
Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by admin in Defense, Pakistan Missiles, Pakistan Naval Strategic Strike Force, PAKISTAN SHINING on March 10th, 2015
In recent years, India has moved toward the creation of a missile defense system and is upgrading its air force and submarine fleet. In 2012, India test-launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile, which it said has a range of more than 3,100 miles.
India’s growing defense budget is largely a result of its uneasy relationship with China. But Pakistan and India have fought three major wars since 1947. Analysts estimate that Pakistan and India possess about 100 nuclear warheads each, and nonproliferation experts say the Indian subcontinent remains a nuclear flash point.
Several Pakistani military analysts said the Shaheen-III has a range greater than that of any other Pakistani missile. The maximum range of the earlier versions of the Shaheen missile was about 1,500 miles, which meant it could not reach parts of India’s eastern frontier.
“Now, India doesn’t have its safe havens anymore,” said Shahid Latif, a retired commander of Pakistan’s air force. “It’s all a reaction to India, which has now gone even for tests of extra-regional missiles. . . . It sends a loud message: If you hurt us, we are going to hurt you back.”
Some analysts caution that the true range of the Shaheen-III could be less than what Pakistani military leaders claim. But Monday’s test could aggravate unease in parts of the Middle East, including Israel. Historically, there also has been some tension between Pakistan, which is overwhelmingly Sunni, and Shiite-dominated Iran.
Mansoor Ahmed, a strategic studies and nuclear expert at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, said, however, that Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions are focused solely on India.
India has a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons. But Pakistani leaders have repeatedly declined to adopt a similar stance, saying they might be forced to resort to nuclear weapons should India invade Pakistan with conventional forces. The Indian army is more than twice the size of Pakistan’s and has a vast advantage in weaponry such as tanks, aircraft and artillery pieces.
Ahmed said Pakistan’s military is not interested in a “tit-for-tat” arms race with India. Instead, he said, Pakistan hopes to improve “existing capabilities,” including new delivery systems for evading an Indian missile defense shield.
Ahmed said he suspects that Pakistani scientists and engineers are working to equip the Shaheen-III with multiple warheads, which would make the missiles harder to defend against. Pakistan is also seeking to advance its cruise missile technology. Ahmed said the Shaheen-III can be fired from mobile launchers, making the missiles easier to conceal and move around in the event of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.
Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear and nonproliferation scholar at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, said Pakistan has been working to make smaller, lighter nuclear warheads. A smaller warhead makes it far more likely that the Shaheen-III can really deliver a nuclear payload up to 1,700 miles.
“You would want to model it, but at first approximation, I would be surprised to learn [the range] would be widely off,” Lewis said.
The timing of Monday’s missile test caught some analysts by surprise. It occurred less than a week after India’s foreign secretary, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, visited Islamabad to meet with Pakistani diplomats in a bid to improve bilateral relations.
Although Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has expressed interest in boosting ties with India, Pakistani military leaders are deeply skeptical of such efforts. And the testing of nuclear-capable missiles has, at times, appeared to serve as an outlet for the military to vent frustrations.
In early February, just days after President Obama signed a deal with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for enhanced civilian nuclear cooperation, Pakistan test-fired a short-range cruise missile.
Shaiq Hussain contributed to
this report.
Read more:
Pakistan looks to Russia for military, economic assistance
washingtonpost.com
© 1996-2015 The Washington Post
Posted by admin in DEFENCE OF PAKISTAN, Pakistan Naval Strategic Strike Force, Pakistan Navy, Pakistan Navy Seals on February 18th, 2015
KARACHI: Pakistan Navy and Turkish Navy will hold a bilateral naval exercise commencing on 19 Feb with an aim to enhance interoperability and operational understanding.
Turkish Navy Ship TCG BUYUKADA arrived at Karachi to participate in the exercise, which includes an elaborate Harbour and Sea phase, said a statement on Tuesday.
The visiting ship was received by Turkish Naval Attache in Pakistan and senior officials of Pakistan Navy.
The exercise being first of the series, is a landmark reflection of the historic ties between the two navies as well as a true manifestation of convergence of strategic interests of the two countries which will go a long way in promoting maritime security and stability in the region.
Pakistan Navy and Turkish Navy have been interacting since long in order to improve upon the level of coordination, interoperability and training.
The current bilateral navel exercise will lay sound foundation for subsequent exercises between both the navies in future.
Posted by admin in Pakistan Navy in 65 War on September 7th, 2014
PNS Ghazi
Since partition of the sub-continent in 1947, Pakistan and India have fought four armed conflicts, in 1947, 1965, 1971 (which led to the establishment of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan) and the 1999 Kargil clash.
In 1965, India and Pakistan fought their second of three major wars from the issues arising from the control of Kashmir. This un-declared war broke out on August 15, 1965 and lasted until a UN-brokered cease-fire on September 22, 1965.
The war was inconclusive, costing the two sides a combined 7,000 human casualties but gaining them little.India, because of its size, population and strategic location has been trying to establish itself not only as a regional power but also as a global player. George K. Tanham, a US scholar, in his essay ‘Indian Strategic Thought: An Interpretative Essay’ has observed: ‘India’s strategic location, size, and tremendous population have contributed to Indian leaders’ belief in its greatness, its pre-eminence in the Indian Ocean region and its global importance.’
Following its well-documented strategy of “giantism”, India attacked Pakistan in the Lahore area at 0630 on 6th September 1965. Indian armed forces had a six-to-one superiority over the Pakistan defence forces with India having 867,000 soldiers as compared to Pakistan’s just 101,000 strong, spirited and professional soldiers.
While the Indo-Pakistan war-1965 saw Pakistan Air Force gaining superiority in air combat that gave Pakistan Army to fight with insurmountable willpower at Chawinda, Chumb, Sialkot sectors, Pakistan Navy did not lag behind in engaging Indian flotilla and bombarded Indian radar station at Dwarka.
“Operation Dwarka” as codenamed, will be long remembered in the annals of Pakistan Navy’s courageous expeditions, as on that day in 1965, the Pakistan Navy rose to the occasion; ever ready to perform its national commitment of defending the sea-frontiers of Pakistan.
The basic role of Pakistan Navy is to secure control of an area of the sea from any belligerent and containing enemy ships from approaching the coast and interfering with the trade and commerce. Pakistan Navy was already in the state of high alert providing seaward defence and within few minutes the ships cast away to perform the most sacred and singular duty of safe-guarding it’s Sea-frontiers from Indian aggression.
At that time, the Submarine Ghazi was the only submarine that the Pakistan Navy had in 1965. The PN submarine was deployed off Bombay to look after the heavy units of the Indian Navy. It spread a reign of terror in the rank and file of Indian warships and they could not come out of the harbour-including the aircraft carrier VIKRANT.
It was this blockade that enabled the Pakistan fleet to move in and blast the Indian naval fortress of Dwarka. The objectives of operation were: (a) to draw the heavy enemy units out of Bombay for the submarine GHAZI to attack; (b) to destroy the radar installation at Dwarka; (c) to lower Indian morale; (d) and to divert Indian Air effort away from the north. On 7 September 1965, PNS BABUR, PNS KHAIBAR, PNS BADR, PNS JAHANGIR, PNS ALAMGIR, PNS SHAHJAHAN and PNS TIPU SULTAN were tasked to be in position 293 degrees – 120 miles from Dwarka light house by 071800 E/Sep with maximum power available.
These ships carried out bombardment of Dwarka about midnight using 50 rounds per ship. At midnight, the ships were on Initial Position (IP) with all their guns loaded and the men ready to strike a historic strike on enemy’s face.
The city of Dwarka was completely blacked out and target could only be identified on radar. At 0024 bombardment was ordered to commence when ships were 5.5 to 6.3 miles from Dwarka light. It took only four minutes to complete the bombardment, firing altogether about 350 rounds on the target.
There was no appreciable resistance from the enemy and the ships safely arrived at their patrol area by 0635 on 8 Sep. According to some independent sources, one submarine, PNS Ghazi, kept the Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier INS Vikrant besieged in Bombay throughout the war.
Although the valiant expedition at Dwarka was a “limited engagement”, yet 4 ½ minutes of bombing at Dwarka had unprecedented implications on the morale of our troops.
The success of the Dwarka operation is attributed to the unflinching sense of alacrity to serve the nation beyond the call of duty marked by highest sense of patriotism and sacrifice.
Though the war was indecisive, India suffered much heavier material and personnel casualties compared to Pakistan. Many historians believe that had the war continued, with growing loss and decreasing supplies, India would have been eventually defeated.
Hard work over the past years had paid dividends. Our officers and sailors never allowed the numerical superiority and the weight of the armaments to effect their morale. Pakistan Navy Day is celebrated on 8th September every year throughout in Pakistan.
It is celebrated on the memory of martyred sailors who gave sacrifices of their life for the defence of the country. Pakistan Navy celebrates this day to tell the young generation of Pakistan that how sailors were brave at the critical time and were proud of offering sacrifices of their lives for the defence of Pakistan.
6th September 1965 remembers those who sacrificed their precious lives for the country and they are the source of inspiration to defend their country against any aggressor. Pakistan Navy derives immense source of motivation every time the month of September approaches.
Drawing inspiration from the unparallel conducts of the 1965’s war heroes, the naval personnel displayed personal example of valour during national catastrophes thereafter.
The lessons learnt from 1965 war, found its new dimensions when the navy sailors undertook the challenging and thrilling task with high spirits in the wake of floods-2011. Torrential rain and flash flooding continue to torment Pakistan’s Sindh province, affecting at least 700,000 people and forcing 60,000 from their homes till August 31, 2011.
The sailors of Pakistan Navy had been relentlessly shifting people from the dangerous places to the safer areas. The track record of Pakistan Navy was that it had rendered very useful services in rescuing and rehabilitating the victims after every inland flood, internal strife, bomb blast disposal, anti-dacoit operations, train accidents, etc.
Many equate the spirit manifested by the sailors during the most recent natural catastrophes like “Tsunami-2004”, “Pakistan Earthquake-2005” and “Pasni flash floods” with that of 1965 fervour. They are right in doing so, as the personal example of valour set by the naval officers and personnel during these national contingencies, revived the memories of the spirit exhibited in 1965 war. Pakistan Navy has been proactively engaged in eradicating the international piracy and succeeded in thwarting number of piracy attempts, like, support to MV SUEZ by PNS BABUR, rescuing Panama Flag Carrier MSC KALINA from 5 pirate skiffs. The latest episode of terrorist attack on PNS Mehran (a heavily guarded facility of Pakistan Navy, located along Shahrah-e-Faisal) by 10 armed militants, was successfully countered by the brave PN commandoes and security personnel.
Pakistan Navy was crafted out of Royal Indian Navy by Forces Reconstruction Committee (AFRC) on the Independence Day of Pakistan. The Pakistan Navy was given charge of two sloops, two frigates, four minesweepers, two trawlers, four harbour launches with some 3580 personnel consisted of 180 officers and 3400 sailors.
Since then Pakistan Navy has been a proud defender of Pakistani waters and has never let any enemy vessel offend the 700 km long shore line of Pakistan along Sindh and Balochistan.
Pakistan Navy today, has become a responsible four-dimensional force: Surface ships; aircraft; submarines and the Special Service Group of Navy/Marines. Pakistan Navy is boosting these four components through intensive training, induction of new sophisticated sensors and equipment in line with modern trends, especially surveillance through maritime Unmanned Air Vehicles.
The induction of indigenously made F-22P frigates, “QING” class 6 nuclear sub-marines, fast attack ‘Stealth’ Craft” equipped with 8 surface-to-surface missiles from China and the acquisition of six modified P3C aircraft with latest avionics/sensors from United States into
Pakistan Navy will significantly add to the combat potential of Pakistan Navy
Fleet. Today, Pakistan Navy is proudly defending the sea-frontiers as well as protecting the maritime interests of Pakistan.
Pakistan Navy’s submarine arm has a great fighting tradition and has created a name for itself in combat. During the 1965 Indo-Pak War, when Pakistan had only one submarine, acquired a year earlier, it was able to bottle-up the Indian Navy while operating outside Bombay (Mumbai) harbour. It was a vertual blockade conducted not against merchant ships but against Naval ships who were reluctant to leave the safety of ports for fear of a lone submarine PNS-M GHAZI, operating in Indian territorial waters outside Bombay.
PNS-M GHAZI under the Command of Commander (Later Admiral) K.R. Niazi operated in Indian territorial waters from 6 to 23 September 1965 and sank two two Indian Warships during the period. The officers and sailors of GHAZI including her Captain were given ten operational awards for gallantry in operations during combat. These included two Sitara-i-Jurat and two Tamgha-i-Jurat.
On the second day of the 1965 Indo-Pak War, Pakistan Naval flotilla ships, BABUR, BADR, KHAIBAR, TIPPU SULTAN, SHAH JAHAN, JAHANGIR and ALAMGIR sailed out of Karachi and headed south towards the Indian Naval base at Bombay. The flotilla was under Commodore S. M. Anwar, Commander of the fleet who flew his flag on board the Cruiser PNS BABUR. The object of this deep sea-foray was to entice the Indian Navy out of their ports and give them battle at Sea. Where they could be dealt with by the submarine GHAZI in conjunction with the surface fleet. The Indian Navy’s Western flotilla based in Bombay stayed in port, discretion being the better part of valour, and did not accept battle. On its return passage the Pakistan flotilla bombarded the port of Dwarka hoping that the Indian Naval frigate TALWAR would sail out from Okka next door. But TALWAR also decided to stay in port.
Pakistan Navy’s performance in the 1965 Indo-Pak War is vividly described by India’s Vice Admiral Mihir Roy, a former Commander of the aircraft carrier VIKRANT and Commander-in-Chief of India’s Eastern Naval Command, in his book ‘War in the Indian Ocean’ published in 1995. He writes, ‘But the Bombayites failed to understand the lack of success by the Indian fleet, especially with sirens wailing, Jamnagar attacked and Dwarka shelled. But nonetheless, the naval bombardment of Dwarka with the Indian fleet still preparing to sail was an affront to the sailors in white, who could not understand what was holding the fleet back’.
Posted by farrukh in Pakistan Naval Strategic Strike Force, Pakistan Navy, Pakistan Navy Seals on July 5th, 2013
The F-22P frigate PNS Zulfiquar |
|
Class overview | |
---|---|
Name: | Zulfiquar (Sword) class |
Builders: | Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works,Karachi Hudong Zhonghua shipyard, Shanghai |
Operators: | ![]() |
Preceded by: | Type 053H3 frigate |
Cost: | USD $175 million |
Planned: | 4 |
Completed: | 4 |
Active: | 4 |
General characteristics | |
Type: | Frigate |
Displacement: | 2,500 tonnes (standard)[1][2][3] 3,144 tonnes (full load)[4] |
Length: | 123.2 m (404.19ft) |
Beam: | 13.8 m (45.27ft) |
Draught: | 3.76 m (12.34ft) |
Propulsion: | CODAD (Combined Diesel and Diesel) 2 × Tognum MTU 12V 1163 TB 83 @ 10.5MW, and 2 MTU cruise diesels @ 6.6MW. |
Speed: | 29 kn (54 km/h) maximum[1][2] |
Range: | 4,000 nmi (7,400 km) |
Complement: | 170 crew |
Sensors and processing systems: |
|
Electronic warfare & decoys: |
|
Armament: |
Guns: Missiles: Other:
|
Aircraft carried: | 1× Harbin Z-9EC ASW helicopter |
Aviation facilities: | Flight deck and enclosed hangar |
Notes: |
Ships in class include:
|
The F-22P or Zulfiquar Class Frigate (Urdu: ذوالفقار English: Sword class), is a general purpose frigate being built by Pakistan and China for the Pakistan Navy (PN). The first ship, PNS Zulfiquar, was handed over to the PN on 30 July 2009[5] and the second, PNS Shamsheer, on 23 January 2010.[6] The third frigate, PNS Saif was commissioned on 15 Sep 2011. The fourth and last frigate of F-22P series, PNS Aslat was inducted on 18 April 2013. [7]
|
Pakistan had been negotiating with China for the supply of 4 frigates since the late 1990s. The contract was signed on 4 April 2006 with the conclusion of negotiations for financing and technology transfer. The first ship was delivered in 30 July 2009, second 23 January 2010 and third one at 15 December 2010. The first three were being built at the Hudong Zhonghua Shipyard in Shanghai, China, while the last is under construction in Pakistan byKarachi Shipyard and Engineering Works (KSEW) to be completed in 2013. The $750 million contract also includes 4-6 Harbin Z-9EC anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters [8] as well as ammunition for the frigates. According to one Chinese source Pakistan ordered four more F-22P frigates in 2007, although this has not been confirmed.[9]
The lead ship, PNS Zulfiquar, was launched on 5 April 2008[10] and handed over to the Pakistan Navy on 30 July 2009.[11][12] On the way to Pakistan, the frigate made a goodwill visit to Port Klang, Malaysia, in late August 2009. Another goodwill visit was made to the Port of Colombo, Sri Lanka, during which the PNS Zulfiquar‘s Commanding Officer Captain Zahid Ilyas visited the Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy, Vice Admiral Thisara Samarasinghe, at the Navy Headquarters on 5 September.[4] PNS Zulfiquar arrived at Karachi, Pakistan, on 12 September 2009 [13] and the induction ceremony was held on 19 September 2009.[14]
The second frigate of the Zulfiquar class, PNS Shamsheer, was launched at Hudong Zhonghua Shipyard on 31 October 2008.[15][16] On 19 December 2009 it was commissioned in a ceremony at Shanghai,[17] and arrived in Pakistan on 23 January 2010. The third frigate of the Zulfiquar class, PNS Saif have been handed over to Pakistan Navy on 15 September 2010.[18] The Fourth & final Frigate of the contract PNS ASLAT which is indigenously built at Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd commission on 17 April 2013 [19]
According to Admiral Noman Bashir, Chief of Naval Staff of Pakistan Navy, the Navy intends to expand its fleet of F-22P frigates from the current four by constructing more ships. These may be an improved variant incorporating features of the Type 054A frigate, possibly designated F-23P, for which discussions have been held between Pakistan and China.[20]
The F-22P hull uses many of the radar cross-section reduction features of China’s Type 054 frigate to help it evade detection by radars mounted on other ships, aircraft and anti-ship missiles.[21]
The 76.2 mm calibre main gun is a Chinese development of the Russian AK-176M, the main difference being that the Chinese variant adopts a re-designed stealthy turret to reduce radar cross-section. The gun is designed to engage ships, aircraft and anti-ship missiles. In front of the main gun are two 6-cell RDC-32 anti-submarine rocket launchers.[3]
The frigate’s primary surface-to-surface missile armament comprises eight C-802 subsonic anti-ship missiles carried in two launchers with four cells each, fitted between the foremast and the funnel. These containers are also compatible with the CY series anti-submarine rockets and may be loaded with a combination of anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons.
FM-90N surface-to-air missile launcher
The FM-90N surface-to-air missile (SAM) system is fitted between the main deck and main gun. The launcher has eight cells each containing one missile and is fitted on a mount that can be elevated and traversed in the direction of the threat. The FM-90N can engage several targets, including supersonic and sub-sonic sea-skimming missiles, using different guidance modes simultaneously. The system is also designed to engage small targets such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).[22][23] However, the FM-90 has limited engagement angles as compared to a SAM fired from a vertical launch system. Also, the FM-90 has inferior range,and is also non-reloadable, hence it is not suited for blue water patrol
A close-in weapon system (CIWS), the Type 730B, is mounted on the aircraft hangar. Comprising two seven-barrel gatling guns of 30 mm calibre, the F-22P is believed to be the first ship armed with the Type 730B,[24] which uses off-mount sensors such as the Type 347G radar and the OFC-3 electro-optic director. The guns are mounted side-by-side on the aircraft hangar, with the off-mount sensors in between. The CIWS can be upgraded with the FL-3000N fire-and-forget missile system by installing up to two single-round FL-3000N launchers on each existing CIWS gun mount.
The Harbin Z-9EC anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopter is equipped with a surface-search radar, low frequency dipping sonar, radar warning receiver, doppler navigation system and armed with torpedoes.[25] The helicopter can be armed with one torpedo on the starboard side.[2] A small antenna on the roof may provide a data-link, allowing the Z-9 to act as a relay for targeting data between the ship and long range anti-ship missiles such as the C-802.[26]
Name | Pennant | Laid down | Launched | Commissioning |
---|---|---|---|---|
PNS Zulfiquar | 251 | 12 October 2006 | 5 April 2008 [5] | 19 September 2009 [14] |
PNS Shamsheer | 252 | 13 July 2007 | 31 October 2008 [27] | 19 December 2009 [28][29][30] |
PNS Saif | 253 | 4 November 2008 | 28 May 2009 | 15 September 2010 |
PNS Aslat | 254 [31] | 10 Dec 2009 | 16 June 2011 [32][33][34] | 18 April 2013[35] |
8pm with Fareeha Idrees (Exclusive Programme on… by waqtnews
Posted by syed abbaa in Afghan -Taliban-India Axis, India, Makaar Dushman, Pakistan Naval Strategic Strike Force, Pakistan's Strategic & Security Focus on May 16th, 2013
Introduction
GEOSTRATEGIC IMPERATIVES OF THE GWADAR PORT
1. China is helping Pakistan to build this port as well as a host of associated projects such as railroad links, industrial complexes etc. India and Iran are raising eyebrows over the increased Chinese presence, which is also attracting the attention of the United States. Regionally, India and Pakistan are involved in an intense security dilemma and Iran is struggling to assert its influence as a regional power broker. Natural resources of Central Asia can only find their way to the Gwadar port through Afghanistan, which is in a state of persistent instability since many decades ago. An environment of suspicion has already started fermenting in policy making circles of all the concerned states due to increased Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean, and it could particularly blow out of proportion if it turns out to be a prelude to a military presence.
2. In the aftermath of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), stemming from September 11 incidents involving a majority of the terrorists from Middle Eastern countries and their heavy crackdown, American support is dwindling in the Middle Eastern countries. The United States, due to its strategic interests in the area, is maintaining a heavy military presence in the area. The requirement of a base in close proximity of the Persian Gulf may arise if the United States decided to pull out its forces from the Middle East. In this context, one would not rule out the United States’ desire to have military basing rights at the Gwadar port, as there are abundant occasions of extending such facilities by Islamabad in the past. This would, however, surely trigger uproar in Chinese circles and Pakistan’s time tested entente cordiale and strategic partnership could be put to an extreme test. Additionally, such an eventuality will put Pakistan in a very odd situation vis-à-vis Middle Eastern countries.
3. What policies should Pakistan formulate to attract the cooperation of competing nations and dispel notions of strategic mistrust amongst these nations? Success of the port project is essential for the growth of Pakistan’s economy. The GWOT, lack of thaw between India and Pakistan, and Pakistan’s delicate internal political situation are some of the facets affecting the Gwadar port, and they demand careful handling by Pakistan.
4. This article argues that “reassurance” measures are required to defuse suspicions about the perceived long-term political, military and economic objectives of all concerned states, particularly the United States and China.1 India and Pakistan are engraved in an intense “security dilemma” and to normalize relations Pakistan needs to tailor “influence” strategies and initiate positive engagement.2 Afghanistan is a landlocked country and heavily depends on Pakistan for its economic revival. Pakistan, despite estranged relations, will have to evolve “positive incentives” to keep Kabul “engaged” in order to ensure the safe passage of natural resources of Central Asian States. R.3
5. Pakistan is in middle of a complex strategic and security situation; only appropriate policies can ensure the success of the port project, which is not only vital for Pakistan’s economic prosperity, but also for security. The chapter will, therefore, be structured to evaluate the strategic environment surrounding Pakistan, highlighting interests of various regional and global players concerned with the port project. In the conclusion, this thesis will draw common points evolved from the discussion of interests of these states in order to recommend policy options for Islamabad.
Strategic Situation of Pakistan
6. President Clinton, during his trip to the region in the year 2000, explained the strategic situation of South Asia by declaring it as “the most dangerous place on earth,”4 and the world witnessed two nuclear states, India and Pakistan, eyeball-to-eyeball with military machines ready to pull triggers during 2002. Historian Daniel Moran suggested that South Asia would see more than their share of irredentist and secessionist wars, arising in part from conditions that European imperialism created and left unresolved; and India and Pakistan have already fought three wars.5 Throughout South Asia, the search for prosperity is too often overshadowed by the specter of war.6 The situation on the western side, though less grave, is no different than the east. Pakistan’s desire to maintain safe borders in the west have often been met by a checkered response by Afghanistan in the name of the Durand Line controversy and Pushtoonistan issues, and by Iran due to
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pakistan’s relations with the United States and Middle Eastern countries. Pakistan’s role in the recent Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has made these relations more precarious.
7. Additionally, the perception of an increased Chinese presence due to the Gwadar port has added a new dimension to the complexity of the security situation for Islamabad. Not to exclude prospects of the United States, dismayed from increasingly uncomfortable presence in the Middle East, requesting basing rights from its present “front line state” (which has historically provided such facilities to the United States) at the port; inviting uproar within Chinese circles as well as putting Islamabad in very odd situation vis-à-vis Middle Eastern countries. Conversely, the Chinese decision to increase military presence to safeguard its interests in the area could trigger an unending spiral of security issues, replicating a Cold War situation.
8. In this complex geostrategic situation there is optimism for the port’s success. This article argues that it was basically the logic of economic interests that brought the international community into broad-based, deep and mutually beneficial relationships at the dawn of the new millennium. In the twenty-first century, the International institutions have the capacity to enhance the prospects for cooperation among states and even hard core realist Mearsheimer admitted that the prospects for cooperation are abundant in this promising new world.7 And major sea powers, capable of disrupting the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs), have agreed that the Indian Ocean should remain peaceful.8 It is, therefore, hoped that the military de-globalization brought about by the end of the Cold War will help defuse the volatile situation surrounding a project which not only can benefit Pakistan, but the whole world.
9. Intra-regional disputes, the arms race and the absence of spirit of mutual coexistence among the littoral states have encouraged the outside powers to manipulate the littoral weaknesses and create dissention in their ranks. Big powers have always tried to maximize their influence in the littoral states by applying the tactics of diplomacy, maritime bases and naval forces to make use of vast concentration of resources. In this perspective it will be prudent to analyze the regional politico-economic interest of regional and extra regional powers. General interests of concerned countries will precede their points of contention in order to evaluate if the Gwadar port can help convert contentions into cooperation and help Pakistan evolve a strategy to foster this cooperation.
7 8
Interests, Interrelation and Conflicts of Regional and Extra Regional Powers
10.
9 10 11 12 13 14
Pakistan’s Interests in the Region
a. Pakistan has a strategic location in the Indian Ocean region. On the west is Iran, which has traditionally been a close ally. On the east is India, which is seen as a potential adversary. In the north is China, which has been a close friend, and to the northwest is Afghanistan, which is likely to remain friendly towards Pakistan because of her geo – economic compulsions. On the other hand, Pakistan is also located strategically in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf and acquires a special significance as nearly 17 million barrels of oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz daily.9 About 90 % of Pakistan’s trade is sea- borne and its SLOCs are passing through the Indian Ocean.10 Development of a commercial port at Gwadar on the northern extremities is another important factor for Pakistan’s interest in the region.
b. Economic dependence of Pakistan on sea routes for trade and commerce is of cardinal importance for the country’s survival as an independent sovereign nation. The importance of the coast of Balochistan (where the Gwadar port is being made) was realized by the CIA in the 1980s citing “its strategic location near oil routes from the Persian Gulf.”11 Soviets, prior to breakup, for a long time, had desired expansion towards the warm waters of the Arabian Sea.12 Pakistan and Iran had also long believed that the USSR hoped to gain warm water ports and the same is manifested in assessments of the CIA.13 A time has come where chairman of the Gwadar Port Authority, Rear Admiral Sarfraz Khan, said, “It was a long-standing desire of these states to reach warm waters and now we have ourselves offered this opportunity to them.”14
c. In the aftermath of the Gulf War and the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the political map of the region is being reshaped and new political trends are emerging. The United States, China and India are flexing their muscles to
enhance their influence in the area. The United States and Pakistan’s relationship has been like a roller-coaster ride, marked by alliance and close partnership during the Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan Administrations and cool or tense relations when Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton occupied the White House.15 This long and checkered relationship has its roots in the Cold War and South Asian regional politics of the 1950s.16 Present dictates of the GWOT have once again brought Pakistan back in the camp of the United States.
d. China’s relations with Pakistan are the strongest in the Indian Ocean region. And from Pakistan’s side President Musharraf reiterated the historical bond by saying that “China has been our most consistent ally over the past 30 years,” adding “Washington’s interest is likely to diminish.”17 Pakistan, with antagonistic relations with India, actually sought a powerful ally to keep Indian attempts of regional hegemony at bay.
e. In the recent past, India and Pakistan have entered into a “composite dialogue” and there is a reasonable optimism that even if longstanding disputes like Kashmir and Siachen are not resolved, a working relationship could be established for the collective good of the people. Iran, India and Pakistan are working closely to strike a deal over a gas and oil pipeline from Iran to India through Pakistan. Indian and Pakistani authorities are also endeavoring to materialize Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP), which would terminate in India and would go even beyond.
f. Optimism thus exists to foster economic cooperation amongst all concerned states and the Gwadar port can provide common ground in this regard. Interest and response of the United States’ in the port project will have far reaching affects in both its operationalization as well as the stabilization of the strategic situation in the area, which are discussed in ensuing paragraphs.
United States Interests
15 16 17
11. Can the Gwadar port project harness enough United States attention to stimulate its interest in keeping the region stable? Substantially improved capacity of the United States to project power confirms her intentions to take a more active role in the affairs of this region. Although the termination of the Cold War ended a pretext of heavy U.S. naval presence in the Indian Ocean, American policy makers were still “preparing for two major theater wars (MTWs) in Northeast Asia and the Persian Gulf.”18 That is why, in May 1997, in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Navy retained its 12 Carrier Battle Groups and 12 Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs). U.S. academia has its own ambitions, Koburger, Jr., in his book Sea Power in the Twenty-First Century, projected that by 2021, and the U.S. Navy should have 7 super carriers plus reserves and a sealift capability of 12 Marine Expeditionary Units.19 The United States has an interest in keeping the oceans open to all, which is evident from the presence of, at the minimum, U.S. Middle East Force in the Persian Gulf since 1949.20
12. In 1992, the Pentagon drafted a new grand strategy designed to preserve unipolarity by preventing the emergence of a global rival.21 Although the strategy never saw approval at the time due to severe internal resistance, it did generate discussions across the board by academia as well as different states. The focus being, is the unipolar world stable?22 Interest in this discussion is to elucidate the United States’ role in the Indian Ocean. Charles Krauthammer argued that unipolarity is durable and peaceful, but the chief threat is the United States’ failure to do enough.23 What is the United States required to do in this area and why? It is talked about more often than not that China and the United States are destined to be adversaries as China’s power grows.24 Both states so far, however, have shown restraint and avoided situations that can destabilize the area.
13. In the Middle East, the United States’ main ally, Saudi Arabia, has 261 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (more than one-fourth of the world total) and up to 1 trillion barrels of
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
ultimately recoverable oil.25 Shortly after the Arab oil embargo in 1973-74, the United States (and other Western countries) created the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) as the nation’s first line of defense in case of an oil crisis. In November 2001, President Bush made an unprecedented decision to fill the SPR to its full capacity of 700 million barrels.26 And in 2001, the United States imported 54 percent of its oil requirements, out of which 30 percent came from the Persian Gulf region.27 The United States economic prosperity and strategic security, therefore, depends on an uninterrupted supply of oil.
14. The September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States by militant Muslims, predominantly Saudis, have created a significant challenge to the long-term partnership between Washington and Riyadh.28 Trickling control over the Middle Eastern region would also mean loosening its grip over the dynamics of the region. For this reason, the United States desires a strategic alternative of Middle Eastern oil, and natural resources of CARs( Central Asian Republics) are bound to become a strategic alternate of the U.S. oil supply. Pakistan’s Gwadar port is one of the probable sites to provide an outlet to CARs natural resources, via Afghanistan. Only a few days before the September 11 attack, the U.S. Energy Information Administration documented Afghanistan’s strategic “geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea.29 American intervention into Afghanistan in pursuit of suspected terrorists has only further complicated an already delicate regional balance. Hopes of keeping economic interests alive nevertheless remained alive even after U.S. operations in Afghanistan, as the New York Times reported on December 15, 2002 that, “The State Department is exploring the potential for post-Taliban energy projects in the region.”30 The future of Afghanistan will determine the future of United States influence over the routing of CAR resources through this area. Circumstances after the unfortunate September 11 attacks not only brought an ‘old ally’ (Pakistan) back into its camp, but also suited its alternate strategic oil supply plans. Although a reasonable portion of U.S. oil tycoons support CARs
25 26 27 28 29 30
oil supply through Iran, the policy goals oppose the building of a pipeline that transits “energy competitor” Iran, or otherwise gives it undue influence over the region.31
15. Desire for a strategic alternate of oil aside, the indications of wearing American commitment in the Middle East does not necessarily indicate lowering of its resolve in the area as the Pentagon is becoming increasingly interested in the concept of mobile offshore bases for deployment in the Persian Gulf, to ensure the U.S. military access to critical regions in the future.32 Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean areas are, therefore, likely to remain the priority of United States policy makers for the foreseeable future. Naval presence is likely to increase even further due to increased discontentment in Middle Eastern countries and declining acceptance of U.S. ground forces. This presence will have a direct bearing on the Gwadar port project, and it ought to have positive effects.
16. In the same context, one would not rule out the United States’ desire to have military basing rights at the Gwadar port, as there are abundant occasions of extending such facilities by Islamabad. This would, however, surely trigger uproar in Chinese circles and Pakistan’s time tested entente cordiale and strategic partnership could be put to an extreme test. Additionally, such an eventuality will put Pakistan in very odd situation vis-à- vis Middle Eastern countries. Chinese probable response to such a request will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs under the heading of Chinese interest in the area.
17. Next, one would discuss Washington’s potential response if China increases its military presence in the Indian Ocean. The United States’ view of the threat and the stakes in the India Ocean, particularly the Persian Gulf, has its source in misunderstandings of the events of the 1970s; that of a severe oil supply crisis in the 1990s – and probably beyond. President Carter’s statement in his 1980 State of the Union address, subsequently labeled as the “Carter Doctrine,” that “Any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf Region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America and such assault will be repelled by any means necessary including military force.”33
18. As far as the United States is concerned, China has not replaced Russia as a significant global threat. China, nonetheless, is likely to be a major American foreign policy problem of the twenty-first century and the evidence suggests that China will probably be
31 32 33
powerful enough to challenge America’s preferred order in Asia and may, indeed, wish to do so. A serious security situation may arise if China chooses to increase its military presence on the pretext of protecting its interests linked with the port project. Pakistan, being the country housing this port, will have to convey the port’s “utility” terms in the most explicit way to dispel port’s military usage by any of the states.
19. The Indian Ocean region has remained and will be an area of interest for the American policy makers. It is, however, a well recognized fact that the United States helps to “shape the environment” (in the words of the Pentagon’s quadrennial defense review) in various regions.34 Pakistan does need that help to ensure success of its port project. Notwithstanding internal dynamics, which are pushing policies, overall economic and strategic interests ought to drive the United States to foster cooperation amongst states of the region. The United States “assured” stabilization in the area will guarantee success of the Gwadar port project, and Islamabad needs to formulate policies that can attract such “assurance.” China, being an emerging power and largest stakeholder in the port project, has an equally important role; Chinese interests and intentions are therefore discussed in ensuing paragraphs.
Chinese Interests
20. China is an emerging global player with significant influence in the area as it is the only great power that is contiguous to South Asia. One estimate suggests that, with the present remarkable growth rate, it is expected to reach to the level of world’s largest economy of the United States by 2020.35 China’s desire to play an important role in the Indian Ocean stems from its historical association with the region and the presence of her vital sea trade routes in the area. Its long-term interests in the Indian Ocean are both economic and politico-strategic. Chinese government concerns about energy security in an oil import era, however, continue to dominate its strategic thinking.36
21. According to Mearchiemer, if China becomes an economic powerhouse it will almost certainly translate its economic might into military might. Thus, Chinese military power will appear more dangerous to its neighbors and complicating America’s commitments in the region.37 As part of China’s revised doctrine of waging “modern
34 35 36 37
warfare under high technology conditions on the high seas,” the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is developing a blue-water capability by 2015-20, centered on at least two aircraft carrier battle groups for the Indian and Pacific Oceans.38 The July 1992 report of the General Logistics Department of the People’s Liberation Army outlined the plans for the expansion of Chinese naval capabilities through construction of three large bases by 1998, and called for stepped-up naval visits in the Indian Ocean and more frequent port calls to foreign countries in the region.39
22. For China, South Asia, West Asia, Africa and even Europe through the Indian Ocean is closer than the U.S. West coast across the Pacific.40 At present, China is not in a position to interfere effectively in the Indian Ocean, yet owing to her growing navy and her interests she can exercise considerable influence in the region. In the present unipolar environment, China wants to take the role of a major participant in the establishment of a new type of world order. This cannot be achieved with having the Indian Ocean region out of her influence.41 Similarly, China also resents the hegemonic designs of India towards the Indian Ocean and has always exhibited her opposition to such Indian attempts. China also suspects India of supporting superpower presence in the Indian Ocean as a means of countering China. The most serious challenge is that the U.S. military presence in Central, South and South-East Asia may undermine Chinese influence in these regions and make it more difficult for China to achieve its security, economic and energy objectives in the future.42
23. The Chinese are well aware of the geostrategic realities and have been engaged in diplomatic, economic and military activities to build a maritime infrastructure to safeguard their maritime interests.43 Present Chinese commitment to build-up infrastructure is impressive as it is probably the start of long-term Chinese intent in the Indian Ocean. The same is also evident from her assistance for construction of the Gwadar Port at the northern most tip of the Indian Ocean. It would not be long before the Chinese Navy would make its presence felt in the Indian Ocean in support of its economic and maritime interests. China has already consolidated its access to the Indian Ocean through the
38 39 40 41 42 43
Karakoram Highway and Karachi and Gwadar ports, through the China-Burma road to Burmese ports, and through the Malacca Straits. For China, the second stake holder in the Gwadar port project, the port offers a strategic toehold in the energy rich region of CARs and provides an alternative trade link to its western provinces. Xinjiang Province lies 4,500 kilometers from China’s east coast but just 2,500 kilometers from Gwadar. This will make it possible for China to route some of its external trade through the Gwadar port.
24. China’s growing military strength vis-à-vis her central geographic location and her desire to become a pre-eminent power in the region suggest that China has to play an important role in the future conflicts of the region. The regional balance and stability in South Asia and Pakistan’s healthy development are two major interests for China in addition to safeguarding her own interests. Chinese desire for an increased role in the area could seriously jeopardize if Islamabad chooses to consider any United State request for Maritime bases, particularly at Gwadar.
25. International relations theorists suggest that as a nation becomes more prosperous and more integrated into the world economy, it will become more democratized and more anxious to preserve the world order that has made its prosperity possible. It is therefore envisaged that the Chinese would not venture into military presence on the name of safe guarding interests at the Gwadar Port and stir up a never-ending spiral of seriously destabilizing events. Pakistan will have to ensure appropriate policies to dispel any such contemplation by Beijing.
26. Having discussed interests of both the United States and China, capable of stirring complexity of the strategic situation, this article will now turn to Iran, a probable economic competitor with regards to Gwadar Port, which has long been waiting opportunities to establish its dominant role in the region.
Iranian Interests
27. The Persian Gulf is an important trade route in the strategic northern reaches of the Indian Ocean. Some 80 % of the world’s oil tankers leave the shores of the Persian Gulf destined to other parts of the world.44 Geopolitical location of Iran within the Persian Gulf region is such that the northern shores of this Gulf belong entirely to Iran, which enables her to control the Strait of Hormuz. Passage through Hormuz is an issue of concern several times a year when Iran holds its war games at the mouth of Gulf.45 Iran regards her
44 45
role in the Indian Ocean as an extension of her interests in the Gulf due to important geographical location at the mouth of Persian Gulf.
28. Iran, too, is concerned with her economic interests associated with the Indian Ocean. Supply of natural gas to India, via a pipeline through the Indian Ocean, is one of Iran’s mega projects. Additionally, the Iranian port of Chahbahar, located on the mouth of Gulf, could become the hub of commercial activities if the natural resources of CAR find the way to rest of the world through this port. Iran’s situation with respect to its influence on the CARs and its desire to mend fences with the West suffers many impediments.
29. Turkmenistan sees Iran as one of the export routes for both oil and gas; even many of the oil tycoons see it as a viable option but the United States is pushing hard for alternative routes.46 Washington advocates the construction of pipelines in several directions from the Caspian Region, explicitly excluding Iran.47 Although Iran has seen some investment from the EU (particularly France) and India, it largely remains isolated from the international monetary system. Its isolation thus enhances prospects of Gwadar port success.
30. Historically, Iran had warm relations with Pakistan more often than not. Both countries being candidates of a transit route for CAR natural resources, as well as trade, may well eventually end up on an adversarial path. Additionally, increased Indian influence in Iran is considered an attempt of “encircling” Pakistan. In this situation, Pakistan needs to initiate “positive engagement” with Iran to safeguard its interests in the area.
46 47
31. Discussion of an economic competitor now leads to evaluating interests and intentions of India, another emerging power with growing economic interests and with whom Pakistan’s relations have mostly remained of animosity: India.
Indian Interests
32. India is perhaps the only country on the Indian Ocean that has the economic potential, military strength and the political will to dominate this vast expanse of water.48 Indian leaders and strategists have traditionally viewed the Indian Ocean region as a sort of Indian security zone, very loosely akin to the way Americans have viewed Central America and the Caribbean; or the way Russians have viewed Poland; or the way Chinese have viewed Korea. Although Indian leaders have not explicitly laid out such a regional doctrine, Indian behavior in the Indian Ocean has generally conformed to such an implicit doctrine.49
33. India’s dominant physical features and geographical location in the Indian Ocean indicate its dependence on the sea for both prosperity and security. India does not have any significant land access to the rest of world. Hostility with Pakistan and a difficult geography that separates India from China and Burma dictates that over 97 % of India’s trade is done through the Indian Ocean; therefore, India has critical interests in maintaining the seas, be open. India depends, to a large extent, on the import of crude oil and petroleum products for meeting its energy requirements from the Persian Gulf region. India’s production from existing oil fields has been declining over the time, increasing its dependence on the import of oil.50 And imported oil meets about 60 % of the Indian petroleum requirements.51 India’s Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas predicts the country’s demand for petroleum products will jump to 155.3 million metric tons/year (3.106 million barrels per day) by fiscal year 2006-07.52 To meet additional energy requirements, India seeks to develop economic relation with CARs in collaboration with Iran and desires to have access in this market. For this reason, since the 1990s, Central Asia has come to represent India’s extended neighborhood. For India, Caspian energy supplies have a
48 49 50 51 52
critical strategic drawback in that they must transit Pakistan, with whom relations are continually strained over the disputed territory of Kashmir.53
34. Indian strategic doctrine revolves around the protection of its maritime resources/assets, such as offshore oil platforms/rigs and sea-lanes of communication, to ensure smooth flow of trade.54 There are up to 30 Indian ships at sea in Indian waters at any given time and a much larger number of ships of other nations engaged in trade to and from Indian ports,55 in addition to 8-10 tankers carrying crude oil to India daily.56 India is working on the strategy of building up a viable maritime force to deter any potential aggressor and to protect her SLOCs. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., in his book “The Paradox of American Power”, writes that India’s military capabilities are impressive in South Asia but not in the larger Asian context.57 However, its strategic interests extend way beyond that and tend to enter the domain of regional hegemony, which dictates her relations with other countries.
35. India’s relations with other countries have so far been driven by security dictates more than economic compulsions. Its historically estranged relations with Pakistan do not require much discussion, as both countries already have fought three wars and more than half a dozen incidents short of war. The regional power balance vis-à-vis Pakistan has largely determined India’s relations with Afghanistan since 1979. Broadly, India has two principle foreign policy objectives when dealing with Afghanistan: to counter Pakistani expansion into West Asia, and use Afghanistan as an access route to Central Asia.58
36. In the late 1990s, the United States began to tilt toward India, as Washington and New Delhi turned from ‘estranged democracies’ of the Cold War to ‘engaged democracies’ in the post-Cold War era.59 U.S. officials consider strategically engaging India as a “future investment,” particularly since the Middle East could become hostile and dangerous to continuing U.S. military presence in the region. If Washington’s relationships with its
53 54 55 56 57 58 59
traditional allies – Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia – become more fragile, India will emerge as a critical component of U.S. strategy. 37. When its relations with China come up, the Indian security community feels that extension of Chinese interests to the South Asian portion of the Indian Ocean is potentially harmful for India.60 India even attributed 1998 nuclear explosions towards its security concern from China. Defense economists, however, estimate that if India continues to spend 4 % of GNP on defense, in fifteen years its military capital stock would reach $314 billion, or 62 % of China’s (compared with 48 percent today).61 These figures indicate maintenance of parity amongst both countries, leaving Pakistan and other Indian neighbors to deal with Indian military might, if they choose to “catch up” to China. There are, however, reasons to be optimistic since Indian policy seems to be shifting from pure security orientation to economic concerns. Even this shift has the potential to prove a significant factor for resolving outstanding issues with neighboring countries. Pakistan needs to seize this opportunity to normalize its relations with India and reasonable progress is already underway in shape of “composite dialogue.”
38. India’s increasing interest in Afghanistan, however, is raising concerns in Islamabad. When Gwadar port is put in operation, Afghanistan will be one of the direct beneficiaries by accessing it for its trade as well as getting royalties when the gas/oil pipeline is materialized. Afghanistan’s strategic situation and its interests in the area in general and the Gwadar port in particular are discussed below.
Afghanistan’s Interest
39. Afghanistan has historically remained the center of contention between major powers. History knows one such struggle for mastery in Central Asia by Russia and Great Britain resulting in “the Great Game.”62 Russia again ventured into Afghanistan towards last decades of 20th century, attracting U.S. attention that was looking for suitable opportunity to undo some of the unpleasant memories of Vietnam. This Russian venture ended when, at Politburo meeting on November 13, 1986, the Soviet leaders decided to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by the end of 1988,63 resulting in the culmination of the Cold War. Hopes of building war torn Afghanistan faded sooner than expected due to internal strife of warlords. The Taliban then came along to fill the leadership gap; they also could not survive long due to United States outrage over the handover of “so called”
60 61 62 63
terrorists after incident of September 11, 2001. Afghanistan is currently in a state of war and nation building, and it is too soon to foresee how things will settle in the long run.64 40. Afghanistan lacks a functional economy of any significance. Its agrarian based subsistence economy is not even meeting the basic food requirements of Afghans, forcing the population to survive on foreign donated food. The World Bank has estimated that requirement of a fund for addressing basic Afghan problems to be around U.S. $10.2 billion over five years. Based on two years of reconstruction experience, in July 2003, Care International estimated the requirement of funds to be between U.S. $15-30 billion over a five-year period.65 So far only a fraction of funds have actually been made available, but whenever reconstruction activities get momentum, Pakistan, by virtue of its geographical position, will have to play an important role and the Gwadar port stands bright chances of an active role in the entire reconstruction exercise.
41. Amongst other projects, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline was a hope to help revive the Afghan economy. The TAP pipeline project would have proven to be a jackpot for the people of Afghanistan as the project could bring in over $300 million as royalty to the country.66 The inflow of this cash and foreign investments could help in stabilizing the country’s economy and in reconstructing its infrastructure. It can be argued that a pro-U.S. regime in Afghanistan will be conducive to the involvement of a U.S. firm in the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline.67 Afghan transit trade was earlier handled through the Karachi port, and after operationalization the Gwadar port will handle it. Afghan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani also offered his country’s support for development of the Gwadar port, saying it would act as a gateway to prosperity for the entire region.68 Pakistan needs to keep Afghanistan engaged to facilitate the smooth and economical running of the port.
42. Discussion of the interests of various states in the Gwadar port with tremendous economic prospects would not be complete if interests of Japan and the European Union are not evaluated. Although both entities do not have any significant political or security interests in the area, their economic interests demand appropriate mention.
Japanese Interests
64 65 66 67 68
43. The importance of the Indian Ocean to the Japanese cannot be exaggerated; it would not be wrong to state that the Indian Ocean is a lifeline of Japan. Japan averaged 3.9 million bbl/d of net oil imports from the Persian Gulf during 2002.69 The need to protect her economic interest may one day invoke deeper involvement of her “Self Defense Maritime Forces.”70 Japan presently relies on the forces of the United States and other Western powers for her protection. Japan has no worthwhile political goal in this region and, with over dependence on this region for raw material and oil, the Japanese have always desired peace here. Japan’s energy concerns dictate its policies in favor of oil from a Caspian export pipeline terminating at the Indian Ocean.71 Therefore, it is safe to assume that Japan will support the operationalization of the Gwadar port project.
44. In addition to the United States, Japan will be the most worried nation with increased presence of the Chinese at the helm of the routes to her vital energy resources. Recent economic collaboration, though, has helped both nations to leave their bitter past experience behind. Divergence in interest in the Indian Ocean may strain their relationship. Pakistan will have to “reassure” Japan to alleviate any suspicions of port utility harmful to Japanese interests.
European Union Interests
45. Western Europe averaged 2.3 million bbl/d of oil imports from the Persian Gulf during 2002.72 EU members possess only about 0.6 % of the world’s proven reserves of oil and 2% of the world’s natural gas, and it is estimated that two thirds of the EU’s total energy requirements will be imported by 2020.73 The EU is, therefore, heavily dependent on oil transiting through the Indian Ocean. By and large their policy towards the Indian Ocean region has been one of reconciliation and resolution of security issues through the use of “soft power.”74 Their dependence on oil, so called guarded by the U.S., has not encouraged them to seek an active role in problems of either the Middle East or South Asia.
46. Nevertheless, a strong realization exists amongst European nations to have strategic alternate oil resources reducing their vulnerability to a single area source. Like all others, CARs attracted the EU’s attention for which the EU strongly supports an oil and
69 70 71 72 73 74
gas pipeline from CARs to the EU through Turkey. The pipeline route to European markets through Georgia and Turkey faces geopolitical turmoil and tough hurdles in its realization and actual execution. Separatist tensions in Georgia, instability in the Kurdish areas of Turkey, and unrest over Cyprus near the Mediterranean Turkish port of Ceyhan are some of the problems.75 In this scenario, the EU is likely to support a pipeline to the Indian Ocean either through Iran or Pakistan. There is negligible evidence of drags in EU relations with states that matter to the Gwadar port project. The EU and China have developed a stable relationship over the last decade, and so far they do not seem worried about Chinese presence in Indian Ocean.
Conclusion
47. The above discussion clearly manifests that strategic interests of all nations necessarily stem from the economic interests. Gwadar, with potential to act as a hub port, can facilitate convergence of interests of all states, bringing peace and prosperity in the area. Today, the entire globe is focused on the Middle East and Asia with the primary concern of protecting economic interests in the form of a free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf region, as well as tapping the natural resources of the Central Asian Republics. Friedman puts forward “the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention”, arguing that economic globalization had made interstate war nearly impossible.168 Others admit that in today’s world chances of cooperation through economic integration are more than ever in the history of mankind. But the political, economic and military importance of the Indian Ocean has turned it into a major theatre of rivalries. The power politics of littoral states is, of course, as threatening to peace as coveting influence and protecting interests through power projection capabilities by the external powers.
48. The United States, as a unipolar power, ought to play an important role in keeping the situation stable in the Indian Ocean. One hopes that Krauthammer’s fears on United States failure to do enough resulting in instability of the area do not materialize.76 Though it might also be possible for the United States to do too much and provoke balancing against it, which would also result in instability. Its role in promoting liberalism is also appreciable so far as it is not stigmatized as imperialist. China and the United States may not necessarily be adversaries, but rather once again use Gwadar as a platform to promote economic well being of the area; after all, similar understanding in relations of both nations with respect to Pakistan had worked earlier as well. 77It cannot be overlooked that China
75 76 77
has never lost an opportunity to cultivate U.S. goodwill.78 India’s ambitions of economic prosperity with over a billion people is justifiable, but not for a role as a regional hegemony. 49. South Asia has had enough of its share of turbulence without realizing that respective economies may receive a crippling blow by a serious armed conflict and set the clock back years or even decades.79 Delhi needs to appreciate that United States and Chinese interests in their mutual relationship far outweigh the interests of each vis-à-vis India, and both have high economic stakes in the Indian Ocean.80 The lesson for all nations contiguous to Pakistan (with respect to the Gwadar port) is that unbalanced power, whoever wields it, is a potential danger to others.81 Whereas, the emerging geopolitical environment in the region has led Pakistan to stand again as a strategic front line state for the interests of Extra Regional Powers, safeguarding of its economic interests clearly manifests from present government policies. Pakistan needs to adopt a balanced approach to ensuring stability, security and cooperation rather than conflict and confrontation with its neighbors, as well as the international community.
78 79 80 81