Tillerson’s Trip & the new Great Game (FB Ali)

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hasn’t travelled the world anywhere as much as his predecessor, Hilary Clinton; she covered almost a million miles! That is why his recent trip to South Asia excited some attention. It also brought into focus the new Great Game being played in South and Central Asia. In this new version, the United States has replaced Great Britain while, in addition to Russia, China has also become a player on the board.

Secretary Tillerson’s trip began at Al Udeid, the US base in Qatar. He and his staff donned helmets and flak jackets, and boarded a military C-17 plane. Flying in less than first-class comfort, they stoically endured the ride, including the standard deep dive onto Bagram airbase. From the plane they were quickly rushed (driving through high concrete blast walls) to the US HQ in a former prison on the base, while helicopters patrolled the perimeter and two security blimps equipped with long-range cameras hovered above.

Unable to risk the short trip into Kabul, Tillerson met with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and others, including chief executive Abdullah Abdullah, in a windowless room on the base, while US troops stood guard outside. The communiqués issued by the US and Afghan governments after this meeting included the obligatory picture of the two leaders in their meeting. Unfortunately, these pictures resulted in more attention being paid afterwards to the mystery of the vanishing clock on the wall, than to any substantive results from the meeting.

The picture issued by the US shows a standard US military clock on the wall behind the two men, from which it can be inferred that the meeting took place at the Bagram Airbase. In the one issued by the Afghan presidential office, the clock has mysteriously vanished. It seems Mr Ghani didn’t want it widely known that the Americans didn’t consider it worthwhile for Secretary Tillerson to travel outside the safety of the US base in Bagram.

Finally, duty done (and pictures taken), Secretary Tillerson safely left Afghanistan after a total visit of all of two hours. As the New York Times commented on the visit: That top American officials must sneak into this country after 16 years of war, thousands of lives lost and hundreds of billions of dollars spent was testimony to the stalemate confronting the United States because of a stubborn and effective Taliban foe that is increasingly ascendant.

Afghanistan is usually referred to as a country, whereas it is, in fact, just a land of tribal groups. The two main ones are the Pashtuns (concentrated in the South and overflowing into Northern Pakistan) and what may be called the Northerners (mainly Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek tribes). The Taliban draw their strength from the Pashtuns, while the Northerners formed the bulk of the force that, with US assistance, ousted the Taliban from power during the US-led invasion of 2001.

What is now being painted (especially in the Western media) as a Taliban insurgency against the legal government of Afghanistan is in fact a civil war between the Northerners and the Pashtuns. The US and NATO are supporting one side in this civil war, while the Pashtuns of Pakistan (unofficially aided by their government) are supporting their brethren in Afghanistan. President Ashraf Ghani is a Pashtun heading a puppet government in which the real power lies with the Chief Executive, Abdullah Abdullah, a Northerner. The vast majority of the Afghan Special Forces, who are leading the fight against the Taliban, are Northerners. It is these Special Forces that the US is supporting with its SF troops and air power.

Pakistan’s rivalry with, and fear of, India also determine its policy on Afghanistan. Pakistan has no love for the Taliban as such; in fact, it fought and eradicated the movement (with the same name and the same ideology) that spread among the Pashtuns of Pakistan in 2007. But, it knows that the Northerners have the support of India, and their victory in the ongoing Afghan civil war would create the hostile encirclement it fears. Hence it is supporting the Afghan Taliban in their war against the Northerners (even though it does not officially acknowledge this).

After his short Afghanistan visit, Secretary Tillerson stopped for a few hours in Pakistan on his way to India. In meetings with Pakistani political and military officials, he hammered home the need for Pakistan to change its regional policies. According to former Indian ambassador Bhadrakumar, the US wants Pakistan “to leverage its influence with the Taliban to show flexibility” in their demand for US troops to leave Afghanistan, because the US needs to maintain “an open-ended military presence in the hugely strategic region for the pursuit of its containment strategy against China, Russia and Iran”.

The Pakistanis politely heard out these admonitions, but merely reiterated their standard stance of being against all terrorists, and having no links with, or influence upon, the Taliban. Both sides were well aware of the underlying reality, namely, that nearly all of the supplies for US troops in Afghanistan are transported by air or land through Pakistani territory, making the US dependent on Pakistan, rather than the other way around.

Pakistan has for long been an on-again, off-again US ally. But as the US has grown closer to India, it has moved away, and has now become an ally of China. This new relationship has been cemented with the planned China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), an important  part of China’s Belt and Road plans.

 After meeting Tillerson, Afghan President Ghani travelled to New Delhi the very next day, where he met PM Modi, under whom India has been providing both economic and military aid (training and equipment) to Afghanistan. Since Pakistan won’t allow India access to Afghanistan, it had to resort initially to an air corridor until it established a sea-land route through the Iranian port of Chabahar, which it has been upgrading since 2016.  A few days after Ghani’s visit, India shipped, through Chabahar, the first of six consignments of a gift of 1.1 million metric tons of wheat to Afghanistan.

The new US strategy for Asia, which has the goal of preventing China and Russia from dominating the Eurasian continent, calls for India to play a key role in these plans. This strategy has become feasible ever since Indian PM Narendra Modi (aka Modi the Hugger) switched India from being an ally of Russia to becoming an ally of the US (even though Modi was banned earlier for almost 10 years from entering the United States because of the large-scale massacre of Muslims in Bombay during his governance of the state). 

Ghani was followed in New Delhi by Secretary Tillerson, who reiterated the importance that the US attaches to its alliance with India and its role in Asia. Indian access to Central Asia (where the US already has links) through Iran is critical to US plans. The prize there is the former Soviet republics, especially Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan: securing influence with them and obtaining oil and gas from them.

India’s switch, under PM Modi, to its present alliance with the United States creates problems for those who were comfortable with it as a leading neutral country. Especially Russia, which has long had a close relationship with India, being one of its main military weapons and equipment suppliers. While PM Modi has been at pains to reassure Russia, there is bound to be some rethinking going on in the Kremlin. Already, problems are arising.

Another country reassessing its relations with India is Iran. It has slowed down the paperwork needed for India to develop the port of Chabahar, and has not so far drawn the soft loan that the Indians had agreed to provide it as part of the deal. It is quite possible that Iran may hinder Indian access to the port if the latter starts to adhere too closely to the US agenda in the region. (That was probably why Secretary Tillerson was at pains in New Delhi to try and soften the US’s anti-Iran stance).

Of course, the principal target of the USA in the new Great Game developing in Central and South Asia is China, and its plans for the Eurasian continent. Early on, China began to express alarm, and sound warnings, at the development of close relations between India and the US. To neutralize India, China has chosen Pakistan as its ally in South Asia. It has accorded only a minimal role to India in its Belt and Road plan, while India has made clear that it will not participate, with PM Modi refusing to attend the Peking Belt-and-Road Summit in May 2017, even though 29 other heads of state or government attended.

In Central Asia, the main playing field for this Great Game, all three major powers are seeking trade, influence and alliances with these countries, especially the biggest, Kazakhstan. Not only due to their strategic location, but also because of their natural resources. Russia has an inside edge, having taken the place of the defunct Soviet Union, of which these ‘stans were a part. However, China is now rapidly developing relations, especially economic, with them (its Belt route passes through them). As discussed above, the US is urging and assisting India, as a proxy, to also move into this area, while the purpose of its military efforts and diplomatic presence in Afghanistan is mainly to ensure a role for itself in Central Asia.     

So, this new Great Game goes on, with wily Vladimir Putin, tweeting Donald Trump, smiling Xi Jinpeng and creepy Narendra Modi all trying to outwit each other, and rope in the other minor players to their side. However it plays out, I very much doubt it will be as delightfully chronicled as the old one was in the Flashman Papers.

Comments

[Account Deleted]

Exactly to my point Babak.

[Leonardo]

Thanks for the detailed breakdown.

But I'm not sure I get your point. How will India's fears impact their political decisions, in your opinion? How can it gain that influence that the post above hints to?

[kooshy]

Iran and Pakistan are not strategic enemies either, not even with Saudi money. The issue with Pakistan is, that there is not much she can offer to Iran, or she can pay for to buy or get from Iran. The relationship always was ceremonial nothing more.

[Babak Makkinejad]

China is offering a credible positive vision that Japan had called "Co-prosperity Sphere" a hundred years ago.

Many are buying into that vision without a single bullet being fired in anger because they all need economic development and upgrade of their societies.

Assuming a grand-failure of China's vision, where would all these states go; to US, to Russia, to EU?

I do not think that is likely.

China does not have to become a high-income country - like South Korea or Japan - to be an attractive economic model.

[Babak Makkinejad]

India turned down multiple opportunities to participate in the Co-prosperity Sphere of China. Consider: Roads could have been built in the extreme Northeastern corner of India as conduit for Chinese trade to Calcutta. Such a road - or roads - would have immediately improved the lot of many of those 500 million people who subsit on 50 cents a day.

Abe's Diamond is a sick Joke - how could Indians work with Australians and Japanese with their deep prejudices against them?

[Babak Makkinejad]

All he needs to become the Perfect Global Statesman is a Nobel Peace Prize.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Pakistan always looks for patrons, the more the merrier. She will never willingly let go of Saudis without someone replacing the Saudis with a big fat annuity.

Diplomacy and Money go hand in hand.

[Adrestia]

Brigadier,

Thank you for your insights. It is always a treat to read something like this. I read Tillersons speech in India last week, which left me with the impression that it was the sales pitch of a CEO not a high government functionary.

How does the increased influence of India in Afghanistan affect Pakistans strategy?
thought Afghanistan was Pakistans 'hinterland' in case of an Indian invasion?

[asx]

The US and India getting to be closer dance partners is now fairly independent of administrations in DC and New Delhi. It is simply a function of the realignment in South and Central Asia. With Russia shrinking economically to cement its status as a junior partner to the Chinese, and China taking over as the primary patron of Pakistan's uniformed and ununiformed Jihadis, the coming together of U.S and Indian interests is just realpolitik.

To access the underbelly that is Central Asia, the US will continue to rent the services of Pakistan till the whole enterprise becomes untenable due to Chinese presence there. It will be near impossible for multiple clients to rent Pakistan's services concurrently for they seek different outcomes in Central Asia.

I do not believe the transition to 'China #1' will come at no cost to the region. There is no real economic activity that justifies the infrastructure vision of OBOR. By design, OBOR is a tool to provide captive markets for the excess industrial capacity and exportable manpower in China. And market access will be obtained in lieu of loan writeoffs of unviable infrastructure projects.

[Castellio]

A bit odd to read this article and the comments and not one mention of BRIC... is it really only a conceptual grouping?

[Babak Makkinejad]

It was a fantasy that sold news papers and speeches; another one is SCO, yet another is OIC, yet another is RCD.

[FB Ali]

I’m glad so many readers found this piece worthwhile. Thank you.

Peter AU
There are reports that the Russians are in touch with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Kremlin seems to follow a very pragmatic policy. The Taliban appear to be only interested in Afghanistan; unlike al Qaeda and IS, they are not interested in exporting their ideology to other parts of the world.

Leonardo
India’s role in Central Asia is mainly as a US proxy. Any of the “’stans” that wish to balance the pressure of China can turn to India as a proxy of the US.

Barbara Ann
Yes, the Chinese are moving into Syria. This is what they have been doing all over Eurasia, eg, Greece, Serbia, the EU, etc. See:
http://tinyurl.com/y94d5u2g
http://tinyurl.com/yb9qpxeq

Harper
I see no evidence for any possibility of Chinese investment in India, nor for Modi hoping for some. The idea of India joining CPEC is a fantasy. I suggest your Indian friends are telling you fairy tales.

Kooshy
In Pakistan, it is the politicians who are in thrall to the Saudis. The country’s foreign policy is mainly directed by the Army. Its relationship with the Saudis is very different; it is the Saudis who need to keep the Army happy, and willing to help them out in times of need. The Army has decided to move Pakistan into the Chinese camp, whether it suits the Saudis or not.

Adrestia
India doesn’t have “increased influence” in Afghanistan. I suggest a re-read of my article.

Castellio
I think BRICS doesn’t play any significant role in the internal dynamics of the region. However, it is still a useful grouping on the international scene, eg, its recent role in the attempt to move out from under the hegemony of the US dollar.

[Pacifica Advocate]

India's fears are already strongly influencing the region, insofar as they are a useful tool for the US/uk alliance. The post makes clear that the Northern Alliance (Kabul leadership) is receiving a lot of support and direction from India. If India, however, decides to withdraw that support, then the war in Afghanistan will become entirely unfeasible for the US to maintain. The simmering war in Afghanistan delivers a powerful means of destabilizing the entire region, from eastern Iran on over to western China, and on up to southern Russia.

I differ with Gen. Ali, here, in that I see what he outlines as a series of baby-steps, rather than definitive moves. I will admit, however, that these sorts of baby-steps by Modi have been quite consistent so far. My understanding, at the time of his election, is that he is a far right-wing populist, so it seems to me that he may not accurately represent the overall mood in India. Gen. Ali, however, will be better able to comment on that.

It seems to me there is a lot that can yet happen, here. Just as the US has used Afghanistan to drive a wedge between India and Russia, so too some other power--China, Russia, Iran--could use the US relationship with Pakistan to drive a wedge between India and the US. Pakistan is close to the Saudis, as is the US. Wahabbism is a deep antagonist to peaceful relations among Muslim and Hindu within India. Perhaps some way could be found to peel Pakistan away from US influence and shift it firmly under Chinese or Russian patronage--while that would threaten to drive India further away from the Sino-Russian economic plans for the area, it would also isolate it from the Central Asian markets, and might also result in bringing the Afghan war to an end.

Personally, I don't see the US winning this fight, regardless of its relationship to India, regardless of how much money or weapons are used.

[Pacifica Advocate]

>>>I think the current Communist China....

"Communist" China?

"Communist" in what sense, precisely?

[Pacifica Advocate]

>>>Politically, Xi continues to consolidate his authoritarian power by eliminating his rivals in purges and shadow trials. This removes any chance for a more inclusive political environment in China.

Xi is not "eliminating his rivals;" his campaign is and always has been an anti-corruption campaign, which is of course precisely what is needed to promote greater political inclusion within the Chinese political system. There is

Trials in China are no more nor less "show trials" than are trials in Taiwan.

China's political situation is very complex, and unless one can first admit that single-party systems are just a lot more opaque and difficult to analyze than multi-party systems, then there really isn't anything meaningful to say about what's happening in Chinese politics.

This is an excellent overview of the actual situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0USIKN0mqo0&feature=youtu.be&start=5&autoplay=1&rel=0

[jld]

Just like YOU know they will be a source of great global instability...

[jld]

They claim it themselves and indeed they kept the "working parts" of Communism (control...) they only ditched the economic silliness :-)

[Phodges]

BP

Regarding credit bubbles...who creates the debt in China, relative to who creates the debt in the U.S? To whom is payback ultimately owed in each case?

[blue peacock]

It is not easy to overcome the middle income trap.

I agree that China is offering a positive model of economic development through both financing and construction of infrastructure in return for market access to their manufactured goods.

How big do you think the market would be in the Stans, Afghanistan & Pakistan relative to the Chinese investment in infrastructure?

The financial math hasn't exactly worked out for them in Africa & South America.

[blue peacock]

"...Xi is not "eliminating his rivals;" his campaign is and always has been an anti-corruption campaign..."

Are you asserting that Xi's faction is not corrupt?

Look at all the politburo members that have been arrested. None belong to Xi's faction. Many have been part of Jiang Zemin's Shanghai faction.

[blue peacock]

China does not have a deep bond market, so the visible credit has been created by the banking and shadow banking system.

In the US, on the other hand the credit markets are large. Student loans, auto loans, credit card debt, municipal debt, corporate debt, mortgage debt are mostly marketable debt.

[Pacifica Advocate]

>>>They claim it themselves and indeed they kept the "working parts" of Communism (control...)....

Yes, they adopted a lot of capitalist reforms, and the economy is today pretty much robber-baron capitalism. But what the Chinese kept was the single-party system, and the legal requirement that all laws, constitutional assemblies, and forms of government may be amended at the party's will. That's not "Communism" in any respect that I've ever seen attributed to Marx, nor any of the many, many other communist philosophers and analysts that came after him; it's just a single-party system with a carefully managed capitalist economy. North Korea is a single-party state, and Taiwan was, too (and in many respects still is). More and more people are saying that the US's "Two Party system" is in fact just a single-party system with two branches, and lord knows the economy in the U.S. is managed, as well.

These same complaints are made of quite a few "two-party systems"--like the so-called "democratic" governments in the Caribbean.

China has a lot of problems, but exactly none of them has anything to do with "Communism"--and most of them are surprisingly like the sorts of problems one finds in the US, UK, and poorer Commonwealth countries.

[LeaNder]

Barbara, I hesitated for a moment, if I should throw a singular human being and/or his biography into the larger political context.

But then, that was the closest I ever got to the region mentally via local journalist's curiosity/looks/research. ... The larger "professional" security context both regional and beyond was much harder to grasp.

Semi irony alert, a bit of taking a cue and run with it. From my as always limited perspective. This was the most interesting part:

“You were just not supposed to because it was considered bad form. It was not a nice thing to do and I understand that from the standpoint of the president whose place you were taking,” Trump added.

Is there a full transcript?

BJ

[ex-PFC Chuck]

I'm late to the party but, yes, this was a very informative post. Thank you.

[ex-PFC Chuck]

Since China, like the USA, is a sovereign country that issues its own fiat currency, they owe it to themselves. In other words, it's not a problem. This is per Modern Monetary Theory.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html