international order”, but have entirely divergent concepts of what that means. Which is why each side believes the other is not being sincere when references are made about following the “rules of the international order”. The first set of rules was designed to enshrine the primacy (if not any more the dominance) of the Atlantic Alliance in global geopolitics, while the construct conceived by the PRC seeks to promote the “inevitable” transition of the globe into an international order where Beijing will have primacy where it cannot immediately be dominant. Since their formative years, the young in the PRC have been schooled through a carefully crafted narrative to internalise the assumed benefits of Pax Sinica across the world. Since Xi Jinping assumed charge of the CCP, they have been taught both in subtle as well as in obvious ways that such a shift in global geopolitics from the Atlanticist to the Sinic is an inevitability. Given such a Weltanschauung (world view), it is surprising that there remain large clusters of policymakers in the US, India, the EU and Japan who believe that these two opposing views of a desirable world order can in the natural course exist side by side in harmony with each other.

 

CREDIBLE DETERRENCE ONLY PATH TO PEACE

Just as there are concepts such as values and human rights that are universal, it would be desirable were peace to be universal, the goal sought by Mahatma Gandhi. His effort to halt the tragedy of the partition of the subcontinent in 1947 failed, and in both the 1947 attack on Kashmir and the 1962 invasion of China, it was clear that peace with pacifist India was not a priority for either Pakistan or the PRC. Rather than universal peace, violence and efforts by a few to establish dominance over the others has been the rule of existence. There has been much discussion about “revisionist” powers as compared to those favouring the continuation of present-day realities. When a significant power becomes hyper-confident both in its capabilities and in the presumed inevitability of its kinetic and other success over countries which differ from its expansive aims, tensions are unlikely to spike. That there are still policymakers who cling on to delusions of “harmony”, or seek the same through concessions and repeated efforts at changing revisionist minds is testimony to the adage of the triumph of hope over experience. History teaches that peace can be made more likely only through deterrence created by capability and the will to resist. AUKUS is an example of that. For whatever reason, the Quad is not yet credible as a deterrent to the creeping annexation of land, sea and air space that the Indo-Pacific has been witnessing . Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs to change that, if possible during his September 24 meeting with President Biden. Prime Minister Suga and Prime Minister Morrison.

 President Biden changes course after Afghan debacle, forms AUKUS 

Defeat of Taliban central to free Indo-Pacific (The Sunday Guardian)

 

Afghanistan is a major front in the effort by the Sino-Wahhabi alliance to drain away credibility and morale within institutions such as the Quad.

 

New Delhi: A kilo of action is worth more than a ton of words, and thus far, while words have continued to flow from those in Atlantic Alliance states, who consigned the people of Afghanistan into a medieval hell, efforts at putting such noble intentions into practice have been zero. The only parts of Afghanistan where women and non-radicals remain safe are in locations where the Taliban have failed to establish a foothold. The greater the influence and control of different factions of the Taliban in a given place, the less the values and practices claimed to be championed by the more preachy among NATO member-states. This has not blocked the steady empowerment of the more toxic elements of the Taliban through “humanitarian assistance”, of course channelled through Pakistan. This has once again given GHQ Rawalpindi (and its PLA boosters) the ability to promote those loyal to them and obedient to their wishes, while depriving others of any “humanitarian” succour. Not that this fact is unknown to the countries doling out such “assistance”. Those in charge know that money and materiel funnelled through Pakistan will end up with those elements who have made a living out of violence to their fellow human beings. What is paid is protection money, a bribe that it is hoped will stop radicals from putting at risk the lives of those citizens of NATO member-states who are still in Afghanistan. In reality, the degree of protection is less than strong, for the reason that more and more of the feisty younger elements in the Taliban are no longer responsive to the  commands coming from the older leadership, especially those known to be following the dictates of the Sino-Pakistan alliance. Pashtuns across both sides of the (defunct since 1992) Durand Line are a proud people, who have long chafed under the overbearing approach adopted by either Middle Eastern paymasters or commanders in the Pakistan army, which institution remains firmly in the control of those from the northern and western parts of Pakistan Punjab. This includes the territory from which those belonging to the Hindu and Sikh minorities have been expelled, where they have not been killed or made to change the faith they were born in.

OLD TALIBAN VS YOUNG TALIBAN

There is a widening gap within the collective known as the Taliban between the older leadership and the much young cadre that has been formed ever since the US and its coalition partners openly flaunted the degree of control they had over the governance institutions formed in Afghanistan since the 2001 collapse of the Taliban at the hands of the Northern Alliance assisted by US logistical (but not troop) support. NATO commanders believed that their own troops on the ground were the primary solution to the problem of keeping extremists away from Afghanistan, unwilling to admit (a) that the hyper-emphasis on force protection severely limited the tactical choices essential towards the defeat of enemy combatants, and that (b) ground and air attacks on the wrong targets (a consequence of relying on the Pakistan military for much of the intelligence input) boosted the ranks of those seeking to resist what they saw as just another foreign invasion of their country, and this after they had driven away the Soviet forces by 1989. Frequent contact with the (overwhelmingly non-Pashtun) officers and men of the Pakistan army combined with the overbearing attitude of the latter to creating a mistrust (and often raw hatred) of Pakistan that is present not just in Afghan civil society in general but also in the ranks of the Taliban. This collective is split into six groups, two of which function under the control of the Pakistan army, while another is dominated by those in financial servitude to the PLA, the top ranks of which have a decisive say within the Pakistan military as well. It would be imprecise to even attempt to put numerical values on the strength of the six factions (including the three that are independent of the GHQ-PLA alliance). What can be said is that the ranks of the three factions controlled by the GHQ-PLA alliance are much smaller (and have a much higher average age) than the three factions that are resentful of the manner in which the Taliban are being sought to be controlled by GHQ Rawalpindi and the PLA through the Central Military Commission in Beijing, which has since 2017 come within the control of CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping, who is in many ways as organisationally powerful a leader as Chairman Mao was.

CHINESE YOUTHS ALARMED BY XI

Perhaps inconveniently for Xi, China has changed since the period when Mao was alive, and the Chairman’s efforts at becoming another anti-elitist leader is going against the sentiments of several young citizens of the PRC, who aspire to the “good life” represented by material success. In other words, the lifestyle that was placed as the centrepiece of party policy by Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping from 1978 onwards, and which remained in place until 2012, when Xi Jinping took over as General Secretary of China’s ruling party. Whether in the state owned or private sector, those in charge have felt the whiplash of the anti-elitist moves of Xi. These may be earning the party supremo cheers from the six hundred million who feel short-changed by the manner in which the PRC has developed since the 1980s, but is being viewed with alarm and resentment by the middle classes and much of the youth. While political activity (except in support of the CCP) was discouraged, a range of actions was freed of state oversight, thereby giving nearly four hundred million citizens of the PRC freedom of choice that had been absent during the period when Chairman Mao was running the country. More than 85% of the prosperity of China is because of this segment of the overall population, and it remains an open question whether the attempted return to the Mao-era lifestyle will affect the PRC economy adversely or not. Orders such as restricting online gaming to three hours during weekends for the young, or the authorities going after popular movie stars and singers may cause tensions in Chinese society that for decades had been largely absent, despite the continuing monopoly of control by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). General Secretary Xi seeks to mould a nation in the image of Sparta, a collective of fighters who obey Victorian rules of morality. From elementary school onwards, the effort is to groom a generation of citizens who will (a) be respectful and obedient to the dictates of the CCP leadership and its subordinates, and (b) embrace in word and deed the goal of Xi Jinping Thought, which is to enshrine China as the centre point of global geopolitical gravity. It is an ambitious task, and to further its progress, Xi has intensified cooperation not only with the Pakistan military but with Wahhabi dispensations and groups across different regions, of course excepting those within his own country. Xi sees in the Wahhabis an ideology and force that is hostile to the Atlantic Alliance, the importance of which in world affairs which Xi Jinping is seeking to reduce to a level such that it would not pose any challenge to the primacy of China (aided by its allies) across the Indo-Pacific and subsequently the Atlantic

TALIBAN VICTORY EMBOLDENS XI

What may be termed the “Creamy Layer” within the Taliban (mostly comprising of the ageing agents of the Sino-Pakistan alliance) is anxious for the opening of the sluice gates of financial assistance from NATO member-states. At present, such handouts are a trickle and are essentially ransom money, paid through the Pakistan army in order to try and ensure safe passage for the hundreds of NATO citizens still stranded within Afghanistan. The problem is that the younger elements in the Taliban collective regard such individuals as human shields who ensure that there will not be any resumption of the bombing raids that the Taliban fear most from the NATO powers. Although US Secretary of State Antony Blinken may not have received information about the manner in which US citizens and Afghan employees of the former US mission are being prevented from leaving airports across Afghanistan, this is what has been taking place. The older “leadership” elements of the Taliban may have had some control over those under them during 1996-2001, but not anymore. In particular, they are regarded with contempt for their obsequious behaviour towards not just Pakistan but China. It was not a surprise that GHQ Rawalpindi involved its forces in the battle over segments of the Panjshir mountain region. Billions of US dollars are at stake, given that elements (most technically retired) of the Pakistan army control the Af-Pak narcotics trade. The military is also looking at securing the role of middleman in ensuring that the PRC gains access to the mineral riches of Afghanistan. They seek to convert Afghanistan into another Balochistan, a colonised country from where riches get drained away, mostly into China. CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping looks upon the Pakistan army as a trustworthy conduit for such exploitation of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan, and has wagered all his cards on this bet. What is helping boost the confidence of Xi is the fearful response of key NATO member-states, who are competing with each other in their attempt to curry favour with GHQ Rawalpindi and the Taliban, including through cash assistance. The sequence of events that has taken place in the Af-Pak region since the surrender to the Taliban by President Trump at Doha in 2020 has emboldened those close to General Secretary Xi, who have therefore intensified PLA-centric harassment of Taiwan and instituted even harsher measures to neutralise dissenting elements in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and restive zones across China. The ripple effects of the manner of President Biden’s scampering at speed from the Afghanistan theatre are becoming waves that, unless action countering this is not initiated, have the potential of becoming a tsunami that can severely damage security interests of the US, the EU and those countries active in efforts to ensure that the Indo-Pacific remains free and open to all rather than be monopolised by a single country.

BEIJING PURSUES CREEPING ANNEXATION

Among the measures taken by Beijing to push forward its creeping annexation of land, air and sea space is the declaration that all vessels entering waters that are part of the global commons but which has been claimed by China need prior permission before such transit. Should this command be complied with, rather than ignored as ought to be the case, the countries making such a concession will be identified as soft targets for further active measures designed to lash them firmly to the political and economic interests of the CCP leadership. In the 1990s, the present writer had pointed out that when the era of single male children monopolising the leadership of the CCP comes about, the risk of an aggressive, assertive stance by the PRC would rise substantially. This is what has happened under Xi Jinping’s watch, and thus far, the international fightback has been nowhere close to the degree needed to convince the leadership in Beijing of the dangers to themselves of the high-risk strategy that they have adopted since 2012 in their hunt for global primacy. Given the hyper-centralised mode of governance adopted by Xi Jinping, there appears to be a tendency in Beijing to underplay the fact that the governance system in the US (or in other major democracies) does not hinge on just the apex of the system in the manner that it now does in China. While President Biden has miscalculated substantially in his decisions on Afghanistan, thereby doing severe harm to his own viability as an effective Commander-in-Chief, the presence of multiple nodes of authority in the US (such as industry, civil society, the media, opposition parties and others) results in far less damage being done to the overall societal structure in the US from such Presidential blunders than would be the case in the PRC, were Xi Jinping to make a policy error of similar magnitude. GHQ Rawalpindi has sought to disseminate the impression within its “iron” friends in Beijing that the Afghanistan fiasco has damaged the US sufficiently to give extra headway towards efforts by the Sino-Pakistan alliance to weaken US partners such as India and establish as strong a degree of control over Afghanistan as is the case in Balochistan. The difficulty is that the mechanism of Afghan society is no longer tolerant of groups such as the Taliban, and resistance to that collective and to its outside supporters will grow in the months ahead. The swagger in Afghan cities of officers belonging to GHQ Rawalpindi has caused tensions within Afghan society unhappy at the extent of control that the Sino-Pakistan alliance has over several senior members of the Taliban. Across both sides of the Durand Line, the conviction is growing that if the US military could be sent packing from Afghanistan, would it be an impossible task to do likewise to the Pakistan army in the Pashtun territories across both sides of the Durand Line? Not just the global terrorist network but its antidote, the resistance to efforts by GHQ and its agents in the Taliban, is growing as well.

INDIA MUST LEAD

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar needs to visit Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the light of recent events. Both powers understand (although not overtly) that the US-facilitated re-entry of the Taliban into Kabul presents an existential threat to their own security interests. A coordination of effort needs to be made to ensure that the Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara and other communities at risk in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are protected. The Resistance Movement concentrated within the Panjshir mountains needs help rather than remain ignored, as has been the case thus far. Those in the US and elsewhere are wrong who believe that the Af-Pak situation is unrelated to the broader effort to keep the Indo-Pacific free and open. Afghanistan is a major front in the effort by the Sino-Wahhabi alliance to drain away credibility and morale within institutions such as the Quad. And yet the situation within that country and the Pashtun areas to the south of the Durand Line are fraught with fissures that have the potential to embroil the GHQ-PLA alliance in a situation similar to that faced by the USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s. What is required from India is leadership in cobbling together an alliance of countries and interests that seek to prevent extremist influence from spreading, and which are opposed to efforts at making large chunks of the territory of other countries or which form part of the global commons into the exclusive zone of primacy-seeking powers. The time for speaking out may not yet have arrived, but a “Wait and Watch” approach on the part of India has passed its expiry date. Intensive efforts are needed to prevent the waves of extremism linked to attempts at primacy from developing into a tsunami that can endanger the future of populations across continents, and as a consequence of the apparent abdication of responsible leadership by President Biden, the need is for Prime Minister Modi to pick up the baton. Silently but firmly.

9/11 began as just another day in NY Although 9/11 occurred on the watch of President George W. Bush, its seeds were laid during the administration of Bill Clinton. (The Daily Guardian)

 When terrorists converted passenger aircraft into missiles and flew three of them into the Pentagon and the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center (WTC) on 11 September 2001, Lakshmi and the present writer were a short distance away. As usual during visits to New York (NY), our place of stay was the Lexington Hotel, which at the time was owned by the Taj group. Headquarters had sent one of their finest to NY, Sam Bhadha, who was genial while being a very efficient manager of the cavernous hotel he had been put in charge of. The previous evening, Lakshmi had told a friend of ours, Professor Deborah Cordonniere, that she was going to have breakfast the following morning at the View of the World, a restaurant located inside the twin towers. We had spent nearly two hours after dinner searching for Debbie’s car, for she had forgotten where it had been parked. Street after nearby street was combed without any sign of her car. Finally, we made our way to a nearby police station and asked for help, being met with a smile and a shrug. Judging from the reaction, it was apparent that Debbie was not the only New Yorker who had forgotten where her car had been parked towards nightfall, nor was tramping the streets to locate it a priority for the New York Police Department (NYPD). Finally, the car was located, in a street that had been searched and missed by us an hour and a few minutes before, and a relieved Debbie went off to her home some miles away in the city. As mentioned, Lakshmi had told her of her intention to have breakfast at the WTC during the course of the evening. Next morning, a frantic Debbie called our room and asked where Lakshmi was. In our hotel room, obviously. “Not at the World Trade Center?”, was the immediate reply. While Lakshmi had been keen the previous evening to go to a restaurant that was more well known outside NY than in the city, she changed her mind after my suggestion that we instead go to the breakfast buffet at the Lexington itself. When Debbie called, it was barely a few minutes since we had gotten up, and she was inexplicably happy that Lakshmi had not gone to View of the World that morning. When Debbie realised that neither of us had any idea why she had been in turn frantic, she asked us to put on the television set in the room, which we did at the precise moment that the second aircraft slammed into the other WTC tower. In minutes, we raced down to the lobby and out of the hotel onto the street. In the distance, brown smog was rising, and almost in slow motion, could be seen specks that were people there. New Yorkers are similar to Mumbaikars, in that they have a brisk pace while walking on pavements, unlike the more laidback denizens of the Bangalore of those days, who ambled along and refused to believe that speed was as essential a part of walking as was the case with Hew Yorkers or Mumbaikars. We were to fly out the next day, but all flights were cancelled, and the ever-helpful Sam Bhadha agreed to allow us to stay an extra four days at a reduced cost in order to catch the next available flight back to India. That evening, we joined the throng of people who silently moved along the streets, many with lit candles in their hands. There has been much talk of nativist tendencies within the US population, such that many of European ancestry are supposed to look with hate on those who have a deep tan and who sport a beard, such as the present writer. Let it be said that beard and tan notwithstanding, the behaviour of every individual we encountered on the streets around our hotel that night of 9/11 was warm and welcoming of our presence. There was a fellowship of everyday human beings with other everyday human beings, as distinct from those who sought to cause terror and death. We were even given a candle each by a Good Samaritan who had several in her hand, and we were glad to join those who sought through that flickering, that comforting, light to lessen the darkness of what Osama Bin Laden and his backers and followers had done, which was to change the way the world looked at itself, and at the way many looked at each other. What the NYPD or the NY Fire Department or so many First Responders among New Yorkers did that day is testament to the fact that New York can rise to a challenge exactly in the manner Mumbai did during and after the 2008 attack.

Although 9/11 occurred on the watch of President George W. Bush, its seeds were laid during the administration of Bill Clinton. Among his favourites was Robin Raphel, who had an exceptional degree of affinity towards the terror machine that is the Pakistan military. Her tutor is widely rumoured to be Shafqat Kakakhel, a suave diplomat who was as committed to harming India as he was to the good life he led wherever he went. Clinton made her Assistant Secretary of State, and she made it her mission to somehow force India to surrender at least the Kashmir Valley to Pakistan. The other desire of President Clinton was to arm-twist Prime Minister Narasimha Rao into following the path subsequently trodden by Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, of destroying all domestic nuclear and missile capability. Rao weaved through such pressures, stabilising the situation in both the ISI-infested zones, those in Punjab and Kashmir. He was repaid for this by Sonia Gandhi setting up a Congress Tiwari under N.D. Tiwari (whose predilection for certain forms of aerobic exercise subsequently became known across the country). The Congress (T), which also housed Sheila Dikshit and Arjun Singh, could sway enough votes in 1996 to ensure that the BJP secured a much larger number of Lok Sabha seats than expected. To the end of his days, Atal Bihari Vajpayee was grateful to Sonia Gandhi for facilitating his party’s climb to the top of Indian politics, with himself occupying the same office that Sonia’s mother-in-law and husband had been the occupants of. In case President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney had an ounce of knowledge of the situation in South Asia, they would not have brushed aside Vajpayee’s offer to assist in the battle against the terror machine that had taken root in Afghanistan. Instead, Bush and Cheney retreated to the past and as in the 1980s, chose Pakistan as the partner in the War on Terror, something as strange as placing a compulsive arsonist in charge of the fire brigade. Small wonder that the Taliban revived, and the terror machine continued in its deadly fashion, ending in the retaking of Afghanistan by the Taliban and its Sino-Pakistan patrons on 15 August 2021. While India celebrated its independence from colonial oppression that day, the people of Afghanistan were thrown into slavery as a consequence of Biden early into his term repeating what Clinton had done in 1996. Putting the Taliban in control of Afghanistan. President Biden apparently does not see the irony in his going to the locations that had been attacked by terrorists on 9/11 two decades back. Terrorists nurtured and mobilised by the same group of extremists that had been responsible for providing the petri dish in which the 9/11 plot was developed into deadly efficacy. Just as there are biological labs that undertake “Gain of Function” experiments to ensure that viruses become even deadlier than nature has made them, the Taliban is adept at ensuring that an atmosphere get created in the locations they control as would enable terror groups to refine and perfect the instruments and methods by which they go about the task of mass murder of innocents. This is the group that President Biden and several other world leaders have given not only a free pass to, but also laid out a welcome mat for them. Bill Clinton escaped the blame that was rightfully his for 9/11. Will President Joseph Robinette Biden be as lucky when the next mass terror attack carried out by the new Afghan regime takes place, as it inevitably will? That is unless Biden reverses course, serving as a force-multiplier not to bigots and extremists but to the majority of Afghans who seek to prevent their country from once again be used as a dumping ground for international ­terrorists. Unless Biden does so, he will tarnish not only his legacy but the reputation of a country that prides itself as the “shining city on the hill”. 

9/11 began as just another day in NY 

India enters critical stage in the battle against global terror (The Sunday Guardian)

 

Serial betrayals by the Pakistan military (and its PLA boosters) on the battlefields of Asia do not seem to have shaken President Biden’s conviction that the Pakistan military is an essential component in the battle against global terror.

 

Bengaluru: The terrorist knife attack in an Auckland NZ mall was sparked by the increase in confidence of elements of the “Global Terror Archipelago” (GTA), the complex of terror groups and modules intent on acts of mass terror in order to derail the orderly functioning of society, especially within giant democracies such as the United States and India. Across the world, the manner of US President Joe Biden’s bizarre withdrawal of all—repeat, all—US capabilities within Afghanistan has energised the GTA (terror archipelago) such that several elements within this toxic complex have begun planning fresh mass terror attacks, with a concentration of attention on countries across both shores of the Atlantic. Given the successes of the Indian military and police in counter-terror operations since the intensification of such attacks, this country will need to play a keystone role in damping down planning and foiling the implementation of mass terror attacks by the various elements that together comprise the GTA. Just as no country is safe from SARS2 until all countries are secure, no country is safe from a mass terror attack until the entire world has been rescued from such depredations.

Given the lack of effective will and leadership of President Biden that has been shown up clearly to the world in his copying of the disastrous example of President Donald J. Trump in getting signed an instrument of surrender to the benefit of the Taliban at Doha last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will need to intensify moves designed to protect not just India but the world from an intensification of terrorist activities following the Biden kowtow to the Taliban and the kick administered by the 46th US President to the lawful government of Afghanistan and its armed forces. While the PRC and Pakistan have a strategic interest in the strengthening of the GTA (except where it moves against their own narrow interests), the US, India, the EU as well as regional powers such as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Iran and the moderate majority in Afghanistan and Pakistan need to unite against the challenge to global security and stability caused by Trump-Biden’s effective surrender to the Global Terror Alliance in Afghanistan. While Russia cannot look upon the evolving situation with the glee shown in Beijing and Rawalpindi (the actual capital of Pakistan), errors in diplomacy and strategy by NATO member-states have left no option for President Vladimir Putin but to ally himself with General Secretary Xi Jinping of the PRC, and this needs to be accepted as a fait accompli rather than be papered over in the manner that some policymakers in India are attempting.

Despite thousands of US lives having been lost in the Middle East and South Asia as a consequence of the activities of the Haqqani network, the Taliban and other elements of the Global Terror Archipelago, President Biden remains tethered to his long-time belief that the Pakistan military is an essential part of the solution to eradicating global terror. In reality, GHQ Rawalpindi and its force-multiplier, the Central Military Commission under CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping, are the main drivers of the GTA. In the case of the Auckland attack, the terrorist directly involved had extensive links with the GHQ-linked Wahhabi ecosystem in Sri Lanka, a spillover of the spreading influence of the PRC (and therefore its all-weather partner, Pakistan). The Wahhabi network has struck deep roots in New Zealand, given the permissive approach of the Jacinda Ardern government to elements close to the Wahhabi Brotherhood, a propensity towards appeasement of extremism by another name that is shared by significant elements in the Biden administration. It is understood that such elements were behind the otherwise inexplicable series of disastrous decisions taken by Commander-in-Chief Biden in the matter of Afghanistan, as they have burrowed their way into several key institutions, including the Department of Defense, where the GHQ Rawalpindi lobby has always had considerable influence.

Amazingly, serial betrayals by the Pakistan military (and its PLA boosters) on the battlefields of Asia do not seem to have shaken President Biden’s conviction (shared by George W. Bush during his own presidency) that the Pakistan military is an essential component in the battle against global terror. There are fewer than 40 key individuals serving and retired within the Pakistan and Chinese militaries that are playing essential roles in acting as force-multipliers in the GTA, and were they to be subject to global sanctions, the impact on global terror operations would be immediate. Why Washington, London, Paris. Berlin and indeed New Delhi are hesitating in imposing sanctions, in making a move that several in their own establishments regard as essential, is incomprehensible to those outside the cool shade of the mechanism of government. Although China (especially the Central Military Commission) will oppose any move within the UNSC to brand its collaborator GHQ Rawalpindi as what it is, the endemic focus of global terror, the effort has to be made by those countries with leadership structures that are not in thrall to the Sino-Wahhabi alliance. Before its term ends in 2022, India needs to present before the UNSC comprehensible and credible evidence linking GHQ Rawalpindi and its global force-multipliers to the Global Terror Archipelago. Keeping silent or escaping behind the curtain of perpetual dilly-dallying is not expected from the Government of India, a country whose voters in 2014 and in 2019 gave a comfortable mandate to the BJP in the expectation that national interests would be secured in a manner that was absent in the past.

In the US, whatever the PR exertions of the captive media of the White House, citizens are increasingly understanding the extent to which Biden has let them down by cravenly adopting the same policies towards Afghanistan in 2021 as his predecessor agreed to at Doha. Hopefully, those not serving the interests (wittingly or otherwise) of the Sino-Wahhabi alliance will rouse President Biden from his sleepwalking into disaster not just for his party but for the country. India needs to play not a passive but an active role in moving away from the generalities of officialese and enunciating in clear terms the danger posed by the Global Terror Archipelago that has the support of the Sino-Wahhabi alliance as a consequence of the decisions made by CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping since mid-2013.

President Biden will not be able to succeed in his declared mission of taking on and besting the China challenge by ignoring the fault lines created by the Sino-Wahhabi alliance. Should he shift gears and enter on a constructive rather than the present disastrous course, India will be an essential partner. Appeasement in the Europe of the 1930s led to the catastrophe of genocide and conflict witnessed during 1939-45. Facing up to the challenge posed by the GTA and its backers is called for to ensure that the societal and economic disaster planned for the major democracies by the Sino-Wahhabi alliance is to be averted. The dilution of leadership shown in Washington will hopefully be temporary, but into the vacuum drained of common sense created by Joe Biden, there is need for India to step forward and assist in creating both a global awareness as well as a global coalition to battle efforts by the Sino-Wahhabi alliance to use the terror machine as a means of weakening geopolitical rivals such as India and the US, not to mention Japan, Australia and other countries committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific.

India enters critical stage in the battle against global terror