The Greater Caspian Project 25 by Modern Diplomacy

Editorial thE China-russia axis and Eurasia GIANCARLO ELIA VALORI russia and thE amEriCan PrEsidEnCy DR. MATTHEW CROSSTON aliCE through thE looking glass CEntral asia’s EtErnal PrEsidEnCiEs HEATH ALEXANDER CPEC: thE rEal gamE ChangEr for CEntral asia NASURULLAH BROHI thE grEatnEss of a ‘normal’ iran thE rEal ChallEngEs for a Post-JCPoa STEPHEN SARTY syria’s ‘ComPEting intErvEntions’ muCh ado aCComPlishing nothing ALEXANDER S. MARTIN stratEgiC hatrEd how Putin manEuvErs with radiCal islam JEFFERY FISHEL

Russia and isRael impRoving Relations a geostRategic analysis GIANCARLO ELIA VALORI multiple choice the sco Finds its Way ANONYMOUS vitalizing Russia- Japan Relations DR. ABDUL RUFF suicidal nucleaR gambit on caucasus PETRA POSEGA the connection betWeen tapi-cpec and aFghanistan NASURULLAH BROHI Russia-aFRica the Realities and the tRuths KESTER KENN KLOMEGAH

authoRs

THE grEaTEr CaSPIaN PrOJECT

BI-WEEKLY DIgITaL EDITION www.moderndiplomacy.eu Caspian@moderndiplomacy.eu DImITrIS gIaNNaKOPOuLOS Modern Diplomacy, Editor-in-chief Dr. maTTHEW CrOSSTON The Caspian Project, Director

BruCe aDrianCe KeVin auGustine anatoLii Baronin troy BaXter GreGory BreW nasuruLLaH BroHi staCey Cottone antony CLeMent anDy DeaHn nenaD DrCa sara Dyson JareD s. easton GianCarLo eLia VaLori JeFFery FisHeL BaHauDDin Foizee HeatH aLeXanDer Laura GarriDo orHan GaFarLi aaron GooD aMy HanLon Jeanette "JJ" HarPer JonatHan Hartner Brian HuGHes rusiF HuseynoV anDrii KoLPaKoV nina LaVrenteVa VLaDisLaV LerMontoV aLessanDro LunDini PauLa MaLott MeGan Munoz eLena M. aLeXanDer s. Martin

Luisa Monteiro norBerto MoraLes rosa tayLor Morse JoHn CoDy MosBey saraH noLDer teJa PaLKo GaBrieLa PasCHoLati JosHua Patterson Petra PoseGa Dayna riCe JessiCa reeD GreGory rouDyBusH Dr. aBDuL ruFF stePHen sarty DMitrii seLtser ProF. Dr. VLaDisLaV B. sotiroViC raKesH KrisHnan siMHa eVan tHoMsen Dianne a. VaLDez CHristoPHer WHite LoGan WiLDe tiM WoBiG

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by foolsâ&#x20AC;? Thucydides

www.moderndiplomacy.eu

Tradecraft and Trade Wars

he quarter century mark in GCP editions sees us investigating one of the more complicated issues in the world today, but one that will only be increasingly important for both peace and war: strategic trade and the global politics such trade impacts. Traditionally speaking, trade has been trumpeted as a great bridge-builder, a facilitator of dialogue and connectivity that is even capable of overcoming political discord. But as we move deeper into the 21st century it seems economic realpolitik, for lack of a better term, is becoming a primary engine of international trade: it is not so easy to assume that interdependence, that great neoliberal political science word of the late 20th century, is going to promote peace as much as deepening rivalries and exacerbating tensions in the 21st century. This edition is all about this new face of tradecraft. This is not to say every aspect in the new modern age of trade is secretly holding the danger of war or that every state has ulterior motives kept hidden from potential trading partners. We are not trying to completely undermine the positive capacity of global economic interaction. But more attention needs to be paid at how much political interests and national security concerns and global strategic positioning are now informing the trade agendas being brought forth by states all around the world.

This edition continues the general GCP trend of expanding its scope and geographical reach, as the issues covered within, founded with initiators within the greater Caspian region, end up taking our readers across the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and deep into the European Union. Tradecraft is a state essential. It always shall be. In some ways, the royal and ancient tradition of realpolitik has also been at least associated with trade. We here at GCP think that association in the cyber age with high technology and instantaneous transfer and interaction is only becoming more embedded and more manipulated into the political realm. This edition helps us all understand that dangerous process in better detail.

Prof. Dr. Matthew CrosstonGreater Caspian Project, Director

The China-Russia axis and Eurasia

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international aﬀairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York.

GIANCARLO ELIA VALORI

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa

he profound connection between the Slavs and the Asian races has a prominent place in the long-standing tradition of the Eurasist doctrine. At philosophical and geocultural levels, it is as if the Russians still represented the "Third Rome" that of the final reconstruction and restoration of the European civilization and its Imperium which unites with the Asian world, that is the beginning and the end of the sapiential development of mankind. It is worth noting, however, that these doctrines - born in a conservative context and often advocated by the counterrevolutionary “White Guard” - are currently the point of reference of what we might call the "Presidency ideology" in the years characterized by Vladimir Putin’s leadership.

Hence Eurasia as domination over the Asian Heartland - according to Mackinder’s geopolitical theories - and spiritual and political connection with peninsular Europe, as well as point for controlling all "world seas", ranging from the Atlantic sea through the European peninsula to the Pacific sea, which washes the Eastern region of the Asian Heartland. Eurasia is a strategic invariant. This is the significant philosophical universe where the new Eurasist doctrine is developing which, however, suﬀers the inevitable distance between the European and Mediterranean peninsula and the New Continent. Conversely, the rationale – and, indeed, the esotericism - of the Atlantic Pact is a philosophical, rather than a military project, combining the British Masonic

tradition, which defined the idea of modern Empire, with the European Protestantism. Hence the Modern values, which are embodied in the occult tradition of theosophy and the end of time pending the Last Revelation. It is worth noting, however, that these approaches are not alien to the geopolitical, strategic and military context which designed the bilateral confrontation of the Cold War. As already mentioned, in the current geophilosophical framework, the underlying theme is the union between the Slavs and Asian races, especially the Han Chinese.Therefore the Heartland cultural model is that of Tradition against the destruction of the Sacred; of Wisdom against what Hegel called the "calculation-based science" (Denken als Rechnen); of the people against individualism, as well as of social economy against the atomized market.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

All ideas of the spiritualist and pan-Slavist Right which today reemerge in the Eurasian project, after the USSR collapse. All ideas which developed within the Bolshevik apparata, including the intelligence, and have spread until current times. Ironically, these were the ideas of a saint and a mathematical genius, as well as orthodox priest, Pavel Florenskij, whom Stalin ordered to assassinate in the concentration camp of the Solovki Islands.

RUSSIA AND CHINA DOES NOT wANT ANYONE TO INTERfERE AND INTRUDE INTO THE NEw HEARTLAND, NOT ONLY THE JIHAD bUT ALSO THE OTHER MAJOR GLObAL POwERS

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Before being shot dead by the secret police (GPU), the Russian mystic (another Eurasist fracture: mysticism vs. rationalism) had discovered the properties of electrical superconductivity at low temperatures. Let us revert, however, to current and future geoeconomic equilibria in the Russian-Chinese system. Considering the strong presence of jihadists in Central Asia, it is highly likely for Al Baghdadiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Caliphate - territorially defeated between Syria and Iraq - to be rebuilt in Central Asia - at the junction between the Russian civilization and the Han world on Afghanistan's rubble and in the now critical region between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. According to the latest data, throughout Central Asia 10,000 jihadists are fighting ISIS, while 3,000 are Russian Islamic terrorists and only 800 are those coming from China.

These figures are such as to cause alarm among the various governments in the region. It is the terrorist globalization of the Islamic jihad, which splits the Eurasian project into two, thus running away from a more dangerous Mediterranean and a now unmanageable North Africa also for the so-called "radical" Islam. Furthermore the proximity of the new Islamist circle to the two new powers, namely Russia and China, allows the unleashing of strong ideological and religious tensions in the Chinese Autonomous Province of Xinjiang, inhabited by the Muslim Uighurs of Turkish origin, as well as the future destabilization of the Urals and Central Siberia. Russia and China does not want anyone to interfere and intrude into the new Heartland, not only the jihad but also the other major global powers. This is the sense of tensions in Ukraine, the gateway to Asia, or in Georgia, the possible link between NATO and the Russian system. The other option is for the United States to strengthen their bilateral dialogue with China without Russian cooperation, but the United States keep on supporting the peripheral countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; colour revolutions - a fact which China views with utmost fear.

At economic and financial levels, early this year the Russian and Chinese Central Banks have promoted a Memorandum of Understanding for local parities and financial exchanges and trading, while the Russian Direct Investment Fund, the Vneshkombanke, and the China-Eurasia Economic Fund have reached an agreement to manage the Chinese investment flows into the Russian economy, especially in Siberia and in the trans-Baikal region. Currently the Russian Federation sells advanced weapons to China, but it does not want to create opportunities for reverse engineering, nor it intends to accept the Chinese decision not to sell Russian weapons to China’s competitors in Asia, namely India and Vietnam. Moreover China keeps on investing in Ukraine, with as many as 15 billion US dollars for the construction of housing, while supporting the technological upgrade of Ukraine’s IT network. Furthermore, Russia does not accept the Chinese plan to set up an investment bank for the Silk Road Initiative, thus speeding up the Chinese choice of establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which has wider geopolitical relevance and tends to dilute the Chinese power into the wider European and international context.On top of it, Russia does not accept the Chinese plan

to create diﬀerent trading platforms, possibly opposed to the WTO. At strategic level, China and Russia oﬀer to their neighbours of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization a series of operational opportunities to achieve internal stability. The starting point was the Sino-Russian Agreement of May 2015, in which the two countries linked the Eurasian integration to the Chinese Silk Road Initiative. According to the World Bank, China has already invested 13 billion US dollars in Kazakhstan, as against the Netherlands which, however, have allocated 64 US dollars. China is the main operator of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Kyrgyzstan, with 299 billion US dollars, while Russia has appropriated 161 billion US dollars.

Hence probably Russia and China want to continue along these lines, thus avoiding dangerous military implications and invasive operations on the territory of countries which are also at risk of jihad. It is also worth recalling the TPP impact on the Eurasian economies. As can be easily imagined, both the Pacific TTP and the Atlantic TTIP are designed to enable the United States to destabilize the Eurasian project. Furthermore Israel has excellent economic and strategic relations with Kazakhstan, which supplies to the Jewish State a quarter of its oil needs. Therefore the Eurasian project now reaches up to the Mediterranean while, on November 29, 2015 Israel broke oﬀ negotiations with the EU regarding the peace process in the Middle East.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Russia and the American Presidency

hether one truly believes in the old adage that the President of the United States is the ‘leader of the free world’ and ‘the most powerful person on the global stage,’ it is unquestionable that whoever holds the Oval Oﬃce in the White House wields tremendous influence and impact far beyond the borders of America. As the world looks on with fascination in 2016 at the coming confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, questions remain as to which candidate is favored by which foreign leaders. While mainstream American media is still basically covering the race with horrified fascination at the popularity and

perseverance of the Trump campaign, the reality beyond America seems to show his candidacy is Matthew Crosston is Professor being taken quite seriously by other of Political Science, Director of the International Security and countries. Some may even be taking Intelligence Studies Program, it not just seriously but favorably and the Miller Chair at Bellewhen compared to the anticipated vue University presidency of another Clinton. At the moment, Russia seems to be one of those countries. However, deeper analysis shows this ‘support’ might be more of an indictment against past Hillary positions and statements rather than based on real evidence that accurately predicts what a Trump presidency DR. MATTHEw CROSSTON might mean for Moscow. In fact, Senior Editor, Caspian Project Director looking at both candidates strictly from a ‘what-this-means-for-Russia?’ perspective reveals the next four years of White House-Kremlin relations could be rather problematic no matter who wins.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

presidential races: that Democrats are too focused on domestic aﬀairs and are unfit or inexperienced to handle world aﬀairs. In essence, Democrats always have to defend against the accusation of being foreign policy weaklings. This accusation is never leveled against Republican candidates (even when a particular candidate may be internationally amateurish, his party’s reputational legacy is apparently automatically transferred to him. This is clearly happening today with Trump).

Hillary Clinton Before some of the specific statements and positions of Hillary Clinton on Russia are considered, a subtle comment needs to be made about the state of foreign policy within the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to potential candidates for President. Approximately four years ago I published a very popular piece that argued how the foreign policy of President Barack Obama was by and large ‘Republican’ in its conservative orthodoxy. While I admitted that this traditionalist approach could be partially explained by the personal comfort

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

level of the President himself, American presidential race history also weighed heavily in explaining these right-of-center positions for a left-of-center President. This same heavy weight affects Hillary just as much as Obama and therefore bears repeating. Why do liberal leaders in America become largely conservative statesmen when it comes to real decision-making on the global stage? Some of this is undoubtedly tied to what Democrats have had to fend oﬀ as an entire party in the past generation of

This ‘Chamberlain Syndrome’ (Democrat-as-global-appeaser) has existed for quite some time, but it was surely exacerbated by 9/11 and the new emphasis on national security. It was a major part of the lead-up to the 2004 election, when some analysts warned, ‘if Democrats are to have any hope of returning to power in 2004, or even of running competitively and keeping the U.S. twoparty system healthy and balanced in the coming decade, they will have to convince the American people that they are as capable as Republicans of protecting the United States from terrorism and other security threats.’ While it was assumed that it would be quite some time before Democrats could actually win national elections based on their national security and foreign policy stances, the big hope was to have the party advance far

enough so that it would stop losing national elections solely because of these two factors. This was arguably the biggest lesson learned from the Democratic failure of 2004, when Vietnam war veteran, Purple Heart winner, and long-time Foreign Aﬀairs Senate stalwart John Kerry lost to Bush, who had no such international military service accolades to lean on. While in the past Democrats could always criticize Republicans for being too eager to consider war (all stick, no carrot), the reverse accusation thrown back at Democrats post-9/11 seemed more damning (all carrot, no stick).

What Democrats as a party needed to ensure was that Americans could see them as not too weak or awkward when it came to handling said stick. Undoubtedly this was a legacy lesson made disturbingly eternal when Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis stuck his head out of a tank in 1988, ostensibly to make people believe in his toughness, and instead became the butt of such jokes and ridicule that it arguably led to his loss to George H.W. Bush. It seems clear that ever since that debacle Democrats have been quick to overreact to such criticism. They thus tend to be even

quicker than Republicans to line up and show the ‘military chevrons’ symbolically tattooed on their arms, signifying their willingness and capability to defend America as aggressively as the opposing party. This historical weight was prominent on Obama because his past experience as a Chicago community organizer, followed by very limited service as a single-term Senator, created a hyper-sensitivity to ‘not being internationally ready.’ If anything, this same weight is heavier on Hillary: not only must she fight the traditionally sexist accusations made against all women politicians as being ‘peacemakers’ and not ‘war-makers.’

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

She also must fight her own personal history, which if anything began as classically feminist and liberal, two things never commonly associated with the military or the utilization of hard power. Given this background, both within the party in general and her personality in specific, it becomes much easier to understand why Hillary’s comments and positions over the years have been so decidedly skeptical and critical toward Russia. Easier to understand, however, does not necessarily translate into easier to accept.

wHY DO LIbERAL LEADERS IN AMERICA bECOME LARGELY CONSERVATIVE STATESMEN wHEN IT COMES TO REAL DECISION-MAkING ON THE GLObAL STAGE?

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

-Many of Hillary’s critics tend to cite her steadfast belief in the mythology of ‘American exceptionalism’ and the country’s selfproclaimed role as ‘leader of the free world.’ To be fair, most Washington politicians will at least give public voice to these same ideas but few have also been Secretary of State and maintain very close ties to the military-security complex. It was Ralph Nader who decried her as both a ‘deep corporatist and deep militarist… never having met a weapons system she didn’t like.’ Perhaps most significant, this characterization would have been impossible to imagine when she began in Washington as First Lady. One only need look at the failed managed health care initiative Bill Clinton gave to her charge during his first term to see how

dramatically her issue foci and temperament have adapted over time. -Hillary still maintains unofficial and official contacts within her Eastern European team that are, amazingly, highly adaptable neoconservative holdovers from the Bush administration and have succeeded in staying near to the ears of Obama, Clinton, and Kerry over time. Anatol Lieven, the renowned scholar at King’s College London, has openly decried that too many of the figures currently surrounding Hillary are old school members of the military, foreign policy, and security establishment that chronically view Russia with Cold War attitudes, regardless of evidence. -During the Crimea crisis in 2014, Hillary tried to make a connection between Putin policy on the secession/annexation issue with policies pursued by Adolph Hitler in the 1930s. Given that over 20 million Russians died fighting Hitler, a sacrifice many historians the world over consider the crucial lynchpin that ultimately led to Hitler’s defeat, and that WWII in Russia is officially known instead as the ‘Great Fatherland War,’ it was incredibly rash and ill-thought to make such flippantly inaccurate connections given how important Russian-American relations will continue to be to the office Hillary is pursuing.

-At the powerful and influential Brookings Institution, Hillary stated that more needed to be done to ‘up the costs’ on Russia in general and Putin in specific because of Russian action in Syria. These comments were of course made under the aegis of honoring international law and wanting an end to conflict, even though Russia was formally invited to enter Syria and its intervention was technically in line with said international law. Neither statement can be formally applied to the American assistance given to the chaotically diverse opposition groups trying to overthrow Assad. This type of ‘reworking the narrative’ is continually irritating to Russia: what it considers to be blatant and untruthful manipulation of the global media covering events actually transpiring on the ground. -Hillary has not been very gracious when discussing her personal opinion of Putin as a man, having once even described him as having ‘no soul.’ In her book “Hard Choices”, she called him ‘thin-skinned and autocratic.’ This fuels a general perception within the corridors of power in Russia that perhaps Hillary views this relationship too personally: that as long as Vladimir Putin is President of Russia (which could very well be for the entirety of a Hillary presidency), then she will not

strive to achieve better relations with the country nor will she even treat Russia as an equal partner on areas of global mutual interest. -Hillary has maintained self-serving double standards in interviews, drawing false distinctions between the presidencies of Medvedev from 2008-2012 and the return of Putin after 2012. On the one hand, she would decry Medvedev of simply doing the bidding of Prime Minister Putin, but then on the other hand would praise her ability to work and get things done with Medvedev. Medvedev, therefore, has been both a puppet who does nothing and a puppet master who let the United States achieve a nuclear arms deal, Iranian sanctions, and facilitate further operations in Afghanistan.

In a massively publicized interview with the famous television journalist Judy Woodruﬀ, Hillary clearly established a stance marked by distrust and wariness toward Russia, even if begrudgingly acknowledging that it was still a country that had to be worked with. While many traditional liberals within the Democratic Party have issues with what they consider to be the blatantly ‘far right’ conservative foreign policy positions of Hillary, the real concern for the Russian Federation is that it sees her as a candidate that, correctly or incorrectly, wants to use Russia and Putin as a convenient scapegoat and whipping boy to establish her own ‘toughness’ on the global stage and leans on outdated Cold War rhetoric to analyze contemporary strategies and initiatives.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

wHILE IN THE PAST DEMOCRATS COULD ALwAYS CRITICIzE REPUbLICANS fOR bEING TOO EAGER TO CONSIDER wAR (ALL STICk, NO CARROT), THE REVERSE ACCUSATION THROwN bACk AT DEMOCRATS POST-9/11 SEEMED MORE DAMNING (ALL CARROT, NO STICk).

Donald Trump

If Russia is interested in establishing new 21stcentury relations with the United States not beholden instinctively to the legacies of the 20th, then it is hard-pressed to view Hillary Clinton as the President that would be willing to create such an environment. This is what likely fuels the quasi-positive statements coming from Russia about Donald Trump. Unfortunately, Russia should be wary of wanting a President just because he isn’t Hillary. While Donald brings a diﬀerent style and approach to potential relations with Russia, it does not mean those relations will produce anything new and innovative.

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Having examined some of the more strident comments and commentaries made by Hillary toward Russia, it is hard to avoid the impression that Russia may be ‘supporting’ a Trump presidency in very much the same way so many Americans are: they simply do not want a Clinton presidency. In my university classes I often caution students from engaging in what I call ‘negative voting:’ the vote being cast is not so much FOR a particular candidate but rather AGAINST the opposing one. When citizens cast votes based on negation rather than aﬃrmation, then it is not uncommon that the succeeding presidency is ultimately disappointing. I believe this will be applicable to Russia as well if it thinks simply preventing Hillary results automatically in a better presidency for Russian-American relations. To wit:

-Within Donald’s campaign has been a penchant for making bold statements that subsequently get walked back soon after. He did it with the building of a wall against Mexicans; did it with the promise to tax the super-rich; did it with the promise to raise the minimum wage; did it with the proposal to simply ban all self-declared Muslims from entering the country. While many Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) lament this as making it impossible to understand just what a Trump presidency will truly look like, many former business associates have warned that this spinning and counter-spinning is what his administration will be: no solid principles, simply a willingness to jump back and forth across diametrically opposed positions with no real logic as to why.

Ultimately, the accusation is one of being supremely self-serving. Russia may think this is a personality it can work with, but that makes an assumption that the self-serving egotism will be rational and predictable. Moscow seems to emphasize the word ‘pragmatism’ with Donald. But the policy spins, flip-flops, and contradictions do not indicate pragmatism. They indicate unreliability.

This attitudinal arrogance has been sanctified in Russian-American relations since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and no President so far has seemed willing to blaze a new path. Donald’s comments are not trailblazing: they are secretly masked to hide what will simply be more of the status quo. He will be partner to Putin as long as Putin accepts a subordinate role, which, obviously, seems highly unlikely.

-The previous point is a perfect segue to what will likely be the real fuel between Trump and Putin – ego and machismo. These two things are currency to Donald. It is clearly what he admires about Putin: whether countries around the world approve or disapprove of Putin policies and initiatives, one thing is never denied – his power and undeniable sense of authority over his administration and system.

-Donald has made headlines by saying he is willing to work with Russia, ‘but only from a position of strength,’ while also adding that the United States should be willing to walk away from Russia if it is ‘too demanding.’ Since Hillary has so clearly staked out a position openly antagonistic toward Russia, comments like these from Donald make it seem like a dramatically diﬀerent policy. In real terms, it is not. The key is cluing in to the code words. Whenever a politician in America speaks about positions of strength and not wanting to see an opponent too demanding, it is basically arguing for the very same position crafted by Hillary: the preferences of the United States will take priority and working together only takes place if America is granted the clear leadership role.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

JUST bECAUSE DONALD IS NOT HILLARY DOES NOT MEAN HE IS bETTER OR MORE APPROACHAbLE fOR RUSSIA. HIS TRACk RECORD AND PERSONALITY INDICATE OTHERwISE

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

That Donald sees this as something to admire does not in fact indicate a willingness to be ‘mentored’ by Putin. Rather, it is far more plausible that the relationship devolves quickly into a battle of egos. In America, this is often denigrated as a ‘pissing contest.’ When Putin called Donald a ‘bright person, talented without a doubt,’ it inspired Trump to respond: ‘I like him because he called me a genius. He said Trump is the real leader.’ In other words, substance matters not. Just be sure to stroke the Donald’s ego and he will consider you a ‘friend’ and ‘partner.’ But what will his mercurial personality do when a disagreement on substance overrides any mutual admiration society based on style? For Donald, it will be the end of partnership, the end of friendship, and thus, the end of ‘new’ Russian-American relations. Ironically, Russia may find out that only Putin is the pragmatist. Donald is simply a narcissist. -In a bit of reverse psychology, Russia should be wary when one of the most biting opponents of Putin, the former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, vociferously proclaims how Trump is the American version of ‘Putinism’ and that Donald’s presidency would be the ‘best hope’ for Russia.

Kasparov’s logic is that the election of Donald would severely weaken American democracy and rip apart positive trans-Atlantic relations. Put simply, Kasparov treats Donald like a de facto agent of Russian interests, ie, Donald would be willingly subordinate to Putin. As mentioned before, ego and narcissism will not allow that. In the current state of Russian-American relations, when so many Americans are being fed stories about the adversarial aggressiveness of Russia, there simply is no evidencebased thought process to make someone believe Donald would buck American opinion about a so-called enemy. Rather, he is much more likely to sycophantically cater to American paranoia, in order to guarantee his own need for self-aggrandizement. -Finally, the comments of Konstantin Kosachev, Chairman of the Upper House Committee for Foreign Aﬀairs, illustrate perfectly how much of the hope on Donald is really just about the lack of hope with Hillary: “New chances may appear only as radically new tendencies in the White House, and we are talking not only about pro-Russian sentiments, we simply need some fresh air, some ‘wind of change’ in Washington.

Then, we can reset certain things and agree on continuation of the dialogue…In the context of these two factors Trump looks slightly more promising…At least, he is capable of giving a shake to Washington. He is certainly a pragmatist and not a missionary like his main opponent Clinton.” What this article has established is how misplaced such faith tends to be when considering Donald. People in Russia are making false connections: if you are not a missionary, then you must be a pragmatist. There are other more dangerous and damaging options in that equation. It is not binomial, 0 or 1. To repeat: just because Donald is not Hillary does not mean he is better or more approachable for Russia. His track record and personality indicate otherwise. There are in fact some figures of cautious moderation in Russia and they are oﬀering wisdom on the coming election.

People like Aleksey Pushkov, head of the Lower House Committee for Foreign Relations, and Fyodor Lukyanov, head of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, while admitting their understanding of the immediate Russian attraction of Donald over Hillary, also emphasize how the ‘system’ of Washington politics tends to bring any incoming President quickly to heel and that it is impossible to truly know what to expect from a Trump presidency. I think it is possible to reliably guess, however. For RussianAmerican relations to significantly change from its current negative status quo, the incoming President would have to be eager and intellectually motivated to instill innovative new political thinking and diplomatic pathways. Hillary has clearly staked her position in the ranks of the Old Guard of suspicion, skepticism, and distrust. Donald perhaps has not done this publicly.

But his need to be adored and admired by the American public (an American public constantly fed a steady stream of negative perception and analysis about Russia and Russian leadership) means he would have to be willing to abandon the feeding of his narcissism for the sake of improved Russian relations. And while there are many mysteries in this world, one thing is most certainly NOT a mystery: the person Donald has always loved most of all is…..the Donald. Thus, Russia needs to be careful as it approaches the coming 2016 American presidential elections. Some loose assumptions and false connections are driving apparent loyalty to a candidate that is unlikely to oﬀer anything close to what is hoped for. Indeed, it may just be the sad news that 2016 goes down simply as the American election that oﬀers Russia option ‘C’ as the best choice: None of the above.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

Alice through the Looking Glass CENTRAL ASIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S ETERNAL PRESIDENCIES

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Heath Alexander is a retired Air Force Meteorologist and Analyst with five years in Special Operations and another two as a Military Attaché in West Africa. He is currently pursuing a Bachelors of Science degree in International Security and Intelligence Studies at Bellevue University in Omaha, NE, USA.

HEATH ALExANDER

holpon Orozobe kova’s article for The Diplomat on Central Asia’s autocratic rulers is a fascinating look at the men who helped take the central ‘stans, particularly Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, from communism to “democracy.” Just as fascinating is the prospect, for each of these countries, of who will finally succeed the communist relics/reborn ‘democrats’ still hoarding power. The president of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahman, is 63 and his current term ends in 2020. President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan is 77 but was just reelected in 2015 for another seven-year term. Finally, Kazakhstan’s sitting president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, is 75 and was also just reelected in 2015, but to a five-year term in his case. These men, and their absolute control over the political, economic, and military facets of their countries, will have significant impact on the future of the Greater Caspian Region.

Tajikistan As mentioned in the article, President Emomali is the autocrat with the best plan for his eventual replacement. The Tajik constitution was recently amended to lower the minimum age of the presidency to 30 from 35. Not so coincidently, Rahmon’s son Rustam will be 32 when his father’s current term ends in 2020. This foresight is not surprising, however, as Tajikistan has been called profoundly risk averse when it comes to political change. Who better to replace the current ruler than his own son, groomed for most of his adult life to succeed his father as the Tajik president? In addition to all but ensuring his son’s ascendance after he leaves oﬃce, Rahmon was also able to get a law passed by the Tajik parliament to name him “Leader of the Nation,” an honorific that also comes with the ability to run for unlimited terms if he so chooses.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

Whether Rahmon steps down in 2020 or not, it can be assumed that Rustam will enjoy the same kind of ‘electoral support’ his father has for the last twenty years. Rahmon carried the previous three elections with 97%, 79%, and 83%, respectively. These results are unsurprising, however, given the repeated calls by international organizations about a lack of pluralism and genuine choice and fairness in Tajik elections. Whatever the next decade holds, it seems that Tajikistan has steadily worked to ensure its own warped sense of political stability so that there will be limited resistance to the transition to the next Rahmon president. Uzbekistan The issue of Uzbek succession HAVING THREE and stability is one of great conCOUNTRIES, ALL cern in the region. President Karimov is 78 years old with two CURRENTLY RULED bY daughters, one of whom is under SEPTUAGENARIANS, de facto house arrest after being THAT bORDER EACH tied to over a billion dollars in OTHER AND HAVE bribes from international telecom companies. This detainment hapTO ExPECT REGIME pened to coincide with a Swedish TRANSITIONS IN THE money laundering investigation NExT DECADE into businesses owned by the Karimov family in general. CorrupSIMPLY bECAUSE Of tion is an overarching theme in bIOLOGY IS THE STUff Central Asia, but in Uzbek politics REGIONAL NIGHTMARES particularly, especially where the ARE MADE Of First Family is concerned. While Karimov wields tremendous political power, the overt nepotism and ostentatious displays of

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

corruption-fueled wealth are the stuff popular uprisings are made of theoretically. With Karimov’s mortality rapidly approaching, dissent within the family, and no traditional or obvious chosen male ‘political heir,’ Uzbekistan seems ripe, at least potentially, for a true regime disruption in the coming decade as succession issues likely become forced to center stage. Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev appears less concerned with finding his successor than he is with using science to extend his own rule. He ordered the establishment of a research institute in 2010 that would study the "rejuvenation of the organism," partially in an effort to extend his own life and, by extension, his reign. How much stock Nazarbayev puts in finding a modern-day scientific fountain of youth is debatable. However, the stock he puts in family cultivation and grooming is undeniable. Much like President Emomali of Tajikistan, Nazarbayev is actively grooming one of his offspring to eventually succeed him. In this case though Nazarbayev’s daughter Dariga is the chosen successor. She has already ascended to the Deputy Prime Minister’s chair, effectively one step from co-ruling with her father when he’s ready to share power.

Since all three countries are highly susceptible to influence from Russia, and would likely be more so in the event of a contested or ineﬀectual succession, it is not outside the realm of possibility that they would be used as pawns against Chinese interests in the region as well.

The Future of Central Asian Security Assuming that day comes, recent legislation grants Nazarbayev effective veto power over any political decisions, even after he has stepped down from oﬃce, as well as immunity from prosecution. How this will impact the eﬀectiveness of his eventual successor’s ability to rule remains to be seen. While it should ease the transition, given that it seems likely Nazarbayev will spend several years only ‘semi-retired’ from the presidency at first, it could also backfire by undermining any sense of legitimacy and independence in his daughter’s subsequent rule.

A transition from autocratic rule is often dangerous, violent, and destabilizing to an entire region. Having three countries, all currently ruled by septuagenarians, that border each other and have to expect regime transitions in the next decade simply because of biology is the stuﬀ regional nightmares are made of. Central Asia is also crisscrossed by natural gas and oil pipelines feeding the Russian and Chinese economies, two states that have shown a willingness to diplomatically coerce and intimidate these so-called Near Abroad countries.

China’s massively important One Belt, One Road policy, which heavily utilizes the Central Asian region to bring about this trade/communication/globalization initiative, will have no less passionate an interest in seeing how succession maneuvers go. Any destabilizing influence could negatively aﬀect all of these countries agendas, as well as the greater Caspian region writ large. Whatever the outcome, Central Asia is not exactly known for peaceful, bloodless power transitions that uphold the principles and hopes of consolidated mature democracy. Unfortunately, there is no reason to think this might change in the coming decade.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

CPEC The Real Game Changer for Central Asia Nasurullah Brohi works as a Senior Research Associate at the Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad

NASURULLAH bROHI

he exceptional geographical situation makes Pakistan a real gateway between South Asia and East Asia, and the actual hub of business activities in the region. The fact this position not merely confined with the CPEC but already extant, however, together with the Corridor project it will further facilitate the smooth connectivity between South and East Asia. This geographical situation gives Pakistan a central position in terms of increased regional connectivity. The economic development in modern times is mainly dependent on the better infrastructural conditions essential for the trade and transport activities.

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s active investment in agribusiness and telecommunication, natural resource extractions including oil, gas, and uranium, gold and copper enhance the exports greatly help the boost of the Central Asia economy. However, such immense natural richness of resources will hardly contribute to the national development and the enhancement of the living standards if Central Asian States obstruct and the face limitations in terms of their trade and export activities. China has been a major player for the infrastructural and economic development by building roads, tunnels, railway tracks, power lines and oil refineries in Central Asian states.

China has also been instrumental in development of the two most important Central Asian road connections of Osh-SarytashIrkeshtam and Bishkek-NarynTorugart in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan respectively. The Irkeshtam Pass crosses through the Oshâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Sary Tash of Kyrgyzstan to the Kashgar in China. Whereas, the Bishkek-Naryn-Torugart road is the other most significant transportation link route connecting the Kyrgyzstan with parts of Europe-East Asia and the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) Transport Corridor and serves as key regional economic hub by connecting the landlocked CAREC countries with the Eurasian and global markets.

The road essentially links three administrative regions of the former Soviet Union, i.e. Chui, Naryn and Issyk-Kul and connect the territories of Kyrgyzstan and China across the Tian Shan mountain ranges of Torugart Pass and the northern settlements of Kordai. Ultimately, this important transit traďŹ&#x192;c route between Kyrgyzstan and China connects with the Karakorum highway of Pakistan providing access to Russia and Kazakhstan to access the ports of Indian Ocean. The CPEC is situated at the crossroads of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

The planned road and railway networks of CPEC link Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region with the Southwest Pakistan's deepwater port of Gwadar. The CPEC is also an important part of the Belt and Road Initiative holding huge economic potential and business opportunities for the whole region. Realizing the importance of CPEC for Central Asian region, the President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov visited Pakistan in March focusing on strengthened bilateral relationship with Pakistan covering broad areas of cooperation ranging from trade, energy sharing, and tourism.

CHINA HAS bEEN A MAJOR PLAYER fOR THE INfRASTRUCTURAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT bY bUILDING ROADS, TUNNELS, RAILwAY TRACkS, POwER LINES AND OIL REfINERIES IN CENTRAL ASIAN STATES

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

To explore the viable economic options it was decided to speed up the linking Dushanbe through the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and establishing air, road and railway links between both countries having exceptional geostrategic and geo-economic significance in the region. The Silk Road Economic Belt network brings together China with Central Asia, Russia and Europe through an overland link with the regions of Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea.

The Central and West Asian region connects with the South East Asia, South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Whereas, the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road links China's coast with the Europe through South China Sea with Indian Ocean and the South Pacific and serves as an international trade route. The Gwadar, Bin Qasim and Karachi ports of Pakistan are the only intersection of the both Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. Moreover, after fully functioning of the Gwadar Port, it will become a central point of connection for the landlocked countries of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and exceptionally facilitate their cargo transportation destinations towards Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Iran, and Iraq. The CPEC will eventually boost up regional economies and impact the lives of over three billion people of Asia through immense trade and businesses opportunities.

The Greatness of a ‘Normal’ Iran THE REAL CHALLENGES fOR A POST-JCPOA

Stephen Sarty is a graduate student in the International Security and Intelligence Studies program at Bellevue University in Omaha, NE, USA. He is a former U.S. Marine and has lived and worked in the Middle East for the last 23 years.

he recent Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreements between Iran and the international community will, no doubt, have a major impact on Iranian domestic politics. The agreements open the door to an increased opportunity for improved foreign relations and international business agreements that will be needed to help Iran emerge from years of economic hardship created by international sanctions. The question will be whether Iran will itself walk through this doorway to a more inclusive future in the international community or whether it will slowly close the door, untrusting of those waiting on the other side.

STEPHEN SARTY

One thing is sure, however, and that is that whether or not Iran chooses the path of better international engagement, it will be done at Iran’s pace, and given the current structure of its ruling elite, that pace will be slow moving. The Iranian ideological structure is built to retain the status quo and given the level of distrust of the international community any amount of cooperation will be hotly contested.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

THE UNELECTED POLITICAL ELITE DO NOT SHARE ROUHANI’S VISION fOR AN INCREASE IN THESE fREEDOMS AND CIVIL LIbERTIES, AS THEY COME INTO DIRECT CONfLICT wITH THEIR CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGIES

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

With conservatives firmly in control of the real sources of power, any foreign investment and involvement in the country goes against the grain of their core principles as was recently echoed when Ayatollah Khamenei recently said, the JCPOA is “just an excuse and a tool for penetration” and “an instrument for imposing their demands”. The push, however, will come from working and middle class Iranians who have suﬀered from years of recession and high inflation and are keen to see the economic inequality between themselves and those that have continued to prosper during the sanctions reduced.

It is this resistance to relinquish any semblance of control that has highlighted Ayatollah Khamenei’s tenure to date. Since gaining power in 1989 Ayatollah Khamenei has not hesitated to use violence against his own people, as we saw in the Green Revolt of 2009, in order to retain firm control of the nation and to ensure alignment with the direction set forth in the 1979 Revolution. This violence, however, has also severed the delicate bond needed between the greater society and its ruling elite and is further exacerbated by the extreme economic hardships being suffered by the common Iranian.

Ideally a potential path for Iran would be one similar to that taken by China, starting in the late 1970s. Overcoming the trajectory set in place by Mao Zedong, reformers, led by Deng Xiaoping, moved the nation away from the communist ideology of the past and towards a more western capitalist approach. This would, however, be a diﬃcult path for Iran. In Iran, unlike China, the Ayatollah inherits his power through Islamic ideology and without it his place at the top of the ruling structure would be in jeopardy.

Given the unlikelihood of any meaningful reform to the leadership structure of Iran there are, however, steps that can be taken to bring some measure of prosperity back into the common Iranian’s life without the wholesale changes that would require nothing short of another revolution. The first step would be to produce a more stable environment through which business and trade can be conducted within the private sector.

The government would need to relinquish some of the control that it pulled from the private sector and tone down, somewhat, the anti-foreign rhetoric, allowing the international community greater access to investment opportunities throughout Iran. The JCPOA has gone a long way towards beginning the process of improving Iranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s standing within the international community and the government should work to not lose that momentum. Some forces inside Iran favor a stricter Iran that is resistant to interaction with outside nations and more isolationist, not unlike North Korea.

It will be up to leaders like Rouhani to counter these groups and move Iran towards a more inclusive role in the global community. The state should also ensure that it not fall into the trap of relying simply on the easy money that an easing of sanctions and a return of its oil and gas exports will bring. Wealth brought on by the export of oil and gas and used to purchase foreign-made products will not have the desired eďŹ&#x20AC;ect in reducing the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s crippling unemployment problem,so emphasis should be given to the promotion of building a larger breadth of industry, such as

manufacturing and agriculture, that could begin to support job growth among the largely unemployed youth of the nation. This is an important distinction to be made with a nation that has the rich cultural diversity and history of Iran. The national economy is currently faced with at least five major imbalances that must also be addressed: (1) An international payments imbalance due to a highly over-valued exchange rate, increasing reliance of imports, lagging genuine non-oilbased exports, and a precarious and uncertain future oil-export market;

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

(2) A budget imbalance caused by rising expenditures in the face of stagnant and doubtful revenues; (3) A resource imbalance due to artificially low prices for water, power, and fuels that encourage ever-expanding demand; (4) A monetary and financial imbalance resulting from government-directed low interest rates, non-performing banking assets, rising defaults, and an increasing flow of savings into the informal market and capital flight; (5) Finally, a labor imbalance resulting from the rising work force, inadequate in housing and industry, and an anti-business labor code. (Amuzegar, 2014)

THE JCPOA HAS GONE A LONG wAY TOwARDS bEGINNING THE PROCESS Of IMPROVING IRAN’S STANDING wITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD wORk TO NOT LOSE THAT MOMENTUM

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Another key element going forward, and particularly in the case of President Rouhani, as his campaign platform is focused on such items, is progress in levels of freedoms, civil liberties, and political rights. Since his election Rouhani has focused mainly on the nuclear talks and to this point he has gotten a pass on some of these campaign promises not being addressed but as the JCPOA grows more distant in the rear view mirror he will be held more and more accountable for his inaction on these items. If Rouhani is to retain the level of support from the Iranian public that brought him into office then he will need to make significant progress into these areas.

The unelected political elite do not share Rouhani’s vision for an increase in these freedoms and civil liberties, as they come into direct conflict with their conservative ideologies. So it is imperative that Rouhani work to find means to bridge the ideological gap. Within Rouhani’s power to aﬀect change in a positive manner, and in keeping with his campaign pledges, include items such as increased freedom of speech. Currently media outlets can be prosecuted for such things as criticizing government organizations and it is well within Rouhani’s power to encourage more restraint in these instances.

Another important major platform promise that Rouhani will need to address was his promise to uphold the rights of women and to address cases of discrimination against them. The removal of restrictions on the participation of females in government, and enrollment of female students in certain academic disciplines, are all key items of concern. A final matter of concern is that of governmental transparency. Currently there is a considerable lack of basic and reliable information needed to conduct basic business with regards to the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic issues.

A key impediment to this much needed privatization is the lack of ownership structures needed to ensure proper transfers of entities to the private sector. Commitments to the observance of law and transparency throughout the legal process is also essential in establishing even the most basic of environments necessary for the successful integration of foreign businesses. This is where Iran is at the moment. The REAL success of the JCPOA is not so much in Grand Strategy proclamations and reinvigorating Empire, but rather in the small incremental successes of normalcy for the Iranian common people.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

Syria’s ‘Competing MUCH ADO ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING Alexander S. Martin is currently pursuing a Master’s Degree in International Intelligence and Security Studies from Bellevue University. He earned a Bachelor’s Degree in International Intelligence and Security Studies also from Bellevue University in 2014.

ALExANDER S. MARTIN

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Interventions

he Syrian conflict has led to the failure of the Syrian state, which has had consequences for not only the Middle East, but a host of other nations with interests in Syria. This has prompted these states to intervene in the crisis in an eďŹ&#x20AC;ort to end the violence there. Prominent international actors in the conflict include the US, Russia, Turkey, the European Union (EU), Saudi Arabia, and Iran. I will divide the policies of the aforementioned actors into two categories. These categories are determined by relative similarity between interests, policies, and goals. The first category will be the West, which includes the US and EU.

The second will be termed the East for convenience, and includes Russia and Iran, as well as the beleaguered Syrian regime. It must be noted that some states, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as well as other inter-governmental groups like the Gulf Cooperation Council, play a role in the Syrian conflict. However, their role is less pronounced and influential than the West and East categories, and are largely idiosyncratic and circumstantial, placing them outside the scope of this paper.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

West: Immigration Crisis, Counter Terrorism, and Human Rights The US and the EU share a great deal in common in terms of interests in Syria. These can be summarized as attempts to deal with the refugee crisis, countering terrorism, in particular the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and the enforcement of human rights. These three interests have variably assumed priority among the Western states, with enforcing human rights taking the primacy of place at the outset of the conflict only to be supplanted by addressing the refugee crisis and most recently a concerted counter-terrorism eﬀort. Importantly, the call for protection of human rights has included

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

attempts to bring the conflict to an end by brokering a political solution and insisting that the Assad regime step down, placing regime change at the core of the Western position on Syria (Ollivant, 2013). This has also led the US and its allies to support certain opposition groups, deemed moderate by Western governments, including provisions of lethal aid (Entous, 2015). While this policy oﬃcially remains, the immediacy of the refugee crisis and the threat posed by ISIL has caused Western states to pay more attention to these problems. The focus on countering ISIL and managing intra-EU squabbles over refugees has obscured the root causes of the conflict, as well as elements of Western policy

which is at odds with the Eastern category involved in Syria. The refugee crisis will persist until the Syrian state is able to function again, rendering all attempts by the EU and its member states to deal with the influx of refugees ineﬀective. Admittedly, ISIL represents a threat to the security and stability of Syria and beyond, and neutralizing it is a prerequisite for reinstating a functioning government in the country. Thus, while there has been success in countering ISIL among Western nations, this has not been oriented within a broader policy approach to solving the problem of Syrian state failure. Furthermore, the Western approach, particularly the arming of rebels and insistence on regime change put it at odds with the Eastern bloc.

The East: Supporting an Ally and the Triumph of Realpolitik Like the US and the EU, Russia and Iran share many interests in Syria. For both, the Syrian government represents a threatened ally in the region. Both pragmatically value the perceived stability of authoritarianism over enforcing ideals like human rights; both see Western calls for Assad’s ouster as providing a pretense to attempt regime change in Russia and Iran; and both seek to use the conflict to demonstrate their diplomatic and military prowess to validate claims to global and regional power status. These interests have resulted in similar policies toward Syria, but both are aligned against Western positions, with very little overlap between East and West. While both continue to support the Assad regime, support from both has also begun to wane. In 2012, Iran courted a number of opposition groups, probably perceiving the Assad regime’s inability to govern, but has since decided to continue backing the Assad regime (Goodarzi, 2013). In Russia’s case, it was quick to come to the ailing Assad regime’s aid when it was losing territory to the various opposition groups (Ioﬀe, 2015). However, the relationship, already downgraded from the one enjoyed by Bashar al Assad’s father, has suﬀered

from the Assad regime’s inflexibility in negotiating a political settlement (Slim, 2016). Yet despite these diﬃculties, both Iran and Russia remain committed to the Assad regime. Russia and Iran both feel threatened by the West’s insistence on regime change. The Kremlin has long argued that much of what the West considers to be universal human rights violates state sovereignty. Since the “color revolutions” of 2003 and 2004, Russia has increased its emphasis on protecting its sovereignty, seeing those revolutions as consequences of the expansion of NATO (Smith, 2013). More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has accused the West of attempting regime change via the imposition of sanctions due to Russia’s involvement in Ukrainian unrest (Devitt, 2014). The Russian interpretation of protecting sovereignty has extended to accusing the West of violating the sovereignty of Russia’s allies, in this case Syria. In response to US plans to increase its military forces in Syria, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister stated that “it is impossible for [the Russian Federation] not to be worried that such an action by the [US] is being carried out without the agreement of the legal government of Syria,” claiming that such actions violate Syrian sovereignty (Al Arabiya, 2016).

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

It is clear that Russia sees in the West’s attempt to oust the Assad regime a parallel: threats to its ally’s sovereignty are threats to its own. Therefore, Russia has established a hardline policy of support for the Assad regime. Iran similarly fears regime change in Syria; surrounded by hostile Sunnis and its arch-nemesis Israel, and with frequent calls in the US for regime change, Iran is quite fearful of losing its principle regional ally. Thus, despite its reluctance, Iran has been forced to

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

remain a steadfast supporter of the Assad regime. Iran’s alliance with Syria is based partly on its strategic interests, for example providing “a geographic thoroughfare to Lebanese Shi’a militia Hizb Allah,” but also on its “deep concerns about the composition of a post-Assad government” (Sadjadpour, 2013). This explains Iran’s support for the Assad regime, as well as its reluctance: should a successor suitable to Iran’s interests appear, it is likely that Iran would cease its support for Assad.

Conclusion The Syrian state has failed. The conflict has expanded beyond Syria’s borders, drawing in members of the international community. Europe is beset by mass refugee migration; the US and Europe are united in the need to subdue the threat posed by ISIL; Russia and Iran face the loss of a strategic ally should the Assad regime fall. The Assad regime has proven incapable of governing Syria, necessitating international interventions.

Yet the very countries best postured for these interventions have competing interests and thus competing policies for how best to end the chaos in Syria. On the one hand, the West seeks regime change, seeing the Assad regime as illegitimate due to its violations of human rights and inability to govern. This is unacceptable to the East, who both value the Assad regime as a strategic ally. Furthermore, Russia and Iran are concerned that Western-led regime change in Syria may be a precursor to similar attempts elsewhere.

To this end they continue to emphasize state sovereignty. In some ways, the bloc politics taking place now inside of Syria have almost very little to do with the actual end game IN Syria and is much more about the politics and consequences that might happen OUTSIDE of Syria. Unfortunately, what these ‘competing interventions’ have shown first and foremost (and seems likely not to end or change anytime soon) is that the Syrian civilian population is only going to suﬀer more for the foreseeable future.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Strategic Hatred

HOw PUTIN MANEUVERS wITH RADICAL ISLAM

his case study provides an analytical commentary on the article written by Mr. David Bukay in ‘Modern Diplomacy’ on the issue of why Islam hates the West. Mr. Bukay presents the issue that ‘the Western world is ignorant, unacquainted, and in fact stupid concerning Islam. For so many years and so many Islamic attacks, its leaders still reiterate the Pavlovian question: "why do they hate us?"” (Bukay, 2016, April 22). Mr. Bukay compares the West to a battered spouse that is the victim of domestic violence. Instead of seeing the situation clearly like a battered spouse, the West tries to

rationalize Islamic violence against the West through examination of the actions the West did to invite the violence. In essence, continually asking the question what has the West done wrong to invite this treatment from Islam. Instead Mr. Bukay argues that the West should view Islam as a culturally diﬀerent threat based upon a political religion. Mr. Bukay’s presentation was supported with evidence taken directly from Islamic scripture which states: “the Qur’ān reiterates the commandment that it is forbidden to associate other gods with Allah, and Islam should be adhered to as the only legitimate religion on earth.

Jeﬀery Fishel is a combat leader that was wounded in action and retired from the military after 27 years and currently is still a Department of Defense employee. His academic credentials include a Master of Science in Security Management from Bellevue University and a Bachelor of Science from Excelsior College. He is a current student in the Bellevue University International Security and Intelligence Studies Program.

JEffERY fISHEL

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

It is followed by the swear-belief that Muhammad is his messenger” (Bukay, 2016, April 22). Contrary to the Western view, some critics feel Russia has chosen to view Islam as a political religion/security threat in an intensified way so as to oﬀ-set domestic flaws. Russia under Vladimir Putin has eﬀectively maneuvered to utilize Islam as a political religion in order to retain power against potential oppositional forces within the home scene. The following explains this criticizing mentality.

RUSSIA UNDER VLADIMIR PUTIN HAS EffECTIVELY MANEUVERED TO UTILIzE ISLAM AS A POLITICAL RELIGION IN ORDER TO RETAIN POwER AGAINST POTENTIAL OPPOSITIONAL fORCES wITHIN THE HOME SCENE

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

The main critique goes thusly: Putin, faced with a failing economy, weakened military, and internal security issues, has managed to redirect attention for Russia’s troubles. Putin executed this plan of redirection through influence in the transnational weapons market throughout the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East. Putin has solidified his power at home by embarking on a war with Islamic extremism. Putin has financed his ambitions in the war with Islamic extremists through selling military hardware, assisting nations that are in pursuit of nuclear ambitions, and making alliances with Iran and Syria. Putin masked his actions by using the Russian security issues posed by Islamic extremists.

Putin has been on a clear mission to regain new world legitimacy both at home and abroad while combating the threat to Russia’s security posed by Islam. Putin, in maintaining his power base at home, understands he needs to “blame either unpopular minorities within the country or foreign governments for all Russia’s problems. The politics of hatred has a long and, electorally speaking, pretty successful pedigree” (Collier, 2009, September 30). Putin understands that action must be taken to keep power and inaction can lead to destruction of the state. One key to execute this plan is to influence the transnational weapons market to ease economic pressure at home while ensuring Russia’s stability by fighting Islam. As part of Putin’s plan to curb the threat from Islamic extremists, Russia opened Kant Air Base in Kyrgyzstan in October 2003. This base provided Russia a forward operating base to enforce interests and a security zone in Central Asia. As detailed: Security remains the first driver shaping Russia’s involvement in Central Asia. The challenges are multiple, as any [destabilization] in the weakest (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan), or the most unpredictable (Uzbekistan), of the countries could have immediate repercussions in Russia.

This could include an Islamist infiltration; an increase in the inflow of drugs reaching the Russian population, which is already widely targeted by drug traﬃckers; a loss of control over the export networks of hydrocarbons, uranium mines, strategic sites in the military industrial complex and electrical power stations; a drop in trade… (Peyrouse, Boonstra, and Laruelle, 2012, May, p. 8) Putin’s actions in Kyrgyzstan fit into his plan to blame unpopular Islamic extremist movements to justify military expansion to protect transnational trade routes while ensuring security at home. For Putin the “Russian-Central Asian multilateral framework, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), makes provisions for the sale of military materiel to

member countries at Russian domestic market prices, and has revived cooperation between the Russian and Central Asian military-industrial complexes” (Peyrouse, Boonstra, and Laruelle, 2012, May, p. 8). In addition to security agreements to quell any potential extremist threats and to support the transnational arms trade; Putin is willing to become involved in questionable military alliances in the Middle East under the guise of fighting Islamic extremists. Iran gives Putin a unique religious partner in the Caucasus and gateway to influence Middle East policy and weapons markets. Under Putin’s direction, Russia has assisted Iran’s nuclear ambitions through technology coupled with military hardware and advisors.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

CONTRARY TO THE wESTERN VIEw AS A VICTIM wITH ISLAM, RUSSIA HAS CHOSEN TO VIEw ISLAM AS A POLITICAL RELIGION/SECURITY THREAT THAT CAN bE MANIPULATED fOR POwER INTERESTS

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

The relationship with Iran is even more dangerous to the international community when in “late July [2015] Quds Force command Major General Qasem Soleimani flew to Moscow aboard a commercial Iranian airliner for a weekend visit filled with meetings mixed with R&R—in clear violation of a U.N.-imposed travel ban” (Weiss, 2015, September 1). Shortly after the meeting Putin expanded Russia’s relationship with Iran to direct military action in Syria. Putin has used Russian animosity to Islamic extremism, which is quite intense at home, to justify military adventurism. Putin really entered Syria to reassert itself to the top of the world stage and protect his transnational weapons markets.

Russia under Vladimir Putin has eﬀectively maneuvered to utilize the threat from Islam as tool to protect transnational weapons markets and to retain power, ostensibly intensifying domestic society’s innate fear of the ‘other’ in order to push certain power angles important to the Presidential administration. While some of this criticism is purposely given to hyperbole, to exacerbate tense relations between Russia and the West (this criticism is born and fostered from within anti-Russian Western think tanks), the atrocities and transgressions that occurred on both sides of the Chechen conflicts make Russian animus to radical Islam very real and well-founded.

This examination of a very strident criticism of Russian foreign policy intended to expand upon Mr. Bukay’s theory to demonstrate that Islam is a political religion based on a warrior cult from the seventh century. Contrary to the Western view as a victim with Islam, Russia has chosen to view Islam as a political religion/security threat that can be manipulated for power interests.

While Russia is not blameless or pure when it comes to its initiatives toward the Islamic world, it is not possible to argue that Western approaches have been vastly superior. At the very least, Putin’s honesty in staking a brazen position against Islam as a political force and radicalist movement is refreshingly fascinating for analysts around the world.

Russia and Israel improving relations

Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international aďŹ&#x20AC;airs and economics at the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York.

GIANCARLO ELIA VALORI

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

uring the meeting held on June 7, 2016, the Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu decided to start military cooperation between the two countries. It is a historic decision which breaks the traditional link existing between the Israeli and the US Forces. A change of strategic perspective by both countries, which significantly modifies the old, traditional postures inherited from the Cold War.

The meeting held on June 7 was also attended by the Head of the military intelligence services, General Hertzi Halevi, and the Head of the Mossad, Yossi Cohen. Moreover, next summer joint Russian-Israeli naval and air operations will take place, with Russian aircraft and ships coming from the Syrian bases. An economic and energy factor must also be considered: the Russian companies can participate in the development and exploitation of the Israeli Tamar and Leviathan fields.

It marks the end of the Russian univocal support to the Arab countries, inherited from the XX CPSU Congress of 1956, to strengthen the "national middle classes" of the Islamic world. It also marks the end of the unique relationship between Israel and the United States, designed to oppose the USSR allies in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, there is also a strategic factor to be considered: the Russian presence will prevent the fields and pipelines from becoming the target of attacks by Iran, the Hezbollah and Syria.

On the one hand, the relationship with the United States strengthened Israel at technological level but, on the other hand, it forced it into a strategic horizon typical of a small regional power, which is currently no longer reasonable.

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Obviously the naval and air cooperation is such as to protect both Israel and Russia from an inadvertent mix of military intelligence. At operational level, the mechanism for exchanging information between Russia and Israel during the aerial warfare in Syria will be further strengthened and expanded. The strategic links at naval level will be established at a later stage.

RUSSIA IS A "TRADITIONAL" GREAT NAVAL POwER, wHILE ISRAEL HAS A NAVY CHARACTERIzED bY LIGHT AND fAST RESPONSE VESSELS. AN IDEAL MIx.

Russia is a "traditional" great naval power, while Israel has a Navy characterized by light and fast response vessels. An ideal mix. Currently President Putin's primary interest is to strengthen the ties between Israel and Turkey while, for Prime Minister Netanhyahu, Russia could be an optimal power brokers to negotiate and finally achieve stable and lasting peace between the Jewish State and the Palestinian universe. Furthermore, Russia did not lift a finger when the Israeli air force attacked the convoys which went to supply the Shiite militias in the Syrian war. Hence an alliance between Israel, Greece and Cyprus - also at geoeconomic and energy level - can be foreshadowed, which could change much in the EU financial and political scenario.

A European Union which, due to ignorance and foolishness, finds itself faced with an economic and geopolitical system in the SouthEast it cannot control.

internal market closure and the EU net loss are worth 11 billion euro approximately, which could reach 55 billion euro if sanctions continued.

If the European Union still maintains the sanctions against Russia, the strategically smart countries (indeed very rare now) will try to replace the old and naĂŻve European Union, as Israel is currently doing. The sanctions against Moscow are supposed to end on July 31, 2016, but the economic damage to European countries has been dramatic.

Here is the strategic equation we were looking for: the European economy, which is already under crisis, becomes a useful test for a particularly strict US version of TTIP; Russia suďŹ&#x20AC;ers a technological retreat in machine tools and in oil drilling machinery and equipment; the United States can start again the old game of the Cold War along the new borders between Europe and the Russian Federation.

Russia is the third largest market for the European Union in terms of exports, while the trade balance between the EU and Russia has fallen from 326 to 285 billion euro. Furthermore, harsh countermeasures have been taken by Russia: the extension of the

It is a naive and shrewd geopolitical project at the same time. However, what does Italy or France get in starting a confrontation in Ukraine?

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

From time immemorial it is mostly a Russian or russified country and, for Russia, it is the strategic guarantee of the regular crossing of its pipelines from the Caucasus to the Mediterranean. Finally it is a point for projecting the Russian interests between the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea which, for Russia, cannot certainly be left to a generic "international force." It is also worth recalling that on January 1, 2016 Ukraine signed the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the European Union.

A CHANGE Of STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE bY bOTH COUNTRIES, wHICH SIGNIfICANTLY MODIfIES THE OLD, TRADITIONAL POSTURES INHERITED fROM THE COLD wAR

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

According to the latest data available, the trade between Ukraine and the European Union is equal to 20.4 billion euro. Hence, once again, this reveals the underlying strategic equation: Ukraine becomes a "replacement market" in lieu of the Russian Federation. Moreover, currently China uses this channel to European markets very well. Hence we have another piece of Ukraine's current geopolitical equation: if Russia takes no action, it will become the large hub between Central Asia and the European Union, thus bypassing Russia and making it marginal in world trade. It was the great dream of Jeﬀrey Sachs from the World Bank, who had been called upon to solve the post-Soviet economic disaster. But is it a realistic project? We think it is not and, indeed, we believe that Israel has been right in "replacing",

at least initially, the US Forces’ support with the Russian military support. The United Sates are disengaging from the Middle East. Israel knows this all too well and is taking appropriate measures in this respect. Nevertheless, apart from the TTIP issue, the United States are also retreating from Europe. Moreover, as far as we know, the TTIP issue reminds of the old Year of Europe, devised by Henry Kissinger in 1973. The underling idea was that the United States opened part of their markets to European products, but paid them with commercial paper to be discounted. On the other hand, the Brexit issue is looming large. If, as the latest polls suggest, the Leave option is successful, the whole EU geopolitical structure will change.We have already long elaborated on the Brexit impact, but there is a strategic factor to consider: if Britain leaves the EU, its ties with the United States will inevitably strengthen, and if Great Britain walks out of the European Union, before renegotiating the commercial treaties, it will be in a position to operate with aggressive policies on the markets. Finally, if Great Britain leaves the European Union, we will have a much more markedly German-led European Union. In short, any solution must be carefully considered – for the time being nothing is certain.

newsstand.moderndiplomacy.eu

NEWSSTAND never miss an issue

Multiple Choice: The SCO Finds Its Way

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Anonymous is currently a graduate student in International Security and Intelligence Studies at Bellevue University and works within the US governmental system. The opinions expressed are strictly personal and do not reflect a formal endorsement of or by the United States’ government and/or Intelligence Community.

ANONYMOUS

he Shanghai Cooperation Organization has intensified its focus on regional economic initiatives like the China-led Silk Road Economic Belt and the Russia-lead Eurasian Economic Union. At the Ufa summit in Russia, the member states adopted the SCO Development Strategy, which included bolstering finance, investment, and trade cooperation as a priority in the next ten years. While Russia remains sensitive to China’s expanding influence into the former Soviet satellite states, the Central Asian member states are in need of infrastructure and energy investment and have been receptive to Beijing’s proposal to focus on economic cooperation through proposals such as launching a development fund and a free-trade zone. Russia is acutely aware that it cannot and will not try to compete with China’s growing global economic influence, even if it is pushing into Russia’s traditional sphere of

influence in Central Asia. Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan have proposed expanding the energy cooperation among members, establishing a unified energy market for oil and gas exports. While some experts say the organization has emerged as an anti-U.S. bulwark in Central Asia, others believe frictions among its members eﬀectively preclude a strong and unified SCO. This may be true, specifically as India and Pakistan, long-time rivals, join the membership roster, because the SCO adopts decision made by consensus and all member states must uphold the core principle of non-aggression and non-interference in internal affairs. Crosston points out that a penchant for China and Russia pursuing micro-agendas is also likely to undermine group cohesion and sow mistrust. However, a recent study conducted on the SCO’s voting record has shown that the foreign policy of the SCO is mixed.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

On one hand, the overall member and observer states have been increasingly voting in similar ways across all voting forums since 1992, when the post-Soviet member states were all admitted to the United Nations. As the voting patterns become increasingly similar, the risk for an individual state of committing itself to closer cooperation is reduced; it is simply less likely to find itself in a vulnerable outlier position or be forced to compromise on important policy preferences.

THE CONTINUED RISE Of CHINA AND RESULTING DILEMMA IN RELATIONS bETwEEN RUSSIA, CHINA, AND THE CENTRAL ASIAN STATES wITHIN THE SCO COULD CAUSE REGIONAL SCHISMS

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Hansen points out that continued convergence in this way suggests, all things being equal, that the SCO will find it still easier to widen and deepen its foreign policy cooperation and even to allow observer states to join the group as full members. On the other hand, the slowing down of the process of convergence indicates that the member and observer states have reached a line that a least some of them will be reluctant to cross. This includes a mixed pool of core preferences on human rights, nuclear development, or weapons technology. This will likely continue to evolve and possibly become contentious with the addition of Pakistan and India, whose membership seems to have been driven by China’s fear of a new wave of terrorist attacks by Uighur separatists or ISIL fighters in Zinjiang or elsewhere in China .

Russia remains a leading outlier: the growing influence of China may cause Russian policy makers to hesitate before committing to a closer cooperation or to future SCO enlargement, as what is good for China is not necessarily good for Russia. Through the SCO, China has largely benefited from oﬀering the Central Asian states an alternative to Russia. As Grieger points out, China has significantly expanded its trade with, and investment in, the Central states. It has established a diplomatic and strategic foothold in the region, which allows it to gradually dilute Western influence. It has been able to pursue resource security interests but has been cautious not to enter into energy or mining competition with Russia. In energy matters, Chinese and Russian interests are often complementary as Russia relies on oil exports and China’s economy greatly depends on external energy sources. China and Russia will continue to be skeptical bedfellows in the coming years despite opportunities. While their interests may overlap economically and in the security of their overlapping regions, neither is known for being particularly trustworthy of each other. This hurdle will be hard to overcome. China will continue to need trade agreements with the United States.

This could leave Russia as the odd man out with increasing Western sanctions. China’s alliance with Russia could prove contentious for Western investment, so Russia will need to play well with China in a true partnership over the next decade or else it will risk being squeezed out of any global power economically. The continued rise of China and resulting dilemma in relations between Russia, China, and the Central Asian states within the SCO could cause regional schisms. China’s economic rise could threaten to move Russia out of the seat of power while sanctions are increasingly piled on. China’s influence in areas like Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and

others continues to grow through investments and industry. If SCO membership becomes weighted in China’s favor through this increasing influence, Russia could find themselves out in the cold and their agendas out of favor in the SCO. What about the rest of the membership of the SCO? According to Beaten Eschment, an analyst at the Research Center of East European Studies at the University of Bremen, there is no unified Central Asian perspective. The countries’ interests are all pointedly diﬀerent: Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are economically and militarily dependent on Russia; Turkmenistan, while not a member of the SCO, is trying to stay as neutral as possible like Mongolia.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

UNLIkE THE UNITED NATIONS OR NATO, THE MEMbERS Of THE SCO HAVE CHOSEN TO STAY OUT Of VIOLENT CONfLICTS wITHIN ITS MEMbER STATES, SUCH AS wHEN VIOLENT CONfLICT bETwEEN ETHNIC kYRGYz AND UzbEkS IN kYRGYzSTAN bROkE OUT IN 2010

Uzbekistan is pursuing its own policy that bounces between Russia and China at the same time, while Kazakhstan, the biggest and militarily and economically strongest country in Central Asia is a complete Russophile, but is afraid that Russia will try to annex their northern territories after the situation with Crimea in Ukraine. These small concerns may give China the advantage in setting the SCO’s priorities so that the smaller members seek to limit Russia’s influence on their borders. What links all of the SCO members is the rejection of Westerndominated institutions, whether it is the United States, United Nations, World Bank, NATO or other structures. The SCO see itself as a forum against the US-global order. Its approach tends to be comprehensive and not based only on military power, but also in China’s belief of economic ties and soft power.

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

The SCO’s non-interference principle could establish a new modus operandi for international organizations. Unlike the United Nations or NATO, the members of the SCO have chosen to stay out of violent conflicts within its member states, such as when violent conflict between ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan broke out in 2010. The members of the SCO stayed largely passive despite their ability to pull joint forces together that could intervene. This allows member states to avoid getting pulled into costly wars that could be to the detriment of all member states and to the organization as a whole. While it will likely remain semi-ignored by Western media, the SCO will continue to make great strides in its development and growth. Alignment of Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, and China creates the largest block of antiWestern sentiment in history.

It could provide a counter balance to Western organizations’ influence not only in the Central Asian region but even from the edges of Europe all the way to the Pacific. China views this expansion as absolutely necessary to compete in a global market. If the SCO is to have real weight in the international arena and become a truly prestigious organization that is able to rival NATO, it requires additional members and revenue streams. President Putin suggested that China and Russia should “enhance coordination in international and regional aﬀairs [so as to counter Western influence].”

Prospects are good that Russia and China will continue to prioritize working on large multilateral projects in transportation, energy, innovative research and technology, agriculture, and the peaceful use of outer space. If the SCO can expand its membership and momentum on these priorities, Western organizations may soon find themselves facing an unexpected competitor with the resources and intent to box them out of markets and contain United States influence on the global stage.

THE GREATER CASPIAN PROJECT 25

Suicidal Nuclear Gambit on Caucasus

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Petra Posega is a Security Studies candidate, with a Degree in Political Science. She prolifically writes for platforms and magazines on four continents (including the Canadian (Geopolitics of Energy, the US Addleton, and Far-Eastern Journal of Asia- Europe Relation).

PEtRA POsEGA

uclear security is seemingly in the vanguard of global attention, but the large framework of international provisions is increasingly perceived as a toothless tiger. In the contemporary age where asymmetric threats to security are one of the most dangerous ones, the time is high to mitigate the risk of rouge actors having potential access to materials, necessary to develop nuclear weapons. Nowhere is this urgency more pivotal than in already turbulent areas, such as the South Caucasus. With many turmoil instabilities, lasting for decades with no completely bulletproof conflict resolution process installed, adding a threat of nuclear weapons potential means creating a house of cards that can cause complete collapse of regional peace and stability.

That is precisely why recently uncovered and reoccurring actions of Armenia towards the goal of building its own nuclear capacity must be addressed more seriously. They should also attract bolder response to ensure safety of the region is sustained. According to the report by Vienna-based nuclear watch-dog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Armenia has established quite a record of illegal traﬃcking of nuclear and other radioactive materials. There have been a couple of serious incidents spanning from 1999 onward. A large number of reported incidents has occurred on the country`s border with Georgia, tempting the IAEA to conclude there is high probability that the so called Armenian route does in fact exist.

There is a further evidence to support this assertion. There were an unusually high number of Armenians caught in nuclear trafficking activities. Additionally, some of the reported incidents that made their way to the oﬃcial reports suggested that the main focus of trafficking activities is in fact smuggling of nuclear material that could be used for nuclear weapons capabilities. There were also reports suggesting the traﬃcking of other radioactive material that could be utilized for alternate purposes, such as the building of a so called dirty bomb. Since the stakes with nuclear weaponry are always high to the extreme, the recognition of this threat must not be underrated and dismissed easily.

tHE GREAtER CAsPIAN PROJECt 25

Only days henceforth the latest illegal activities have been uncovered by border control in April, 2016, former Armenian Prime Minister Bagratyan shocked the international public with the claim that Armenia indeed has nuclear capabilities and the ability to further develop them. The main reason for the possession is to deter neighbors such as Turkey and Azerbaijan.

tHE MAIN REAsON fOR tHE POssEssION Is tO DEtER NEIGHbORs sUCH As tURkEY AND AzERbAIJAN

More specifically, to discourage them from resorting to aggressive foreign policy measures and mitigate potential threats to Armenian territorial integrity, especially in the disputed regions. Even though Turkey and its intelligence network was quick to dismiss these claims and labeled them as a failed attempt to increase the geopolitical importance of Armenia, as well as to deter its much more militarily capable neighboring countries, such claims should not be taken lightly, either. Thus, there is no cause for alarm yet. However, there should be increased interest of the international community to investigate these serious claims. If documented, they would pose a grave desta-bilization factor for the already turbulent region. They would also trigger deepening of hostilities and mistrust in extremely delicate regional framework of peace.

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

The prospects and dangers of potential acquisition of a dirty bomb by rouge actors are rising on the international agenda. The recently detected activities in South Caucasus showed that there were substantial efforts made in order to smuggle and illegally sell Uranium 238, which is highly radioactive. At the beginning of 2016, a different group was trying to smuggle a highly radioactive Cesium isotope that usually forms as a waste product in nuclear reactors. What is also worrying is that the majority of the activities are occurring in highly instable and unmonitored territories of Azerbaijan and Georgia that are under the control of separatists, such as Nagorno- Karabakh and South Ossetia. The mere organization of the Armenian route proves to show that illegal activities can flourish in the security blind spots of the region. There is also the Iranian connection. Armenia borders this Middle Eastern country that found itself in the centre of global attention until the ratification of The Joint Comprehensive plan of Action in 2015. The international agreement supposedly effectively mitigated the risk of Teheran developing its own nuclear capabilities and established a proper international regime to monitor compliance to the installed provisions.

However, fears remain over future developments of this issue. The unusually high number of truck traďŹ&#x192;c between Armenia and Iran further fuels suspicion on what exactly goes down under the cloak of darkness. Iran is not the only powerful ally of Armenia that holds knowledge on all things nuclear. Yerevan is extremely close with Russia ever since the breakup of the former Soviet Union, and fully relies on Moscow when it comes to upholding its security, territorial integrity and political autonomy. Russia is of course a member of the elite nuclear club, and besides the US holds one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear capabilities in the world.

This is of course a leftover of the Cold war era and fears of the Eastern or the Western devil, depends on which side of the wall the threat was being perceived. It is worrying to note that some of the nuclear material that was trying to find its way into Armenia through South Ossetia has been, at least according to some reports, traced back to Russian nuclear facilities. This is of course of small wonder, since Russia is an oďŹ&#x192;cial supplier of nuclear fuel for the only nuclear power plant in Armenia, the Metsamor nuclear plant that supplies roughly 40 % of electricity to the country`s population.

tHE GREAtER CAsPIAN PROJECt 25

But the reactor itself falls into another aspect of nuclear threats posed by Armenia, specifically nuclear safety threats. The reactor is extremely outdated, and there are no proper safeguard and safety mechanism installed that would ensure adequate monitoring of its operations and recognition of potential faults in the system. The world just marked the thirtieth anniversary of the devastating Chernobyl accident, and it is unsettling to know there is high risk of a similar disaster in the adjacent area. Nuclear safety, like nuclear security, should be taken extremely seriously.

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Any outdated systems, like the one at the Metsamor nuclear plant, should be either closed down until repaired and adjusted to proper security standards, or shut down completely if the plant is unable to follow necessary legal provisions. To make the future prospects even grimmer, the area where the Metsamor plant is located is being said to have very vibrant seismic activities. Thus, not only is the plant dangerous due to outdated security systems and technology, but also due to naturally occurring phenomenon that is highly likely to cause significant damage on the plant itself.

Armenian oďŹ&#x192;cials should protect their own population and not risk a nuclear holocaust. Instead, they continue to stubbornly extend their self-entrapment grand ambitions. Reviewing the manifold danger that Armenia represent in nuclear terms, there are no simple answers, although there are a few clear conclusions. The Metsamor power plant should be considered as an imminent and serious threat to millions of people in Asia, Middle East and Europe, and shut down. Additionally, this issue should not be shielded anymore for the sake of pure Macht politik.

Macht prefers secrecy and coercion and we already well know how it always ends up. After Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima disaster, the last thing the world needs is another nuclear catastrophe. Additionally, there are clear ambitions present in the country to develop and acquire nuclear capabilities. For more than one reason that is an extremely dangerous endeavor to pursue. Not just for the region itself and adjacent countries but also for the world which should be evolving towards the future nuclear free world instead.

Consequently, we have to do all we can to prevent yet another blow to an already shaking NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty). Conclusively, Caucasus is full of frozen yet unsolved, highly polarizing, toxic and potentially inflammable conflicts. We also have to be aware that the raging flames of instability from Syria and Iraq are not far away. We do not need another nuclear meltdown inferno. It is high time to localize the overheated blaze of Middle East. It would be a good start by stabilizing Caucasus in a just, fair and sustainable way.

tHE GREAtER CAsPIAN PROJECt 25

The connection between TAPI-CPEC and Afghanistan

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Nasurullah Brohi works as a Senior Research Associate at the Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad and can be reached at nasurullahsvi(at)outlook.com

NAsURULLAH bROHI

fter the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of the Central Asia Republics (CARs), the countries with their huge economic potential have been less explored foreign policy options of Pakistan. Despite the fact that being located in the same region and exceptionally sharing common characteristics, the geo-political and geo-economic importance of Pakistan and CARs could naturally stimulate the two sides to reach out to each though. Pakistan has always sustained a hope to become a gateway to the Central Asia but the occasional efforts, the two sides have not been so successful to forge closer political and economic relations and even after a period of three decades, Pakistan is yet to make any breakthrough into the Central Asian region.

Even though their immense richness in term of energy and other natural resources, Pakistan could not benefit at the required levels at least to address its energy issues through the bilateral relations with these countries. The gas fields of the Uzbekistan are also overlooked whereas if the Turk menistan-AfghanistanPakistan-India (TAPI) connected with the CPEC, the region can linkup the natural gas resources of Uzbekistan that could easily overcome the Pakistanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy crisis and would help boosting the ties of the country with all the states in Central Asian region. The Central Asian region vastly rich in untapped natural resources and being landlocked-having no sailing route and sea connection with the rest of the world is actually one of the foremost drawbacks that also decrease the chances of the trade and exports the resources from this region.

tHE GREAtER CAsPIAN PROJECt 25

tHE CHAOtIC sECURItY sItUAtION IN AfGHANIstAN Is PURELY A fACtOR tHAt COULD sERIOUsLY UNDERMINE AND HINGE tHE LINkAGE bEtwEEN PAkIstAN AND tHE CENtRAL AsIAN stAtEs

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

Even located at the immediate neighborhood, the South Asian region is colossally energystarved. However, together with the Gwadar Port of Pakistan and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project there is incomparable potential to spectacularly make over the regional dynamics in terms of trade and investment and the development. It would be without any exaggeration to actually call it a game changer that would of course uplift the lives of about 3 billion people across China, Central Asia, South Asia and the Middle East. The Gwadar and the CPEC have outstandingly brought the strategic and economic moments in favor of Pakistan and has twisted a wide range of opportunities for the country where it has assumed the position of economic pivot for the whole region.

Notably, during the recent visit of Turkmenistan’s President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov in March 2016, the two sides keenly agreed to overcome their detachment and explore the options on enhancing trade, economic relations, energy sharing, peopleto-people contacts and the tourism.

The Central Asian States also utter enthusiasm of a regional linkage and eagerly are desirous to benefit from the projects that will remarkably assist in connecting the Central Asian countries for trading and exporting their energy resources to the European markets. Moreover, with the advent of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the regional geopolitics has also assumed new characteristics where the region and their people are going to be better connected than ever before.

The greater interests of the two sides link with the TAPI and the CPEC that would further move forward to improve the regional connectivity and serve the economic activity.

The particular focus also remained on the timely completion of the projects of extraordinary importance ranging from the Turk menistan-AfghanistanPakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline to Dushanbe’s potential linkup with the CPEC. Moreover, the unique geo-economic and geo-political significance of both sides, Pakistan and Turkmenistan decided to pay special attention to establishing air, road and rail links on a priority basis.

The emergence of the CPEC is unusually an incomparable trade route to discover the potential or the region besides; Pakistan’s accession to the TIR (international road transport) convention is another surplus opportunity whereas; the TAPI could provide crucial linkage to CPEC.

Finally, to make the long cherished dreams resounding success, the reality lies with the facts of regional peace and stability. Nevertheless, the chaotic security situation in Afghanistan is purely a factor that could seriously undermine and hinge the linkage between Pakistan and the Central Asian States. The instable political and security situation in Afghanistan has gloomy repercussions for the rest of the region and the main reason for the delay in timely execution TAPI project conceived since 1990s.

Aware of its importance Pakistan considers the TAPI project a ‘trailblazing project’ that enables the region to become an energy hub and source of diplomatic networking but however, all possible eﬀorts should be made to address the Afghan issue at priority basis. The region’s economic development mainly depends on the fact that TAPI will only work if there is peace and stability in Afghanistan since the pipeline will pass through northeastern part of the Afghanistan.

tHE GREAtER CAsPIAN PROJECt 25

Russia-Africa The Realities And The Truths Kester Kenn Klomegah is an independent researcher and writer on African aďŹ&#x20AC;airs in the EurAsian region and former Soviet republics.

kEstER kENN kLOMEGAH

s already well-known, since Soviet days, Russia has pursued a pragmatic policy aimed at enhancing multidimensional ties with the countries of the continent on the bilateral and multilateral basis. Experts say while building mutually beneficial cooperation remains one of the main priorities of Russia, its economic cooperation with Africa has hit stumbling blocks, for example, trade turnover with the countries of sub-Saharan Africa for the period from January to December 2015 was estimated at US$ 3.3 billion. Ahead of the St. Petersburg international economic forum scheduled from June 16 to 18, policy experts have oďŹ&#x20AC;ered their views

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

on the current Russia-Africa relations in separate interviews. Over the last decade, forum has become a leading international platform for the discussion of the key economic issues facing Russia, emerging markets and the world as a whole. It attracts over 10,000 foreign and Russian participants, including government and business leaders from the emerging economic powers, as well as leading global voices from academia, the media, and civil society. Under the topic "Russia-Africa: Advancing New Frontiers" for this year, the panelists at the business round table will attempt answering the question: How can Russia accelerate its economic ties with the continent and what sectors are likely to be successful first movers?

Here are some views from policy experts: Nataliya Zaiser, who is a Public Policy Advisor at Squire Patton Boggs Moscow office covering Russia, the Eurasian Union and Africa, and also the Head of the Africa Business Initiative under the Institute for African Studies explained in an interview that over the past few years, Russia's efforts have achieved little success because "times have changed significantly, for example, new economic and political environment, new challenges, new competitive conditions, new bases for cooperation." She added that "people are different, minds are different, technologies are different. In all that, you have to find absolutely different approaches to building business relationships and strategy.

What remains the same is a will, a very loyal mutual attitude between Russia and African countries and strong desire to push forward these mutual efforts." She explained further that advancing new frontiers in the relations is a very good sign that first time in the history of the Forum "Africa-Russia" round table is officially included into the main program. This Forum is international that aims at getting together business community, government officials and others to bring on board and discuss the most up-to-date topics, to find solutions within the international community circle. Each country in the world has something to bring on the agenda.

New frontiers here should be read as "new opportunities", "new approaches" and "new perspectives". "To my mind – future in any case stands for international cooperation that should be based on a very strong and transparent legal, economic and social background. On the one hand it will help to join eﬀorts on working with Africa and develop the continent; on another hand it will allow to diversify economic and geopolitical presence on the continent so as to avoid monopolies and possession attempts," Zaiser added. She concluded that "this is a much more beneficial approach for everybody both for African countries as well as for their international partners.

tHE GREAtER CAsPIAN PROJECt 25

Professional sophisticated partnership - is a good phrase which may be used to describe our way." Since March 2016, Zaiser has been the Head of Africa Business Initiative, created with the support of the business as a platform for the humanitarian, economic and legal expertise, aimed at the reconstruction and strengthening of relations between Russia and Africa. The main goal of this organization - to unite the eﬀorts in promoting and supporting the interests of Russian business in the framework of broader international cooperation on the territory of the African continent. The Institute for African Studies (IAS) is one of the founders of the Africa Business Initiative (ABI). It is a direct challenge - to move from declarations (Memorandum of Understanding) to deeds by bringing together government, diplomatic, scientific, economic and financial resources in order to promote Russian business on the continent. Quite recently, Russian authorities have made relentless eﬀorts toward raising Russia's political influence and economic cooperation in some African countries. Thus, discussions at the forthcoming forum will undoubtedly focus on reviewing the past and the present as well as proposing practical ways to facilitate

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

investment activities and that might include promising areas such as infrastructure, energy and many other sectors in Africa. Professor Irina Abramova, newlyappointed Director of the Institute for African Studies under the Russian Academy of Sciences, has acknowledged that "as before, we cannot deny the insuﬃcient knowledge of the Russian business structures specificity of Africa, its requirements, and other parameters. On the other hand, Africans are poorly informed about the possibilities of Russian partnership." On her part, Alexandra Arkhangelskaya, a Senior Researcher at the Institute of African Studies under the Russian Academy of Sciences and a Staﬀ Lecturer at the Moscow High School of Economics said in an interview that Russia and Africa needed each other – "Russia is a vast market not only for African minerals, but for various other goods and products produced by African countries." The signs for Russian-African relations are impressive – declarations of intentions have been made, important bilateral agreements signed – now it remains to be seen how these intentions and agreements will be implemented in practice, she pointed out in the interview.

wHAt REMAINs tHE sAME Is A wILL, A vERY LOYAL MUtUAL AttItUDE bEtwEEN RUssIA AND AfRICAN COUNtRIEs AND stRONG DEsIRE tO PUsH fORwARD tHEsE MUtUAL EffORts

The revival of Russia-Africa relations should be enhanced in all fields. Obstacles to the broadening of Russian-Africa relations should be addressed. These include in particular the lack of knowledge in Russia about the situation in Africa, and vice versa, suggested Arkhangelskaya.

This is primarily due to ignorance of cultural peculiarities of the region, the lack of social responsibility, failure to fulfill contractual obligations. These cases damage the image of Russia and Russian companies with further entering the African market."

Russia and Africa are gearing up eďŹ&#x20AC;orts in raising the level of trade and business, Andrey Efimenko, an Expert at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) said in an exclusive interview with me, emphasizing unreservedly the importance of increasing business and economic cooperation with the African countries. "Unfortunately," Efimenko regrettably pointed out, "some large Russian companies operating on the African market, has managed to establish itself negatively in a number of countries.

In conditions of high competition on the African market from China, European Union and the United States, Efimenko suggested that forming public-private partnership with the coordinating and steering role of the state is at this stage the key to success and the best form of development of cooperation of Russia with African countries. "What seems to irk the Russians, in particular, is that very few initiatives go beyond the symbolism, pomp and circumstance of high level opening moves.

tHE GREAtER CAsPIAN PROJECt 25

It is also still not clear how South Africa sees Russia's willingness (and intention) to step up its role in Africa, especially with China becoming more visible and assertive on the continent," said Professor Gerrit Olivier from the Department of Political Sciences, University of Pretoria in South Africa. Today Russian influence in Africa, despite eﬀorts towards resuscitation, remains marginal. While, given its global status, it ought to be active in Africa as Western Europe, the European Union, America and China are, it is all but absent, playing a negligible role, according to the views of the retired diplomat who served previously as South African Ambassador to the Russian Federation,

MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU

"Russia, of course, is not satisfied with this state of aﬀairs. At present diplomacy dominates its approach: a plethora of agreements are being entered into with South Africa and various other states in Africa, oﬃcial visits from Moscow proliferate apace, but the outcomes remain hardly discernible. Be that as it may, the Kremlin has revived its interest in the African continent and it will be realistic to expect that the spade work it is putting in now will at some stage show more tangible results." Professor Olivier wrote from Pretoria. Both Russian and African policy experts, however, suggested that the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs) Russia has signed with many African countries and together with various economic agreements reached by the joint business councils over the past few years provide solid framework for raising vigorously its economic influence as well as strengthening relations to an appreciable levels between Russia and Africa.

newsstand.moderndiplomacy.eu

NEWSSTAND never miss an issue