|By Mylene Doublet O’Kane, UTC+1
|Postgraduate in Philosophy and History of ideas, an independent analyst in geopolitics and a teacher
|original source : French
It’s particularly distressing to have to consider that one of the greatest potential leading countries in the world tends to systematically self-destruct. Is it the case with India? In between Nationalism and ultra-capitalism, India’s iterative tensions with China over remote portions of land in the high Himalayas, where the borders of China’s Tibet Autonomous Region converge with India and the Kingdom of Bhutan, is only a symptom of India’s mixed messages translating one crucial question:
Who or what grand strategy is behind India’s foreign and domestic policies under Prime Minister Narendra Modi? Has Modi switched sides? If so, Cui bono? To whom the benefit?
Brief Historical background
India is at a crossroads of a vast range of inspiring and tolerant oriental philosophies which have made its traditional culture compatible with much different ideologies in a harmonious way. Whereas one could define Western culture as the attempt to conquer, control and transform the nature of things, one could characterize Chinese traditional culture as an attempt to alter, limit or moderate desires as well as satisfaction and contentment with what existence has to offer, while original Indian culture rather conveys the renouncement of desire by questioning existence or retreating from the world. French Sinologist and Professor Leon Vandermeersch would describe them as promethean, give-and-take and nihilist (in the Nietszchean sense) respectively. Considering its unique location, the wide area of the Indian subcontinent has been influenced by Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions. Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent mainly took place from the 12th to the 16th centuries, though earlier Muslim conquests made limited inroads into modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as early as the time of the Rajput kingdoms in the 8th century. With the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, Islam spread across large parts of the subcontinent. After this era came the British rule, firstly through the British East India Company which was privately owned (John’s company) formed and sponsored by Latinized Bankers and their cliques of dependent aristocrats and wealthy merchant alliance to pursue trade with the “East Indies” (in present-day terms, Maritime Southeast Asia), but eventually ended up trading mainly with Qing Imperial Dynasty-China while seizing control of the Indian subcontinent. The company rose to account for half of the world’s trade, particularly in basic commodities including cotton, silk, indigo dye, spices, tea while making Afghanistan-grown trade of opium its first weapon of supremacist domination on the Eastern world. The British Company eventually came to represent the evil and conservatism of the monopoly form whereas Chinese merchants had genuinely envisioned interconnectivity between the West and East on peaceful grounds and mutual fair trade basis. At its early beginning, the company received a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600, making it the oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies.
Although we can concede that during its first century of operation, the focus of the company was trade, not the building of an Empire in India, company’s interests turned from trade to territory during the 18th century as the Mughal Empire (Mogul Empire) would decline in power and while the British private corporate “East India Company” struggled with its French counterpart; the French East India Company (Compagnie française des Indes orientales) during the Carnatic Wars of the 1740s and 1750s. The battles of Plassey and Buxar, in which the British defeated the Indian powers, left the company in control of Bengal and a major military and political power in India. In the following decades it gradually increased the extent of the territories under its control, ruling the whole Indian subcontinent either directly or indirectly via local puppet rulers under the threat of force by its “Presidency armies”, much of which were composed of native Indian Sepoys. By 1803, at the height of its rule in India, the British East India company had a private army of about 260,000—twice the size of the British Army. The company eventually came to rule large areas of India with its private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions. Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 and lasted until 1858, when, following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown’s assuming direct control of the Indian subcontinent in the form of the new British Raj.
As an overall and although the British Company would figure prominently in the works of the godfather of Capitalism Adam Smith (1776), but also in later contributions to Capitalism (Thomas Mun, James Steuart, James Mill, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill) among others that would have a significant influence on the development of economic thought in Britain, at no time was the British Company’s intention to create a perfectly competitive economic system. On the contrary, it would rather embody one of the earliest contemporary forms of white and “Latinized” supremacist totalitarianism for happy few western elites.
In other words and if we would like to draw an analogy with present time, Globalization “made in Latinized private investment” has always focused on how to bring about global Imperialism through a network of covert [Hybrid] wars playing on all fronts, on its sole legal terms and for its sole benefits.
After the heroic Indian Rebellion of 1857, the “Latinized ultra-liberal private sector” would eventually require the commitment of the already submitted British Royal Crown in the process. Yet, the original ambition would remain. The British Raj (literally the British rule in Hindustani) would be the rule by the British Crown in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947. This transfer of governance from the true power to a puppet power in the person of Queen Victoria would give her the self-satisfaction of proclaiming her Royal Regina “Empress of India” in 1876. Under the British policy of “divide and rule” India was partitioned, as Muslim majority states were carved out in the likes of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The British retreat in 1947 resulted in horrendous violence on local population and in the formation of a Muslim-ruled country: Western Pakistan and Eastern Pakistan the latter from which would emerge Modern Bangladesh as an independent nation in 1971 after breaking away and achieving independence from Pakistan (in the Bangladesh Liberation War). The country’s borders coincide with the major portion of the ancient and historic region of Bengal. This deliberate wound created 70 years ago has ever since translated into multiple clashes and insurgencies in these three countries. The British Empire had not forgotten about the advice given by one of its key advisors in geopolitics: Never let Russia be reunited with its geographic Rimland which would potentially allow it to be not only an overland power but also a maritime power. (see Halford Mackinder’s theory and subsequent US-Dutch immigrated counterpart Nicholas Spykman ; the father of the US policy of Containment who both recommended to prevent Russia from a direct access to the Indian Ocean).
The British partition and later retreat also included to generate recurring territorial disputes. However, some are older than its imperialistic presence on the subcontinent.
China/ India : The Doklam plateau
One of them relates to the right of ownership on the Doklam Plateau which goes back to the period of the feudal strife that existed between the separate principalities of the entire adjacent region of Tibet and the Himalayas. It later involved the administration of the then imperial China and British India. More than a century ago, guardianship agreements were concluded between imperial China and Bhutan, then the “guardianship” switched to British India. After the British leave, India would consider itself as inheritor of the mentioned “guardianship” according to which the Republic of India stands today as the defender of the interests of the Kingdom of Bhutan in the global arena, in particular, in the fight against the People’s Republic of China for possession of the Doklam Plateau. The current Indian leadership claims that this small section of the Himalayan Highlands is located close to a narrow isthmus (25 to 40 km width) over which route communication is carried out between the main territory of India and its six North-Eastern states with a population of about 40 million people. One of them (Arunachal Pradesh) with an area of about 100 thousand square kilometers is also included in the territorial claims of the People’s Republic of China. In recent years, China has engaged in the construction of roads on its territory under its bold Belt and Road Initiative project with tremendous economic benefits for landlocked countries in the region. At the same time, India is currently building some “reserve bunkers” on its “side” of the plateau.
For one to be able to grasp the big picture of territorial disputes, this map is more eloquent than words. This is the legacy of the British Empire to Southwestern Asia.
THE SOCIALIST RULE
With independence emerged 67 years of secular and socialist rule in India. There were many political systems available upon India’s independence thanks to the different freedom fighters, think tanks, and different ideologies involved.
Sardar Vallabai Patel represented Hindu nationalism. Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of Grama Swaraj proposed more authority to be delegated to the villages. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru would represent the secular socialists and communists. In parallel with this political spectrum, Muslim nationalists had gone to Pakistan and Bangladesh where they formed states according to their Muslim nationalism. Nonetheless, B.R. Ambedkar, who came from among the Dalits protesting against Hindutva politics, ensured protection for Indian minorities and tribes of the backwards castes, including the Dalits. Mahatma Gandhi’s brutal death obviously transformed the mood in India from Hindu nationalism to secular socialism under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru. One has to remind that Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by Hindu nationalists. The problems of secular government under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and persisting Sikh riots would provoke the transition to “emergency authoritarian rule”. From 1984 forward, a period of “emergency rule” saw a large portion of secular socialists leave and form a new Socialist party which later evolved into a Hindu nationalist power, ultimately developing into the right wing in India.
A NEW CHALLENGE: THE NATIONALIST ULTRA-CAPITALISTIC THIRD WAY?
A major political shift began in 2014 and has continued ever since under the impulse of the leading right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party supported by billionaire economic oligarchs pushing ultra-capitalism to exploit Indian resources to the fullest. First stint as Chief Minister of Gujarat province from 2001 to 2014, elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi solidified the policy of strengthening the sovereignty. An unafraid nationalism, the adherence to traditional values as well as the faith in a multipolar world’s equilibrium are distinct attributes of India’s current leader.
However, how far can his ultra-capitalistic policies match with the hopes of the Indian society?
THE DOMESTIC FRONT
Poor people with less political, economic and social capital are marginalized under the current elites’ rule and the caste system. The tribal population, non-elite Muslims and Dalits are threatened by economic pressure. For instance, more than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives away since 1997 when the practice of seed saving was transformed under US-led globalization pressures and US-Monsanto’s rule. Once planted, genetically modified seeds impoverish the soil (Argil-Humus complex) and force indebted peasants to reorder the same variety, poorer harvest one after another.
On the financial front, the Prime Minister brutally declared all 500 and 1,000 rupee-notes invalid, unless exchanged or deposited in a bank or post office account until 31 December 2016. After this date, all un-exchanged “old” money was declared invalid; in other words- lost. Barely half of Indians have banking accounts. Electronic money instead of cash quite obviously allows “Latinized bankers’, who already control the entire western world via the dollar monetary system, to further enslave India. The final goal of speedy global demonetization aims at global domination through the monetary weapon. In this respect, India is used as a test case covering 1.3 billion people. Similar “tests” are currently running throughout Europe. For instance, the Nordic countries, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, are moving rapidly towards US dollar-controlled cashless societies.
“Give me control over a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws” – Baron M.A. Rothschild
On the global level, this “Latinized” Bankers’ policy means that literally everybody outside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) shall be forced to back the US dollar which is artificially supported by full-out wars worldwide [military industrial complex] as well as by financial tools overrating the collapsing currency. This understanding encouraged India and Pakistan to put aside their US-NATO-fueled territorial, social and religious disputes to join the SCO as full members on 9 June 2017 during a summit in Astana, Kazakhstan with the additional awareness that China’s New Gold backed Yuan-oil currency was a major game changer aiming at a multilateral-oriented globalization via major reforms in international institutions. However, can Indian Nationalism and hard earned independence ever admit another submission to supremacist “Latinized bankers’ sole interests? Is India shifting backwards in history? Has the current leading power learnt something, if at all, about its contemporary past?
Should we list emblematic western maneuvers to destabilize the nation? Social activists are currently arising out of almost all Indian universities against economic and social injustice of the upper Brahmanic class’ hegemony while the silence of the Indian government over the intolerant situation created by the country’s ruling authorities and neo-imperial policies are fueling even more social anger and disapproval. Thousands of Kashmir insurgent groups have strengthened inside India due to continuous military intervention against innocent civilians. How far can speculation-oriented capitalism be carried out without generating major social disatisfactions and political issues for the current leading party? In the state of Uttar Pradesh, for instance, the communal card can easily be played to extinguish nationalist efforts in this state where the larger proportion of the population can influence policy formulation and gain new seats in the Rajyasabha; the upper House of Parliament where the ruling party has less influence. Indeed, controlling this vast geographical area with a diverse range and nature of tribes, religions, and ethnicities is a difficult challenge for any empire. However, the truth is that Evangelical churches funded by WASP-Jewish Zionists (nothing to do with Judaism) do actively supply educational and health services in the insurgent North-Eastern borderlands. Although very quiet a “latinized” soft power, these apparent “humanitarian” actions make sure of sowing permanent seeds of tensions in the country as well as between India and neighboring China.
In parallel, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with foreign funding are escalating civilian anger while arming insurgents. While policy makers, economists and foreign think tanks underscore a constellation of neoliberal sympathizers and influencers gravitating in all Indian spheres, India is also made up of large princely states in which Muslim communities, Sikhs, other tribes, Dalits, secularists, socialists, liberals, and communists all fighting for power in the social, political, economic, and cultural arenas who all the while do not understand why their own government does not provide them with justice and protection. To put it different, the WASP-Jewish Zionist agenda is settling the conditions for a permanent insurrectional state in India which in turn, further pushes the government towards Western imperialism for happy few elites and ultra-capitalistic measures.
US-NATO-GGC fueling oil on fire in the region on purpose.
To give a brief context, as soon as 1978, a US-UK-GCC concocted “Operation Cyclone” ; a plan which intended to drag the Soviet Union in a war of attrition also aimed to overthrow the secular socialist Afghan leading power. Under these auspices, Pakistan and Afghan Taliban (local Sunni extremist branch) would join their forces to Mujahideen arriving from the entire MENA (North Africa and the Middle East) regions on request from their GCC-led Sunni absolute monarchist regimes. The aftermath of this 10 year- conflict (1979-1989) would give birth to Al Qaeda for CIA further use around the globe; a fact which is now well documented. It also led to a CIA-backed civil war which would install a Taliban regime. Twelve years later, in the hours following the alleged 9/11 terror attack (2001), the U.S. would pretend that they had switched side and blamed Al Qaeda Saudi leader Osama Bin Laden as well as the Taliban, although many sources immediately emerged that the perpetrators originated from MENA countries and that Bin Laden had probably died even before his alleged planned-attack on the United States. Nevertheless, a convenient “retaliation” campaign paved the way for illegal and unlimited US-NATO foothold in Afghanistan (See Zbigniew Brzezinski ‘s Grand Strategy theory). A new ideology was born “Global war on terrorism”. Anybody in our generation reminds of Georges Bush’s imbecilic motto: “Either you’re with us or you’re against us”. In playing on the high profile and mediatized tragic event, the U.S. did not bother to either produce solid evidence or ask for a U.N. mandate, though compulsory. Many attorneys have ever since declared that the so-called block 7 in Guantanamo was the locked jail for a number of prisoners they had been strictly refused to visit.
“They have been locked, tortured and refused a fair trial not because they didn’t want to admit their implication in terror attacks but rather because they could reveal the fact that they had been recruited, trained, armed and used by the CIA. Guantanamo is only the vivid memory of CIA’s dramatic implications in most terror attacks carried out around the world”.
We won’t even mention U.K.-U.S. fabricated evidence of WMD shamelessly provided before the U.N. to launch a war on Iraq.
On the Afghan front, exportations of Afghan opium to the United States have skyrocketed to the sole benefit of U.S. pharmaceutical big corporations since 2001. Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that from the summer 2015 forward, many military reports acknowledge a drastic increase in U.S.-NATO military rotations of helicopters going back and forth from the Syrian conflict zones in the Middle East to Norther Afghanistan. The surprising presence of DAESH (IS former ISIL-ISIS) in Afghanistan was almost concomitantly reported and has ever since gained ground suggesting U.S.-NATO attempts to infiltrate terrorism into Russia from its southern neighboring Muslim countries and into China from its Xinjiang province ; home of Muslim Uighurs. Under this configuration, the idea of using terror cells to smuggle opium from US-controlled Afghanistan via Pakistan into Indian Punjab is an easy way of escalating diplomatic tensions between the three countries. We shall see the core reason for this in the following course of the present article. In the same fashion, terror cells are part of very well documented U.S-CIA Hybrid war techniques in order to orchestrate civilian unrest, possible change regimes and/or diplomatic tensions between neighboring political leaders.
Considering this frame, one can begin to understand why U.S. traditional ally Pakistan was put under “close scrutiny” as soon as last year although Islamabad expressed its readiness to cooperate with the international community in achieving the common goal of promoting peace and stability in the South Asian region. During the spring of 2017, Pakistan announced a draft settlement for Afghanistan. In August, military civilian authorities reaffirmed this ambition and also insisted on the importance of eliminating the shelters for “the militias” in Afghanistan, the need for border management, the return of Afghan refugees from Pakistan and the intensification of the peace process for a political settlement in Afghanistan by providing for the participation of the Taliban in the power structures. This solution would obviously imply that the Taliban and the U.S.-puppet Afghan government agree upon seating around the negotiating table; an outcome not supported by Washington for obvious reasons. The more unrest in Afghanistan, the best. Trump’s “troop surge” in Afghanistan and bellicose rhetoric against Pakistan has resulted in several responses. The Parliament, the National Assembly (NA) and the Senate of Pakistan have condemned the “hostile and threatening” statements by United States President Donald Trump and General J. W. Nicholson [the commander of the United States troops in Afghanistan], while they have firmly called upon the government of Pakistan to take strong measures such as the suspension of cooperation with the United States, particularly with regards to the provision of ground and air links through Pakistani territory, the return of all three million Afghan refugees to their homeland but also stricter border controls [“sealing of borders”] with Afghanistan; the demand for similar action by the Afghan authorities and to the command of the United States forces. Furthermore, Islamabad expressed “deep concern” at the increase in the number of militants of the proscribed terrorist group DAESH and a series of other terrorist groups (in particular DTP Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Jamaatul Ahrar etc.) in the Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan, and demanded that Afghanistan, the U.S. and its NATO/CGG allies close the borders for the leaders of the factions carrying out attacks against Pakistan. In return, Washington has accused the Taliban and the Haqqani network of perpetrating terrorist attacks in the region and of maintaining alleged relationships with Russia. Meanwhile, the reality proves otherwise. The Taliban see DAESH as a local rivalry and would therefore gain no benefit in attacking their own population. In addition, Russia’s efforts are focused on a peace process which includes envisioning a distinction between “the Good Taliban” willing to come to the negotiating table and “the bad Taliban” whose project is a return to their rule. In this respect and considering its historic links in the region, Russia uses its credibility as a fair peace broker to assist a faction within the Taliban.
Contrary to the regrettable ideology disseminated within the west, Pakistan is not harboring terrorists. Washington’s reproach against Islamabad has deliberately silenced the fact that since 2016, Pakistan has been part of the Islamic Military Alliance (IMA) which is headed by Raheel Sharif, a retired Pakistani military General, since May 2017. Upon assuming office, Sharif strongly asserted his mission of ensuring security and unity within the Muslim world. Consequently, the command of the IMA coalition views the threat of the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of one of its member states as a military threat to the Ummah as a whole. In stark contrast, the US is widely seen as a murderous oppressor on the regional front, and its recognition of Jerusalem last Dec 6th 2017 has only strengthened an anti-US-NATO’s opinion; all ethnic communities included. The absurd “Save Afghan women” campaign is only, but a trap for gullible minds.
WHERE CHINA’S CPEC IS US-NATO’s REAL TARGET
As mentioned earlier, the core reason for the U.S’. new animosity against Pakistan is related to a vast attempt to undermine China’s projects around the world which include the CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) as part of the Silk Road Economic Belt, the implementation of which will increase Pakistan’s GDP by 3 per cent (according to the calculations of Pakistani economists). Consequently, Pakistan intends to firmly protect its country not only from regional and international aggressions, but also from the accusations being leveled against it of providing sanctuaries to terrorists.
Needless to mention that India’s unexpected refusal to participate in the CPEC last May 2017 created a deep regional disappointment whereas the US-NATO rejoicedat the news. On a broader geopolitical scale, U.S.’ calculations include an Indian swing towards a geostrategic alliance which would conveniently lock Russia, China, Central Asia, Southwestern Asia and Eastern Asia into a quadrangle-like reconfiguration formed of US-NATO-controlled Afghanistan/India/Japan and Australia.
SURPRISING INDIA: ALL HOPES ARE NOT LOST
At the same time, just last year India alongside Pakistan were accepted as formal members of the increasingly important Shanghai Cooperation Organization where China is a founding member along with Russia, raising hopes that the common SCO format would permit peaceful resolution of boiling border tensions created by the 1947 British partition of India into a dominant Muslim Pakistan and a majority Hindu India with several unresolved friction areas including Kashmir and the slyly latent chaos left by Lord Mountbatten as part of much expected future explosion points. It is noteworthy that India is also a member along with China in the BRICS organization which has created a BRICS New Development Bank in Shanghai whose President happens to be an Indian personality. India is also a member of the China-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Furthermore and until Prime Minister Modi announced India’s refusal to join the May 14 2017 Beijing conference on China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) aka (BRI) [Belt and Road initiative], India was also a participant in the bold Eurasian infrastructure project. Then what’s going on? How can one understand India’s mixed signals?
OBOR Boycott : India-Japan “Freedom Corridor”? (Indo Pacific Freedom Corridor)
On May 14 2017, Prime Minister Modi announced his refusal to participate in China-led OBOR conference on alleged grounds that China was attempting to tighten its power on its regional partners. India also cited the Chinese investment in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC); a multibillion network of highways, rails, two airports and port infrastructures between China and Pakistan which passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
In the immediate aftermath of this declaration and with concerning surprise, India unveiled a vision document for Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC) at the African Development Bank meeting in Gujarat, in a joint project with Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The Indo-Japan AAGC document is an explicit part of a so-called “Indo-Pacific Freedom Corridor” being put in place by India and Japan under the covert effort of Latinized Bankers to counter China’s OBOR. In using the Japanese currency as a means of supporting a collapsing US dollar as well as the Indian established presence in Africa, the plan appears mostly the covered deployment of full scale belligerency. But why on earth would India favor a certain WASP-Jewish Zionist agenda whose imperialistic ambition has constantly proven a supremacist and elitist vision of humankind?
At this point into our presentation, unfamiliar people with geopolitics deserve to understand why the CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) is eminently crucial for the implementation of a true multilateral dialogue between sovereign nations as opposed to a US-led global imperialism for happy few.
PAKISTAN: tying up together former British Empire/US-NATO/GCC-created opposing blocks
For one to comprehend the rationale behind the development of alternative governance systems such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as part of their joint efforts and multilateral contributions aiming at reforming WASP/Jewish Zionist-created world financial institutions (Bank of International Settlements, World Bank, FED, IMF…) but also other international organizations for the exclusive benefit of happy few elites, what’s needed most of all is to integrate the Afro-Eurasian countries of the Eastern Hemisphere into what China calls a “win-win” network of real-sector economic relations as opposed to speculation-oriented form of capitalism. To this end, China’s solution has been translated into its One Belt, One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity aiming at building up a series of multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects whose ultimate humanitarian ambition is a convergence of civilizations.
As of today, the most important Silk Road’s project is China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC); a $62 billion investment (and counting). Its bold ambition looks forwards to actually connecting East Asia with South Asia by means of a non-Malacca mainland trade passage.
Several constructions are currently taking place in Pakistan, one of which being the terminal port of Gwadar located in Pakistan’s Baluchistan region.
Given that China is the 1st oil importing nation in the world, one cannot deny China’s obvious top priorities which include the implementation of alternative routes securing its energy supply. It is currently dependent on the vulnerable Straits of Malacca for 80% of its oil imports from Africa and the Middle East. Considering this state of facts, China has launched the construction of Gwadar (Pakistan)-Kashgar (China’s Xinjiang province) oil pipeline that shall carry 1 million barrel per day (1MMBD) Middle Eastern oil to China. It shall hence allow the country to shift around 17 percent of its oil import away from the Malacca Strait. The new pipeline is due to complete by 2021. The oil shall arrive from the Middle East to Gwadar’s terminal Port -Pakistan’s Baluchistan region and from there shall be transported to China’s Xinjiang province via this new Pipeline infrastructure. Estimates are that the Gwadar oil pipeline to Kashgar will cut the shipping cost and transit time to half of the current circuitous 12,000 km sea route. Gwadar port shall also provide China with a strategic beachhead right on the Indian Ocean and close to the Strait of Hormuz, which in turn shall make Beijing a two-ocean power (Pacific and Indian oceans); a situation that the British Empire and later US-NATO’s alliance have been ardently looking forward to avoiding accordingly to Halford Mackinder’s theory then Spykman’s policy of containment. Once completed, Gwadar Port shall have dual-use civilian-military facilities including a naval base for Chinese warships and submarines as well as it shall serve as a listening post to monitor U.S. and Indian naval maneuvers in both the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. Given its unique view on the Strait of Hormuz, Gwadar can potentially be utilized by the People’s Liberation Army navy (PLA-N) to intimidate or blockade the narrow maritime Detroit; should more expected than not growing hostilities erupt with US-NATO/GCC coalition or else, with India. Additionally and as mentioned earlier, this direct overland pipeline access to the Indian Ocean shall allow the Chinese Navy to bypass the Indian and U.S. navies in the Indian Ocean and avoid the Strait of Malacca in case of any plausible blockade by the U.S. Navy in this area. The economic advantage of Gwadar for China and Pakistan could equal its strategic importance. Gwadar is developed with a view to transforming it into a major commerce hub, especially for exports of Chinese goods to the Middle East, Europe, and Africa and for imports of goods and energy supplies needed to fuel the growing Chinese economy.
In this respect, CPEC doesn’t just connect China to the Indian Ocean but more significantly, it also lays the framework for Pakistan to operate as a tie-up between Europe and Asia in linking together a series of Eurasian economic blocs [Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEAU), China, Iran, and South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC-member Pakistan] together, in economically and geographically strengthening the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation organization) and subsequently turn the viability of a Multipolar World into an unavoidable reality. Furthermore, the CPEC offers the solid opportunity of connecting Europe, the Gulf countries and the African continent with their SCO counterparts. In other words, against the U.S.-led “divide, murder and rule” included in the deceitful theory of a “Clash of Civilizations” (see US-led Samuel Huntington’s theory), the CPEC proposes to lay the philosophical first stone for a realistic humanitarian project of Convergence of Civilizations.
To provide a brief context, Russia-led EEAU trade organization comprises Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Although the latter two had respectively moved their economic potentials closer to South Asia, the unintegrated nature of Uzbekistan (which is doubtful to join in the near future although highly detrimental to its landlocked economy ) and strategic US-NATO- continuous illegal occupation of Afghanistan which are themselves coupled with accelerating relocation activities of DAESH (IS former ISIL) terrorist cells into mountainous regions of northern Afghanistan have posed obvious obstacles to China and Russia in their efforts to increase trade with South Asia. Consequently, two alternatives have steadily developed to overcome these geopolitical hindrances and reach that regional market. The first one is the North-South corridor which stretches between Russia-Iran-India via the Caspian and Arabian Seas and the second, connecting the first one, is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The regional vision is a fascinating conceptualization and a modelling architecture reflecting a deep understanding of each participating country’s needs which also brings the Eurasian Union into contact with SAARC-member Pakistan for a steadfast and growing economy . In turn, the complete network shall not only provide a direct trade opening with the rest of the South Asian bloc but its overall capacity of outreach shall go far beyond the regional scope.
To comment on the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), it stretches from Pakistan to Bangladesh, with its largest economy obviously being India. At its early beginning, this regional integrational platform has had considerable difficulty achieving closer economic relations among its members. Nonetheless, this observation doesn’t mean that the potential isn’t there. Should the political differences between rivals Pakistan and India be put aside as an effort to understand that a collective action against a supremacist global power would in turn ease the resolution of local tensions, then a combined articulation of the organization aligned with China-led OBOR’s multipolar vision would finally be able to reshape a global equilibrium to their own advantages respectively.
For instance, to mention the regional front alone, SAARC, through its Indian and Bangladeshi members could plausibly boost trade with China through the BCIM corridor between the three and Myanmar.
India’s utilization of CPEC and BCIM routes to China would hence improve economic development of India’s least advanced northern regions, including Uttar Pradesh, among several others. However, while there does certainly remain the concerning dispute of India’s de-facto recognition of Pakistani-administered Kashmir if its companies employ this route, economic growth estimates are tremendously tempting.
As until India voiced its participation into a US-led challenging Indo-Japanese project (AAGA), the CPEC, the BCIM along with the Terminal Port of Gwadar would offer the extraordinary opportunity to connect together Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India-Bangladesh-Mynamar and their respective poorly developed hinterlands and Central Asian landlocked neighboring countries.
In 2015 the Chinese Overseas Port Holding Company (COPHC) took over operation of the Gwadar Port in a lease for 43 years, and Gwadar Port became a formal link between the overland and the maritime sections of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Ongoing expansion of the port is estimated at $1.7 billion. Gwadar will also have a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility as part of a $2.6 billion Gwadar-Nawabshah segment of the Iran–Pakistan gas pipeline project. Gwadar is located only 120 miles away from Iran’s Chabahar Port in its Baluchistan Sistan region.
Construction began in June 2016 on the Gwadar Special Economic Zone, which is being built adjacent to the port. The Chinese government is financing much of the port construction via zero interest loans whereby Pakistan must only repay principal.
Ultimately, Gwadar shall connect China, Central Asia and Southern west Asia with Africa with phenomenal economic opportunities for participating countries.
Then how to explain India’s refusal and participation into a “latinized”-led counter-project?
INDIAN DOUBLE-BOARD PLAY? : India’s Chabahar Port vs China’s Gwadar Port
India is the main competitor of China in Asia. It is also the 2nd largest oil importing nation in the world. This detail has its importance.
Although gone almost unnoticed in western media, Indian Prime Minister Modi and Iranian President Rouhani have signed the Chabahar Agreement last May 2017 which shall enable India to develop the Chabahar Port in Iranian Baluchistan as a major economic and strategic corridor linking India to Afghanistan and Central Asian markets. In this respect, this Agreement is seen as India’s strategic response to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).The Indo-Chinese rivalry underscores the geopolitical significance of Baluchistan [Iranian Sistan region/ Pakistani Baluchistan region] as a focal point in the New Great Game played by the US, China, and India in Asia.
Baluchistan and Its Geostrategic Location: the Importance of Chabahar
An historical insight
Until the British Colonialist rule in the mid-19th century, Baluchistan managed to maintain its independence, for the most part, from the surrounding empires. This is reflected in the fact that the pre-division period is known by the Baluch as the Baluch Doura or the Baluch era, a historical concept referring to the state of affairs in Baluchistan prior to its partition and occupation by Iran and Pakistan.
The Baluch Doura survived the British colonial rule (1858-1947) as the British did not replace the Baluch political system and institutions, but only created its own parallel rule of administration in order to control the defense and foreign affairs of an otherwise an independent Baluchi state.
Under the British Empire, Baluchistan was divided into three parts. The Goldsmid Line, drawn in 1871 and demarcated in 1896, gave western Baluchistan to Persia. The Baluch in Iran, however, maintained their independence until 1928 when, with British approval, Reza Shah Pahlavi occupied and forcefully annexed western Baluchistan into Iran. The Durand Line, also drawn quite unsurprisingly by the British in 1894, further divided eastern Baluchistan between British India and Afghanistan. In the wake of the British withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent in 1948, Baluchistan regained its independence for some months before it was invaded and annexed by Pakistan the same year. These events have led to the rise of Baluch nationalism, which is the driving force behind the ongoing Baluch quest for independence.
The Geostrategic Importance of Baluchistan: The Great silenced Game
Baluchistan covers about 240,000 square miles with a coastline stretching nearly 1000 miles from the Strait of Hormuz to Karachi in Pakistan. It occupies one of the most strategic locations in the world, linking the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia. In addition, it is also one of the richest lands in terms of natural resources including oil, gas, gold, platinum, uranium, iron, coal, ore, and immense seabed resources along its long coastline, including its 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The population of Baluchistan is around 35 million including 7 million in Iranian-western Baluchistan; 25 million in Pakistani-eastern Baluchistan, Sind, and Punjab; and around 3 million in Afghanistan. [Ancient Persian Empire]. There is also a large Baluchi population of more than one million in the neighboring Arabian Gulf states as well as a relatively large number of Baluch living in India, East Africa, and Turkilometersenistan in addition to a diaspora scattered in Europe, the U.S., and Australia.
Baluchistan borders the Indus River and Punjab in the East, the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman in the West, the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean in the South, and the Iranian provinces of Kerman and Khorasan as well as Afghanistan in the North. The strategic location of Baluchistan and its natural resources place Chabahar and Gwadar ports at the centre of a Great Game mostly silenced in the Western media.
Directly situated at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz on a coastline stretching nearly 1000 miles to Karachi, Baluchistan has a commanding view of the shipping lines carrying 40 percent of world oil supplies. The world economy depends on these supplies and securing the shipping lines passing through the Strait of Hormuz and Arabian Sea is of crucial importance for global players.
Exactly in the same fashion as Gwadar Port’s role, Iranian Baluchistan’s Chabahar Port is the other viable economic route for overland roads, railways, and pipelines from Central Asia, China, and Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea and from the Middle East and South Asia to China and Central Asia. If connected, landlocked Afghanistan and energy-rich Central Asian countries will gain access to international markets for their energy exports.
Considering its coastline of about 1000 miles, Baluchistan would have the legal ownership of the sea and seabed resources along its coast for two hundred miles under Exclusive Economic Zone provisions as guaranteed by the International maritime Law. In this respect, one can appreciate the WASP-catholic/Jewish Zionist additional interest of destabilizing both Iran and Pakistan. Here is the core reason which lies under the support for a Baluch drive towards independence on the same model as they support a free Kurdistan in order to have a strong hold on Syrian and Iraqi resources. To comment briefly on this question, the US plan includes forcing Europe to cancel its current deals on energy with Russia (Gazprom Nordstream 1 and 2) – a move which would be highly detrimental for European investors in the sector and to which Germany is strongly opposed- while WASP-Cath Jewish Zionists also intend to provide India with the biggest energy market they are creating in the Middle East via the balkanisation of Syria/Iraq). Energy resources in Baluchistan’s coastal seabed are reported to be the largest in the world.
The Islamic Republic was expected to experience phenomenal economic growth after the sanctions ‘lift as part of the JCPOA plan agreed between Iran and the G5+1 in July 2015. All sides were rushing to cash in on the bonanza (especially the West). Donald J. Trump’s election and decision to impose new U.S. sanctions on Iran have not yet ruined the European determination and direct investments already made into the country. However, their absurd vassal submission inside NATO’s obsolete organization translates a growing instability and lack of confidence on the markets. Considering the strong hold on international financial institutions they have created for their sole advantage, Latinized Bankers had planned to submit Iran through a series of financial instruments. At the same time, as the Chinese and Indians deal more closely with the real-sector economy, their interests were such that certain physical connective infrastructure had to be created to facilitate bilateral trade in an expected “post-sanctions environment”.
Concerning the Chinese, this is the far-reaching Iran-Pakistan-China pipeline (itself an extension of CPEC), while for the Indians, this has taken the form of both the Chabahar port investment and the undersea Iran-India gas pipeline. In terms of economic efficiency, it would make the most sense for the real-sector and energy trade between Tehran and New Delhi to be conducted through overland routes transiting Pakistan, but for obvious political reasons, this regretfully has not materialized. SAARC-leader India’s economic relations must be carried out through the maritime sphere. Under such configuration, one can better understand why the present U.S. administration tries everything it possibly can to present Iran as part of a circle of “Rogue, Ghost, revisionist Empires” along with China, Russia and the most laughable North Korean threat whose nuclear arsenal is only dedicated to defend its own survival.
The Indian-Iranian integration strategy via Pakistan was already discussed, so rounding out the last vector of how the country could help SAARC expand its external trade ties, one must look towards the Eurasian Union. As earlier spoken about, the North-South Corridor is a logistics network envisioned to eventually connect India and Russia, but as with Indian-Iranian trade, it would be much more efficient to cut out the bimodal form of transportation (sea to land) and deal exclusively with ground-based infrastructure. Thus, the possibility arises whereby Pakistan could find a place along an Indian railroad to Russia that also traverses through Iran and Central Asia. The latter part of the infrastructure network is already in place, since the Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran section has recently been up and running. Should connective lines be built from India to Iran via Pakistan, then it’s entirely feasible and extremely smart that India could one day export its products directly to Russia using this route without the burden of having to go on round and about the circuitous detour of sea-land-sea-land (Arabian Sea-Iran-Caspian Sea-Russia).
The catalyst for connecting the four blocs together via Pakistan’s geostrategic location is CPEC, China’s Grand vision of establishing a trans-Pakistani trade corridor to nourish/cultivate a center of economic gravity that seals everything together. The core of this strategy rests in expanding the Karakoram Highway between both countries and constructing parallel rail, industrial, and pipeline networks from the southern port of Gwadar all the way up to the Chinese border. As Pepe Escobar writes, the energy requirements of this magnificent outreach project are expected to be filled by Iran via the larger Iran-Pakistan-China pipeline project, but a supportive additional component shall also be the world’s largest solar farm that Beijing and Islamabad are currently building as part of the CPEC.
This bold multimodal integrational platform shall de-facto extend China’s direct economic reach all the way to the Arabian Sea, thus circumventing the Strait of Malacca while bringing extraordinary economic opportunities to Myanmar, Bangladesh and up to remote landlocked regions such as Bhutan or Nepal.
Not only does CPEC represent a geopolitical pivot towards a humanitarian vision of the world for China, but also a geo-economic one as well, since it’ll position the country within easy access to the Mideast oil fields on which so much of its economy depends (despite Russia’s increasingly important role as the Middle Kingdom’s strategic supplier), in particular with Russia’s new range of icebreaker ships through the Artic pole. The new western attention for ecology in Artic regions has in reality a lot to do with China’s energetic dependence.
Additionally, creating a system of real-sector trade infrastructure such as roads and rails between Central Asia (Eurasian Union) and Pakistan (SAARC) intersecting in Xinjiang would lead to enormous economic development in China’s most far-flung and vulnerable province that could also help soothe over the externally orchestrated destabilization that it’s lately and growingly found itself experiencing. Should Xinjiang succeed in becoming a significant Eurasian trading hub in connecting China, the Eurasian Union, SAARC, and Iran, then it would catapult in geo-economic significance and become an extension of the super-continental and ultra-staregic “heartland” region (see Mackinder’s theory ).The British Empire’s nightmare is about to come true, and there is hardly anything isolated UK can do about it, with the exception of joining its well-known intelligence capabilities to US-led NATO forces in order to derail a wonderfully humanitarian Multipolar world. Washington’s threat perception reflects its position as a superpower with overwhelming naval superiority over China for the foreseeable future.
THE JEWISH ZIONIST PARTICIPATION INTO THE TRAP
Energy diplomacy :How to escalate tensions in Southwestern Asia
The Indian consortium led by ONGC was among the two global entities that took part in the auction of Israel’s offshore gas fields held a few months ago after a gap of more than 4 years during which the sea was completely closed for the distribution of new exploration licenses. Between 2012 and 2015, Netanyahu’s ultra-right pro-expansionist government had turned down two Russian offers which were guarantying truce with Lebanese-based nationalist Hezbollah and full-scale security for Russian-built off shore infrastructures whose worldwide reputation of excellence is undisputable, in exchange of a 30% Russian share. Netanyahu’s trap to the ordinary Israeli citizen would rather favor a deal between one wealthy Israeli family-owned company and Texas-based Noble Energy which in turn, would have imposed to its own citizenry a detrimental too high a fixed price on Energy over the next 10 years. Quite fortunately, the Israeli Court firmly opposed such private interests-based agreement.
Finally, Indian consortium comprising ONGC Videsh Ltd, Bharat PetroResources Ltd, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Oil India Ltd were registered as a foreign company in Israel’s Corporations’ Authority in January 2018. This would facilitate its participation in the second round of bidding.
“This bid round is the first step in a long-range process that would lead to utilization of the gas and oil fields in the Israeli EEZ to the benefit of Israel’s citizens. I am pleased to have companies from Greece and India contribute to Israel’s energy market. I have ordered preparations for a 2nd licensing round to be launched in 2018, in which lessons from the 1st round will be incorporated,” Dr. Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s Energy Minister said after the completion of the first round.
It is noteworthy that the Israeli off shore blocks are in close proximity to a number of large and proven gas and oil deposits in the eastern Mediterranean. Some are adjacent to the 2010 discovery of Israeli Leviathan and Tamar fields. According to an industry estimate, nearly 2,200 billion cubic meters of natural gas and a potential 6.6 billion barrels of oil are to be discovered in these off-shore blocks with a Lebanese-Israeli ongoing EZZ territorial dispute on block 9. In recent months, Russian (Novatek), French (Total) and Italian (Eni) have concluded a cooperation to explore and exploit several Lebanese off-shore assets which are very much needed to boost Lebanon’s economy as well as to protect its own interests.
India’s decision to enter Israeli waters for energy exploration has a greater strategic significance than securing energy at another location, especially after waiting for almost seven years to win exploration rights for Iran’s Farsi and Farzad B gas fields. Indian firm ONGC discovered the Farsi (2002) & Farzad B gas field (2008) in Iran over a decade ago. Meanwhile, despite several rounds of negotiations at different levels, Tehran has recklessly delayed to award the exploration rights to India.
“India wants to send two signals from this decision. First, if Iran continues to dillydally on the proposal of awarding gas fields to India, New Delhi can open new vistas for exploration in the region. Secondly, to Israel that New Delhi really wants to deepen its relationship with the Jewish nation”, SC Tripathi, former secretary in India’s Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas told Sputnik in a recent interview.
“Making oil a subject of bilateral relation will also pacify Israel which received a jolt in four major military defense deals with India in the last year”. However, one has to notice two important notions. Firstly, India has mentioned “the Jewish nation”, not the politically-driven Zionist expansionist agenda. Secondly, since Jerusalem’s recognition by the US administration as Israel’s Capital and the US decision to move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem in the context of still ongoing diplomatic pressures on sovereign countries urging them to a similar move, the Indian government-which has condemned such recognition- scrapped defense contracts (worth over $50 billion) in light machine guns, close quarter battle carbines, assault rifles and anti-tank missiles with Israeli titanic industrial military complex for the benefit of happy few [very much similar to their US-connected counterpart] or else, has given a priority to its long time military an technical cooperation with Russia. Especially worth noting is the Russian-Indian cooperation on the BrahMos project, in which the Russian rocket and space company NPO Mashinostroenia and the Indian Defense Research Organization have developed a supersonic anti-ship missile that surpasses foreign counterparts both in speed and range of fire. Russian-Indian development also interested other countries; a number of states in Africa and Latin America decided to purchase rockets of a total value exceeding USD 10 billion. In 2011, India ordered 200 missiles worth USD 4 billion for its armed forces. The BrahMos project has been continued ever since. All these years, Russian and Indian experts have been working together. Ground-based versions of the missile and versions for installation on ships were developed. In 2011, official reports confirmed that plans were underway to equip FGFA combat aircraft with the BrahMos missiles. In March 2017, the upgraded BrahMos supersonic ER missile was tested for the first time in India. The new missile is capable of hitting targets at a distance of 450 km. The Russian-Indian company BrahMos Aerospace is currently working on a new range of hypersonic missiles capable of speeds up to 5,000 km per hour. It is presumed to be ready within 2 to 3 years.
Earlier last June 2017, the Russian Ministry of Defense Sergei Shoigu reminded of Russia-India regular joint military exercises, and the annual Russian-Indian maneuvers “Indra-2017” as an important part in the relationship between the two countries.
At the same time, India has developed a ballistic missile project with Israel whose last planned tests in last Dec and January were postponed in the wake of Jerusalem recognition’s turmoil. Under the JCPOA, Iran has agreed on putting an halt to its military nuclear program which did not include the Ballistic misile one. The country has also agreed on U.N.-supervised inspections, including unscheduled visits, through the IEA (International Energy agency). On the contrary, Israel is an undeclared therefore unvetted nuclear power. In other words, Netanyahu/Trump-joint ideology that Iran does not comply with the “spirit” of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive plan of Action) has no legal basis. An agreement has no spirit. It complies with legal basis or it does not. Of course, considering the past, one cannot exclude the possibility of fabricated evidence. However, under these circumstances, one can also understand India’s reluctance to proceed to the above mentioned ballistic missile tests planned to take place in the Israeli Neguev desert. Prime Minister Modi is perfectly aware of the WASP-Catholic-Jewish Zionist double board game and its recurring use of Saudi-Arabia-led GCC-funded Islamic terrorism to perpetuate a unipolar supremacist imperialism upon the many nations of the world. Nevertheless, many experts also believe that the decision to explore Israeli gas field should not be linked with Iran’s reluctance to allocate the Farzad B gas field to India.
“Any possible investment in Israel’s gas potential would be independent of India’s deep oil and gas ties with Iran and the Arab world, including Qatar, Iraq, Oman and Saudi Arabia. India and Iran are two close and strategic partners in oil and gas” Narendra Taneja, India’s leading energy expert has recently declared. In addition, Iran would never get into an economic alliance that could undermine Pakistan and/or the regional alliance. China, Iran and India are no enemies. India must never forget about its “submitted past” under the British rule. All throughout contemporary History, Latinized Bankers have hardly ever been anything but supremacist, using coveted puppets for their sole private interests whose, at the same time, have never benefited their own citizenries.
The world deserves better. Prime Minister Narenda Modi is a wise person who comes from a long tradition of peace, pride and renouncement. However, the many nations of the world have great hopes that his pro-active participation in unifiying projects and in efforts to drastically reform international institutions shall open a new Passage to India under a true humanitarian multipolar vision of humankind. To recover the original harmony of the universe takes the courage to repare a world shaped by an Imperialist Empire of deceitfulness. We are a step away if India and Iran play the collective card. In every sense of a free world, the CPEC is the way forward.
©Mylene Doublet O’Kane, 4 Feb 2018.