A united West Asia to fight ISIS: It's easier said than done

The Islamic State (ISIS), by beheading two American citizens, has drawn international attention and has made US President Barack Obama send American troops as military advisers to Iraq. In his speech last week, Mr Obama stressed the need for a coalition of countries to tackle ISIS. Britain has decided not to be directly involved but France and Australia have extended support. US secretary of state John Kerry is in West Asia, stitching together a coalition of regional players. Several Arab countries have reportedly reciprocated, expressing willingness to join in airstrikes on ISIS. The details are yet unclear, but forging a grand coalition amid the complex politics of West Asia is easier said than done.

John Kerry with Arab leaders after the Jeddah meet on ISIS

The role of Arab governments, especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, in the growth of ISIS is well known. So why would they now want to destroy ISIS? The rise of ISIS, a Sunni terror group, which targeted Shias and other minorities, was acceptable  — even desirable — for Sunni kingdoms in West Asia. For them ISIS’ anti-Shia drive meant the ultimate weakening of Iran, the Shia heavyweight in West Asia. However, the equation changed the moment ISIS revealed its grand plans for an Islamic caliphate. Put differently, the snakes in the backyard have turned homeward. Also many countries fear that their local Sunni population might get influenced by ISIS. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others put their forces on alert in July since the caliphate was declared.
The US does not want Iran and Syria to be part of the coalition, thereby making it a largely Sunni group. Turkey’s reluctance to join the coalition also weakens the drive against ISIS. Ankara is wary of the Kurdish resistance in the country and 49 Turkish diplomats are in ISIS’ custody. But it shares a 1,200-km-long border with Iraq and Syria and can choke ISIS by tightening its border and stopping the flow of oil from ISIS-controlled areas. It needs to be seen how much the US and its allies will be willing to attack ISIS in Syria without aiding the Bashar al-Assad government. The regional coalition should also check terror groups in, say, Libya, Egypt, etc. Focusing solely on ISIS and leaving other groups is half the job done. ISIS, through its call for an Islamic caliphate, is hoping to rekindle the passion for Arab nationalism. More importantly, it wants West Asia to unite and oppose Western powers that have ‘subjugated’ the region for more than two centuries. Given this, there is a grain of truth when Mr Obama said that “…this is not our fight alone” and “nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing the region”. The success of the coalition depends on a united West Asia that overlooks sectarian and national differences. Unless the Arab nations take up the fight, the attack on ISIS will be viewed as Western propaganda against Islam and the region — and ISIS will continue to terrorise the world.

Israel's plans for more settlements will not help

                                                                                                    By: Ilia Yefimovich

The West Asia peace process can at best be described as one step forward and two steps backward — and this time it appears to be only steps backward. After the West Asia peace talks, initiated by United States secretary of state John Kerry, failed in April, both Israel and Palestine have been extremely jumpy when it comes to each other. Tensions broke out on June 12 after three Israeli teens were kidnapped. Their bodies were found in Hebron on June 30. Two days later, on Wednesday, a Palestinian teen was kidnapped and a burnt body believed to be of the boy was found later in the day. Clashes broke out between Palestinian protestors and Israeli soldiers in East Jerusalem, which has been held by Israel since the 1967 Mideast War. Following the abduction of the three teens, calls for ‘revenge’, like the one from Israel’s Kfir brigade, have vitiated the atmosphere further.
At a time when much of the Arab world was witnessing unrest — from Syria to Egypt to Iraq — Israel and Palestine were relatively calm. The recent abductions and killings are set to change things for the worse if reasonable reactions and policies do not prevail. With violence growing over the past two days there are fears that it might lead to a third Palestinian intifada. World leaders have criticised the killings. The United Nations and the Obama administration have condemned the killings but it’s highly unlikely that US President Barack Obama will actively step in, as his reluctance to engage in Iraq and Syria show. Meanwhile, Palestinian leaders have accused extremist Jews of the abduction and killing of Mohammed Abu Kheider, the slain Palestinian teen.

                                                                                           Reuters

As a first step towards easing tensions between the two, Israel must refuse to go down the road of collective punishment as it has done often in the past. The massive Israeli search exercise for the three teens led to hundreds of arrests and the death of five Palestinians. To worsen this volatile climate, earlier this week Israel announced a wave of new settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — Israel’s housing minister, Uri Ariel, has called this move a “proper Zionist response” to Palestine’s new unity government. This is not a step in the right direction. This will not help the cause of peace or bring stability to the region. The Palestinian authorities, on their part, must rein in the extremist groups on their side.

ISIS in Iraq is bad news for NaMo government

With the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) capturing key towns in northern Iraq, including Mosul and Tikrit, and the democratically elected Nouri al-Maliki government seemingly clueless about what to do, the prospects of peace and normalcy returning to the war-torn West Asian country in the near future are slim. Even though United States’ President Barack Obama has sent in Marines to safeguard its consulate in Baghdad and has ordered the USS George HW Bush to move towards the Persian Gulf, it is doubtful whether he has the stomach to send troops again to Iraq. Washington is mulling air strikes and is in talks with neighbours, like Iran, to overcome this crisis.

India’s concerns lie mainly in two areas: First, the safety of Indians who are working in Iraq, and second, the probable rise in oil prices if the sectarian violence spreads to the rest of the country and if the US steps in. The uncertainty in the country could see oil prices going northward, adversely affecting India’s economy. The ministry of external affairs should use its clout with Baghdad and the neighbouring countries to secure the safe exit of Indians from Iraq. India’s good ties with Iraq date back to the 1950s and since then economic and cultural ties between the two have grown. The good relations between New Delhi and Baghdad helped India especially during the 1990 Gulf War: Indians in Kuwait could safely exit via Iraq.

If the unrest escalates, it will affect the oil prices, signs of which were seen on Monday when crude prices hit a nine-month high after growing speculation of a US strike on Iraq. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq is the largest supplier of oil  to India, with an annual trade of around $20 billion. Reserve Bank of India governor Raghuram Rajan said India was closely monitoring the situation and that the domestic economy is well prepared to face shocks from the external sources. That said, with more than 75% of its oil imported, soaring energy prices will exert pressure on the rupee. A below-average monsoon will affect the summer crops and this will push prices upwards, causing further food inflation. These two factors will have a telling effect on the economy and that’s not good news for the Narendra Modi government, which has made controlling inflation a priority. The Centre, meanwhile, must take all the necessary steps to ensure the safe exit of Indians from Iraq and at the same time figure out ways to tackle a possible rise in oil prices.

Iraq: As the ISIS marches ahead, the US waits and India...

What is happening in Iraq now is essentially the Shia-Sunni war that has gone out of hand. From Saddam Hussein’s death in 2006 and since America’s establishment of a weak government in Baghdad, the sectarian differences between Shias and Sunnis have come to the front.
A Shia Iran’s influence over Iraq has got many of the countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, with a Sunni majority, uncomfortable.
Many, especially Riyadh, see Iraq PM Nouri al-Maliki as a Tehran man. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a breakaway al Qaeda faction that has set its goal at establishing a Sunni Islamist state in West Asia and that is anti-Shia should be seen in this context.
The ISIS came to prominence during the takeover of Fallujah in January and the following month Washington recognised ISIS as a terrorist group. Nevertheless, it has been overtly and covertly been supported by pro-Sunni groups in Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries. The funding of radical groups like Jabhat al-Nusra have given the ISIS more firepower.
On June 10, the ISIS captured Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq. It has descended — and at an alarming pace — from the northwest of the country and is taking town after town, reaching about 60 miles from the capital Baghdad. Such has been the pace of its advancement that by the time the international community took notice and condemned it the ISIS had made great progress.
The ISIS has also taken control of Tikrit. Earlier they had taken control of Ramadi and Samarra—two important towns. PM Maliki has failed to bring even a semblance of democracy and governance in Iraq and there are groups that see the advance of ISIS as a reply to his misgovernance. The Mosul takeover has further weakened Baghdad’s influence in the northern regions. This has given the Kurds an advantage in its standoff with the Maliki government.
US President Barack Obama has, in a White House statement, said that the US will not be sending troops to Iraq. He calls it a “wake up call” for Iraqi leaders to iron out their mistrust and sectarian differences and demonstrate a willingness to join hands for the Iraqi people. Obama has said that the US will help only if the local leaders are showing progress. However, in a move that can change the dynamics of the events unfolding in Iraq US aircraft carrier (USS George HW Bush) has arrived in the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has come in for some severe criticism for his ‘responsible withdrawal’. In 2011, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton claimed that the “responsible withdrawal” of the US from Iraq would be replaced by Washington’s biggest diplomatic programme since the Marshall Plan. Nothing actually happened.
Kori Schake, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, recently wrote: ‘The president is so spooked by the prospect of "a third American war in the region" that he has compromised our security to prevent it. He ought to have understood that he wasn't starting a third American war in the region — he needed to finish the first one.’
Unrest in West Asia is bad news for the region and India in multiple ways. First, if the violence breaks out into a full-fledged war it will affect the millions of Indians working in the region (Some estimates say that there are about 18,000 Indians in Iraq).
Second, if the ISIS manages to topple the Maliki government and capture Baghdad it will inspire many splinter groups of al-qaeda in the region and world over.
Third, unrest in the region will affect oil prices and given the economic climate a war is in no one’s interest. Fourth, there are ominous signs of similarities between the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The war on terror brought the US to Iraq and Afghanistan. After giving it a semblance of democracy the US withdrew from Iraq. The local government has not been able to check terrorist organisations. If the same script is seen in Afghanistan, India will have reasons to be concerned.
(This article appeared in the Hindustan Times on June 17)

India: The foreign policy for the next government

Among the many challenges that the new government will face, one will definitely be foreign policy. The world is going through testing times: The United States is due to pull its troops out of Afghanistan, Russia’s economic clout is receding, West Asia is in turmoil, and the world economy is still in the doldrums. India’s new foreign policy will have to factor in all these and much more before the government comes up with a viable blueprint.
But, more than the West, the next government’s policy trajectory towards the neighbourhood is what will be crucial. Under the UPA, India has made the right steps towards increasing trade and interactions with China. However, New Delhi should be more flexible towards Chinese investments and use its capabilities on our terms. Visits of mid-level officials between the two countries should be given a fillip. This will help in understanding the neighbour and is an investment for the future. It is the small steps, like meeting the demand for India’s soft power, which are important in the long run. Pakistan will remain a problem with no light at the end of that tunnel. With Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s army chief, reiterating his PM on Kashmir being a ‘jugular vein’, and various terror groups openly threatening to attack India, New Delhi will have to alert and keep its expectations of peace at a realistic level. The arrest of an alleged ISI agent, by the Tamil Nadu Police on April 29, who has named an official of the Pakistan high commission in Colombo, is yet another clear indication that Islamabad is not letting go of its old ways. On the contrary, it is trying to exploit India’s vast coastline, especially the coastal parts of the South. Coastal security should be boosted and the next government must improve ties with Colombo. India and Sri Lanka need to discuss issues like the arrests of fishermen from Tamil Nadu and the democratic rights of the Lankan Tamils. New Delhi should also remove all fears and misunderstanding about the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project and the Kudankulam Nuclear Power project. The next government should not take for granted its goodwill of the administration in Thimpu and should do more to bring stability in Kathmandu. India should also give a more economic thrust to its ties with Myanmar, Maldives and Vietnam.

For long there has been a perception that India’s foreign policy is risk-averse. If India needs to be taken seriously in the comity of nations, this has to change. The next government must come up with a foreign policy that demonstrates a degree of flexibility where required while safeguarding India’s interests.

US-Saudi ties: Iran is just one of the elephants in the room

King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Left)
and Barack Obama

United States President Barack Obama really has his task cut out for him. On a three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, he will have to delicately balance human rights issues and realpolitik in Riyadh, where he will be meeting King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. More than 50 representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, have signed a petition asking Mr Obama to publicly address human rights violations in the desert kingdom. One of the suggestions by Amnesty International is that Mr Obama has a female Secret Service personnel drive his car. While there was much debate, and rightly so, about the Twitter ban in Turkey, little focus has been given to the way the Saudi authorities have been harassing citizens who have been critical of the government. A group of three lawyers, who had criticised the legal system, have been sued by the justice ministry and have been accused of ‘defying the regime’.
Though human rights are a major issue the US would like to talk about, it is unlikely that the ban on women drivers or policing of public opinion in Saudi Arabia will be on the top of the list. Washington-Riyadh ties have run into rough weather ever since the former eased up on Tehran over its nuclear programme. Washington’s perceived support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Washington saying no to airstrikes on Syria have worsened the ties. Rebuilding confidence and whittling down differences would be Mr Obama’s priority. Moreover this meeting takes place at a time when there is not one but at least four countries waiting for a power change in the region — Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. The US and Saudi Arabia have varying interests in these countries. Put into the picture the interest Iran has in these four nations and its conflict with Saudi Arabia.

Bashar al Assad (Left), Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani

Mr Obama’s meeting is expected, in ‘word and deed’, to shape a new phase of engagement in West Asia. How well it will succeed is yet to be seen. Peace and stability in West Asia are very important not only for the US but also for many countries, India included. Any tension in the region can cause a spike in oil prices, adversely affecting economies around the world.