The core of the global shift in power dynamics, away from the ‘Westphalian’ global order formed after WW2 and the growth of China and Russia as global powers, along with the deterioration of Western modes of governance and authority, has created a new cold war and struggle to establish new rules and norms. Part of this struggle is the usage of hybrid methods of attack by the opponents of the newly emerging multi-polar world order, so that they can undermine the growth of the new powers without any negative PR on the world stage. Central to the development of the power base of the new global superpowers are (1) The Eurasian land mass concept and (2) The use of multinational infrastructure projects such as Belt Road Initiative and the CPEC, as well as the significance of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and development of the BRICS bank as part of attempts to shift away from the traditional Bretton-Woods system. With CPEC representing a central project of BRI, the key target to topple the structure is Pakistan which plays an increasingly central role among all the countries of significance within this framework. To do this, opponents of the new multi-polar order seem to be relying on Indian intelligence and sabotage operations to foment disinformation as well as terrorist attacks in Pakistan in order to undermine its security profile in context of its significance within the new system. Here, I attempt to map out this image of the strategic context of global geopolitics as seen from the perspective of security, development and intelligence as it concerns Pakistan and the wider Eurasian context.
1: On Eurasia
President Putin must be accredited with putting the Eurasian agenda on the table as a major concern in the 21st century. As per the words of the Chief Editor DJ, ‘Eurasia as one continent needs to be acknowledged’, which would have significant legal and governance implications for that region, and allow it to connect resources and manpower and thus making it a new center of global development. The huge Siberian area has been declared a developmental priority by Russian President Putin. China has contributed to this development through the BRI, which comprises of 6 major routes, 5 land routes, and one sea route which connect the Eurasian land mass and thus facilitate flow of manpower and services across this region. Once the BRI is fully working, it is envisaged that speed of container shipment from a European port to China will be reduced from 45 days down to 16. A shift is taking place here where countries in this region are starting to recognise their capability and want to start taking advantage of their environment to boost level of development. Dividing Europe from Asia was the main method of achieving this division in the past 150 years, and now that our leaders in that region have begun to realise its significance, they have made concrete steps to remove these barriers and act as one single global force for development and inclusive, sustainable growth as a stark parallel to the foreign policy of the ‘military-industrial’ economic powers. This new development along the road to true globalisation has taken place away from the hegemony of the previous owners of global order, and it has been realised that there has never been any physical separation of Europe from Asia, except for ideological and historically enforced concepts of ‘civilisation’. New blocs and alliances are forming in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, western Asia, the Far East and African countries where nations whose allegiance is shunned by the West find prospects working together.
What was previously the Baghdad Pact of 1955-79 has now been reversed, whereas previously Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey were allied with the UK/US against the alleged threat of communism, the leadership of UK/US has been replaced with their adversaries in China/Russia, where there is now an evolving sense of collusion and allegiance for socio economic development forming into the Regional Cooperation for Development agreement. This was founded parallel to CENTO in 1964 and aimed to develop advantages of member states Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. After adding 7 new members, it has evolved into the Economic Cooperation Organisation [ECO], including Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. These countries are all increasing their socio-economic development through joint projects which are mutually beneficial to all parties concerned, and by doing so, are innovating a new paradigm of global development and growth, based on a formula of first opening routes to trade and movement of manpower/resources, followed by economic interconnectedness as represented by initiatives such as the SAARC Payments Initiative, and finally, the personal business relations encouraged through the building of these links.
2: How The West Missed Out and the formation of the Russia-China Strategic Alliance
Through dismissing the capability of the nations belonging to so-called ‘lower economically developed’ or ‘third world’ countries, the West has unknowingly created its own worst nightmare. The realisation of the power of China alone had prompted the Trump administration to enact a ‘trade war’ which had significant impact on the global economy. Once decision makers in Capitol Hill realise the significance of the development taking place in the Eurasian nations, the future may hold even more protectionist and downright hostile commercial tactics to undermine the development of the new multi-polar powers. This was not always the case however. Under the leadership of the much more diplomatically capable President Obama, there were genuine attempts to collaborate and take advantage of the economic developments in China. According to the writings of the Chief Editor, the ‘Eurasian Pivot’ describes how Obama initiated what was referred to as the ‘Asian Pivot’, in order to turn American policy around and partake in the rapid development in Asia, referring to himself as the first ‘Pacific President’. These attempts did not work out as intended, and China favoured another global superpower as its key partner against the US which was Russia. Here, the alliance found a catalyst through perceived Western intrusion into areas considered as part of the Russian ‘sphere of influence’. As a result, the previously unstable Sino-Soviet relations found a way towards reconciliation following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, a ‘constructive partnership, which in 1996 led to the formation of an unprecedented ‘Strategic Partnership’, ending in a treaty of ‘Friendship and Cooperation’ in 2001. This was the long awaited alliance between the only two powers to pose significant opposition to the UK/US based ‘Special Relations’ which was formed after the American War of Independence and persisted through WW2 with collaboration between the SIS and Office of Strategic Services.
3: Central Place of CPEC
As part of the project to recreate the legendary Silk Road, the CPEC project envisions a connection between Kashgar City in Xinjiang Province with the port at Gwadar through a network of highways, railways and pipelines. Within the new developments within the Eurasian region populated by new multi-polar powers, the CPEC project represents the core initiative, which brings significant and unexpected attention to Pakistan on the world stage in a strategic diplomatic capacity. This heightens the risk to Pakistan from its opponents on the global stage, due to the increase of its strategic significance, and of course due to its operational usage as part of the CPEC/BRI, and the economic advantages which it will then be facilitated for China and its partners. The years of playing a sometimes disadvantageous role as a diplomat and go-between for all parties concerned has now been rewarded as Pakistan plays a new role as the central mediator. It transforms, through participation in this project as a central hub for the new paradigm of international trade, and allows integration of economies between Asia, Africa, and Europe. One key issue which arises within this context is the global uproar of mainstream Western media in opposition to the BRI/CPEC projects, who are unashamedly attempting to characterise the project as a Chinese brand of colonialism. The Trump doctrine of ‘puritan-isolationism’ has been echoed in Britain and should be restricted to these two geographies only. Pakistan is not about to profit by thinking in the same way and its development should not be hindered by certain unsavoury elements who are attempting to spread an Indian-borne virus of disinformation to halt the potential for Pakistan’s growth. Through collaboration and greater extension of socio economic ties to these countries, Pakistan will only further secure its longevity and sustainable growth into a significant power in future, and through this growing influence, it can identify new strategic pathways for collaboration between these parties. An investment of an estimated $75 billion, the CPEC will set forward the trajectory of Pakistan’s industrialisation timeline by decades, and stands as a symbol of the strategic partnership between these two countries over the long term. Through looking out for its own security, it would be wise not to be restrictive in its ability to reach out and contribute to developments within the BRI framework, and not to use security as a pretext for narrow minded self preservation which is common among bureaucrats thinking away from the context of international or commercial development.
4- Hybrid Warfare For Non-Military BRI Destabilisation
The core foreign policy strategy being used by America from the time of the Arab Revolt was to use (a) local, uneducated rabble to foment discord and populism, after which there was (b) military intervention and regime change. This definition has been reiterated through the definite studies on hybrid warfare carried out by Andrew Korybko, who is used by many as an authority on the subject for the pro-Eurasian perspective. The Western view on hybrid warfare narrows down the discussion only to usage of multiple attacks by guerilla fighters against the US/Israel throughout their history of offensive activity in the Middle East. Any discussion with US based experts would rarely arrive at an interpretation of hybrid warfare as a British based, imperialist offensive military strategy to subdue and conquer less developed countries through the use of underhand and non-kinetic means. Post-war, the CIA collaborated with local subversives to set up the Muslim Brotherhood as a sleeping populist movement that would use Islamist ideology to rally dissent against the secular Arab leaders.
The core foreign policy was revived and recontinued in 1979 through the Carter administrations’ deployment of the ‘Arc of Crisis’ methodology as espoused by Zbigniew Brezinski, when they used it first and foremost to halt the development of Iran as a power under Shah Reza Pahlavi, rallying Shia Islamist subversive discourse against the Shah and placing Khomeini as leader under a new form of governance that would deliberately set back Iran’s development capability. The Arab Spring saw a uniform deployment of ‘Color Revolution’ and Regime Change across a range of countries such as Tunisia and Egypt. This method of underhand subversion is the core discipline taught to special operations personnel and is the central pillar of military policy as used by the West. The correct understanding of the role of Hybrid Warfare in our geo-strategic context is that we may expect any number of covert strategies deployed at any given time against critical targets within the CPEC/BRI in general, and this has been thoroughly explained in Andrew Korybko’s publication of 2015, ‘Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach to Regime Change’. Here, the author confirms that HW is not only an attack method against Russia but against the Eurasian development project as a whole. The core western policy towards developments in the multi-polar world involves using a distanced, non-combative approach ‘to break the enemy’s resistance without fighting’ in order to throw a spanner in the works for an initiative which was long ago predicted by their geographer by the name of Mackinder to be ‘the pivot of history’.
For the purpose of defence analysts, the area of study should be this book as well as looking at case studies of Western encroachment on Russia’s sphere of influence, which will give an idea of the type of tactics to be expected. In this context, one of the key strands being used over the longest period of time is information warfare. Hostile parties are funding a specifically Indian brand of populist dissent against the state institutions and to reduce trust, using both print and digital media. The usage of disinformation and breeding mistrust and discontent against state institutions has led to civil disruption by religious parties, and once it has infected the minds of the population, can be used again on future occasions.
5: India As The Ultimate Opponent to Pakistan’s Stability and Future Mission
The usage of RAW forms the central tool in this model to initiate strategies to create instability and turbulence in Pakistan, particularly to create an impression of poor security that could reduce the chances of Pakistan’s rise in public image and investability profile. India has historically used Afghanistan as a key partner in promoting instability in Pakistan. India chose to step in when the Northern Alliance government was installed and supported by the US, while military engagement was left to the US, India chose to add its contribution to the Afghan intelligence infrastructure. Under the pretext of supporting state institutions, the Indian RAW took over management of the Afghan KHAD intelligence agency. From this position, it began promoting anti-Pakistan initiatives, such as: (1) fuelling fake intelligence reports against Pakistan, (2) providing shelter to TTP members, and (3) when Pakistan started a clean sweep against TTP, they provided arms, ammo and money to the TTP. Actively, they collaborated with the TTP in organising terrorist attacks in Karachi and Peshawar, which was a direct continuation of bomb attacks, particularly in Karachi, carried out by RAW/ KHAD jointly. The Indian narrative on the global stage was to promote the labelling of Pakistan as a terrorist-supporting nation, whilst all this time India was fuelling and manipulating the activities of Afghan Taliban on both its own soil and in Pakistan. Legal measures need to be sought by key authorities to prevent Indian subversion and promotion of terror, as well as to permanently crippling the hand of India against Kashmir in what has become the biggest humanitarian crisis of this century. Through the growing opportunities via the Eurasian project, Pakistan must attempt a diplomacy project taking advantage of its growing importance, in order to leverage joint operations to both a) prevent the spread of externally fuelled terrorism and b) put a stop to the ability of India to foment discord and outbreak of nuclear war in the South Asia region.
Conclusion If in the event such a scenario was to occur it would cause an immediate rallying of sides between the new blocs formed since the initiation of CPEC and the initiation of Trump-era protectionism, and in the full scale war that would ensue, all debts would be paid in full. An easy solution to this is for a) cutting off the hand of India to prevent it from stimulating hostility and b) for the Western nations post-Trump and Brexit to seek intelligent means of collaborating and contributing to the new wave of globalisation led by China, which would allow for a profitable and humane decade of mutually beneficial progress for all parties concerned. This would put an end to the problems of hybrid warfare, and equally, prevent the recurrence of another century of neo-colonialism provoked by bitter Western jerk-reaction to the end of the uni-polar, US centric global order and the rise of the Indo-Pacific Century.
