From Bishkek to Baghdad, the Caliphate's time has come

Friday, July 22, 2005

By Simon Jones

Uzbekistan's unending tragedy - 15 years of unremitting repression of its Muslims (OK, make that a century) - has reached a critical impasse. With the massacre of up to a 1000 innocents in Andijan, the mood in the country is set against Karimov: there is no graceful exit for this once wily balancer of clan greed, untempered by any basis in Islamic principles of social justice and public service.

But K and Uz are not alone. A recent analysis of Tunisia (Le Monde 6/5) describes the poverty and anomy of life under its repressive, secular, pro-US dictator Ben Ali, with his playtime democracy, prohibition of all Islamic parties and general discouragement of Islam, and above all the fear to make even the mildest public criticisms. We can say “Ditto” more or less for Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia... Then there are such embarrassments as Dubai, which is building a high tech Disney-style archipelago replica of the world for the super-rich, or the Emirates, which imports Russian and Uzbek women as sex slaves. It is very hard to find a Muslim country which reflects the austere social justice of the Koran. But then it is hard to find a Muslim country which is not a US-client state. Malaysia and Iran come to mind, and in their own very different ways, they offer some hope.

In his July 4th speech this year, Bush hailed the new era of democracy, the result of US battles “from Bunker Hill to Baghdad”. Leaving aside Bunker Hill and what's left of the American Revolution, we can already see the democracy that the US is bringing to Baghdad and Kabul - the kind where the living envy the dead, of which there are hundreds more with each passing day. No. The call should be: 'From Bishkek to Baghdad, the Caliphate's time has come.' And ironically, though Karimov loudly proclaims himself its greatest enemy, he is unwittingly one of its greatest assets, constantly raising its specter in justification of his persecution of Uzbek Muslims. Irony: never has the Muslim world been so enslaved to kufr (anti-Islamic) countries and leaders, and yet never has it been so demonized and despised by them. While western media construct fantasies to the contrary, this is the sad, tragic reality.


K's contribution to the Caliphate

K's relationship with Islam is complex. In 1990, when he was campaigning for president in Uzbekistan's only relatively free election, he addressed an Islamic meeting of 40,000 in Namangan organized by the religious movement Adolat (Justice), even praying on stage, to the delight of the demonstrators, and promised its charismatic leader Tahir Yuldashev, the future founder of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, that he would build lots of mosques and let Islam flower, that "the road should be opened to become friends with and get help from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey, so that we can become a united Muslim state."*

Coincidentally, after securing his election, he also promised his secular nationalist rival Mahammad Salih of Erk, who had come a respectable 2nd, that he would be a strong nationalist leader and allow the flowering of secular democracy. Apparently he was convincing, as both leaders were taken in and initially supported him. Of course, he reneged on both these incompatible promises and proceeded to issue death sentences on both his nemeses. (The heroic Yuldashev died fighting to overthrow K; the wily Salih lives comfortably in Norway and recently met with Secretary of State Rice.)


US choices

Now that the US willingly or unwillingly has chosen to bring on another of its CIS velvet revolutions, what are its alternatives? It looks like the pressure is on to allow the legal operation of only pro-US, pro-market nationalist parties Birlik, headed by Pulatov (living in exile in US), and Erk, headed by Salih (living in exile in Norway), plus Hidoyatova’s Free Peasants party and Umarov’s Party of Agrarians and Entrepreneurs. [Update: the business leaders associated with the unofficial opposition 'Sunshine Coalition' are now being persecuted and some are fleeing the country. One of Umarov's sons Guliambek was poisoned but survived and the other Sardorbek fled the country.] Recently a Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan was set up in the US by these and other US-sponsored Uzbek dissidents, bringing its favorite sons together in one happy, politically correct opposition force much like Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

In short, a mirror image of the phony independent parties set up by K to give a semblance of democracy (National Democratic, Patriots, etc). Not a word about religious parties or greater freedom for Muslims to organize, and certainly no intention of promoting Muslim unity.

Stalin without socialism

By obsessively condemning the idea of Islam as the formative principle of Uzbek society, K takes his direction from an earlier dictator who ruled over Uzbekistan. And I don’t mean Amir Temur. His style and methods are chillingly like those of Stalin in everything except Stalin's concern for basic economic standards for the masses. There is no social security net anymore, and Stalin (oops, K) can't seem to understand that his self-exaltation and cold-blooded disdain for his people is his nemesis, that violence will now increase until a full-blown crisis, including international isolation and possibly intervention, is reached.

Because Stalin could point to the solid socialist achievements of his ruthless reign ('Islam without Allah'), and because he had control over a huge territory, his rule was safe as long as his terror apparatus was in tact. Thus, the 1920-30s movement for a united Turkestan was easily repressed and indeed forgotten as the SU consolidated itself as a political system without meaningful internal borders, and ancient Turkestan was carved up into competing, dysfunctional Central Asian 'republics'. Furthermore, the pressure for a modern-day caliphate was not so great where all Muslims could interact in work and culture, and where basic social needs were met.

Logic of the Caliphate

But 'caliphate'? Yes! By first promising the idea, and then ruthlessly suppressing even the normal practice of Islam, let alone any mention of some hare-brained caliphate, Mr K has made himself captive to it, and like Lady Macbeth, must wash and wash and wash again the guilt for his political intrigues from his bloodied hands. By continually harping about Hizb ut Tahrir and its program of trying to revive the political unity of Muslims, he merely provides greater legitimacy to the idea. A unique feature of this part of the Muslim world is that it has experienced both socialism and capitalism and knows first hand the weaknesses of both, so the argument in a nutshell, to paraphrase Lenin, would be something like "the 21st c Caliphate = communism + the Koran."

An Islamic explanation would take the following form:
Muslims base their identity first and foremost on Islam, and Islam being a universal religion, they naturally will overcome kufr nationalism and work together to realize the ideal state, based on the Koran's detailed and surprisingly robust program. The very concept of nationalism is a western one and became the predominant political force surprisingly late, only with the triumph of capitalism and the ascendancy of secularism in the 19th c. It reached its most criminal form in Nazi Germany and today in Israel. It must be abandoned in favor of the unity of all Muslims, rejecting the nationalist regimes sponsored by imperialism - first British and now American - to keep Muslims divided.

This politics, once reversed throughout the Muslim world, would of course lead to all Islamic countries working together. Yes, Mr K, that's what the dreaded caliphate is all about. And what's so wrong with it? Why shouldn't Muslim countries throw off their western masters and use their immense clout to fight the real sources of terrorism - USrael and its secular quislings like you?

History of the Caliphate

The Caliphate refers to the first great flowering of Islam and its rapid spread to form a mighty spiritually-based empire with various centers from the 7-14th cc in the Middle East and Central Asia. The Caliph is the leader of the Ummah (community of Islam). The word caliph (khalifa) is Arabic for stewardship of nature and family, a key obligation of all Muslims (vs the Old Testament "dominion over nature"). The Caliphate was unquestionably far more civilized than feudal Europe, despite a near death blow from invasions by the Mongols (who were NOT Muslim) and the Europeans in the 10-12th c.

For a while in the 8th c it even looked like Christianity reconcile with this latest monotheism, but Rome suppressed its revisionists and eventually the disastrous Crusades turned ecumenism back a 1000 years (just as Bush's present Crusade is ensuring that no compromise is possible with the Muslim world). It was only with the rise of capitalism and imperialism that the Ottoman Caliphate was overpowered by a now secular, materialist monolith and destroyed by the ‘winners’ of WWI, the spoils divided among the Judeo-Christian empires of Britain, France and later the US and Israel.

In reality, the present war against Islam began in the late 19th c and has continued ever since. While Jewish and Christian cultures embraced the soulless materialism of capitalism, Islam remained and still remains unwilling to reform itself to suit the needs of Mammon. However, the onslaught by the capitalist powers and the ex-Soviet Union has had its toll on the Muslim world, setting up small malleable states with secular governments now dominated by the US. The aim is to continue to westernize Muslim societies, by seduction or force if necessary, to make them willingly accept US (make that USraeli) imperialism. But the final count is not in.

Present Nadir and rebirth

Islam has shown incredible resilience in the face of this unremitting attack, which has increased exponentially since the collapse of the SU, or rather, because of it and the blow that dealt the left in the West. Since then, it's been full steam ahead for the USraeli imperial project, leaving Muslims (plus Cuba's communists and Venezuela's Bolivarians) as the only significant countervailing force.

"The triumph of Islam will most likely come after severe crisis - social, economic and ecological - leading to the military abandoning the kufr regime [Uzbekistan looks like a case in point] and through a coup d'etat proposing a pro-Islamic system to stabilize the society now bankrupt and suffering economic collapse."*** Think Nasser or Chavez.

There is the distinct possibility that soon the international order will collapse, along with the US $ as world currency, and bank-created fiat money, with or without the 'peak oil' wildcard. So this scenario is not as far-fetched as you might think. Look for more about Iran and Malaysia's gold dinar as the $ continues to sink. Funny how capitalism's physical nemesis - oil - is found predominantly in Muslim countries, along with its spiritual nemesis - the Islamic ban on fiat money and usury and other (wise) restraints on economic activity. Funny how precisely the Muslim world holds all these keys to the world's economic salvation. Perhaps Allah really does exist.

No doubt Marx would chuckle if he were to be told that "Yes, world capitalism is doomed to collapse, but so is socialism, and it is ancient Islam that will survive to rebuild economic relations built on stewardship of nature, social justice, the gold standard and prayer."

Central Asia as a crucial link in the logic

Just as the secular attempts at pan-Arabism by Gaddafi, Nasser and Hussein failed, Kemal Ataturk's earlier flirting with pan-Turkish nationalism in Central Asia collapsed as the Soviets consolidated their grip in the 1920s and replaced Islam as a binding force with socialism. However, with the collapse of the SU, the pressure or desire for such a union of all Muslim Central Asian states is much more compelling, and with the revival of Islam in Turkey, it is in a position to dispense with its wanabe fascination with secular Europe and turn to embrace the Muslim world to the east. The only solution to the 'Kurdish' problem is to base society on its one common denominator: Islam. Already Afghanistan and Iraq, with their US-controlled governments, have formulated constitutions based on Islamic law and Iraq has begun to work closely with Iran. And the only way to hold Iraq together and to end the stand-off in Afghanistan is (excuse the mantra) to appeal to the one common denominator: Islam.

The pseudo-nationalism promoted by Central Asian leaders to secure their power and state theft has meant that they are all pathetic backwaters, unable to create a meaningful common economic space. Borders, visas, customs, etc. are all used to fill corrupt officials’ pockets, hindering any rational economic revival. The blatant maneuverings here of Europe, USrael, China, and Russia, each with its own anti-Muslim, anti-Central Asian agenda, makes it especially urgent that Central Asia unite.

Interestingly, even in the present state of political disarray, both Kyrgyzstan, with its 'tulip revolution' and Uzbekistan with its ruthless pro-US (oops, anti-US) dictator, are trying to close their US bases, suggesting there's a compelling logic to resist US hegemony, even without that unity. Ironically, the very suppression now of Islam throughout the region only adds fuel to the desire to rebuild society without Big Brothers imposing their secular fantasies.

Once Islamic-based parties such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir are allowed to organize openly, honest citizens will be able to criticize the horrendous mess here. This is what ‘democracy’ should be about. It would also empty the jails of many thousands of devout Muslims in Uzbekistan. So what if an Islamic party comes to power and Central Asia becomes greater Turkestan? So what if women wear headscarves? I suspect local Russians (i.e., everyone) would be much better off than under the present clan-based mafias and the ever-present specter of official or opposition violence. Of course, it would mean a drastic reduction in prostitution and restricted alcohol sales. And a big move away from the trashy American culture that floods the TV and airwaves here. A small loss IMHO.

Long-term scenario

The focus of Central Asian politics should be to unite the 60+m Central Asians, with their rich resources and ethnically close peoples, as a political and economic block to resist the various imperial agendas, to ensure the dignity and livelihood of the largely Muslim, Turkic peoples living here. Combined with Turkey's 70 million, Iran's 70 million, Pakistan's 140m and the Middle East, and we can see a superpower in the making second only to China, but one based on social justice, not greed and violence.

This will be the first step in uniting all Muslims from Morocco to the Philippines. Once the Central Asian states shake off the western imperial yoke, including their erstwhile 'friend' Russia, and join with their Turkish cousins, their example will inspire the Arabs to the west and the Asians to the east. Whereas once upon a time, the Caliphate emanated from Mecca, now it will be renewed from the home of the medieval Islamic renaissance, the home of Biruni, Avicenna and Ulugbek.

Yes, the time for reconstituting the Caliphate, uniting Muslims throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, has come. The free ride that British and US imperialism (OK and the Soviet Union) have had, training and propping up secular political leaders (fluent in English or Russian and trained in the UK, US or Moscow), is over. The SU pushed too far in trying to incorporate Afghanistan into the socialist fold, and the US has gone one better (i.e., worse) with its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and its attempts at soft landings for other Muslim states-in-trouble are not panning out. Uzbekistan is a fine example of this.

There is no way out except by turning to Islam as the only force capable of overriding the greed and downright evil of secular politics. This is not an easy road. Imperialism will not give up without a fight, and just as it ably assisted in destroying the SU, it is hard at work undermining any Islamic alternative. We can only thank Allah (and maybe his Catholic and secular fellow travelers in Latin America) that there is still a light at the end of the long, dark tunnel.
*********
*Mir Kaligulaev, "The road to death is greater than death," Black Quadrat UK 2005
**HuT, "The method to re-establish the Khalifah," UK 2000
***Abid Ullah,
"Approaching the actual end of history" 3/6/5

*********

Simon Jones is a freelance journalist living in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. He is interested in the post-Soviet Union, the Middle East and much more.

*********

URL:http://simonjones1.blogspot.com/2005/07/from-bishkek-to-baghdad-caliphates.html

Intelligence Brief: Italy

Drafted By: Federico Bordonaro


On July 18, a group called Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades -- which claimed responsibility for the July 7, 2005 attacks on London's public transportation system -- threatened Italy via the Internet. The statement warned that Rome should withdraw its troops from Iraq within one month if it wants to avoid a terrorist attack similar to the ones executed in Madrid and London. The authors of the message also added that this would be Italy's last warning. The al-Masri Brigades already threatened Italy on August 29, 2004, likewise demanding the withdrawal of Italy's military contingent from Iraq.

This explicit terrorist threat (which evokes the possibility of using chemical weapons against Italian cities) comes at a time of feverish government activity to counter Islamist terror cells in Italian territory, and in the midst of a very confused political battle over new anti-terror measures proposed by Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu.

Impact of the London Bombings on the Italian Political Context

When London was attacked on July 7, Italy's main political parties already had complex stances on the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Italy is currently in the throes of a process of political disintegration, taking place inside both its right-of-center and its left-of-center alliances. Although the parties that make up the alliances are divided on many issues, the future of Italy's presence in Iraq is emerging as a decisive one, at least in the foreign policy sphere, while the measures regarding terrorism and immigration appear to be the most urgent and contentious items on Rome's domestic policy agenda.

The withdrawal of Italian troops from Iraq had been planned well before the July 7 attacks. But although almost everyone in the Italian Parliament agreed on the necessity of debating the technical and political details involved with military withdrawal, the views on how and when to perform it remained very different. The right-of-center majority often stated that the date of Italy's withdrawal was to be agreed upon with the United States and the newly elected Iraqi government. Basically, this position means waiting until the Iraqi government can count on the new Iraqi forces to maintain law and order in the country; at that point, Baghdad would presumably ask foreign powers to leave its territory.

However, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi recently (even before July 7) hinted at the possibility of a gradual withdrawal to be initiated this fall. The problem is that Italy is heading toward an important year; elections are scheduled for spring 2006 and in June of that year there will be elections for a new head of state. Accordingly, calculations about the most politically convenient posture on the Iraq issue are permanently on the forefront of Italy's fragmented political landscape.

The left-of-center opposition, for its part, is showing even more acute signs of disunion. As the Left Democrats of the former Communist Party compete with the Margherita party (a left-oriented centrist Christian Democrat party) to conquer the moderate votes, they are internally torn by the split between pacifist hardliners on one hand and more pro-Atlanticist pragmatists on the other. The former incline toward a common anti-war front with the neo-communist and green parties; the latter are already working to revive dialogue with the U.S. and its allies after its (expected) win in next year's political elections. Romano Prodi, the opposition's leadership candidate for next year's political vote, is therefore trying to find a viable compromise between the two "souls" of the Italian Left. Even if such a task is accomplished, it will not be sufficient to assure a truly common foreign policy for the left-of-center federation.

As far as Italian domestic policy is concerned, one of the right-of-center ruling coalition's member parties, the Northern League (a federalist and sometimes separatist party), is attacking Pisanu because it considers his proposals for the enhancement of intelligence and precautionary measures to be inadequate, while pushing its own agenda for a far stricter policy on immigration. This issue of immigration has triggered an intense debate over the Schengen Treaty -- i.e. over the free movement of citizens within the European Union -- in reaction to France's decision to suspend the treaty as a means of more effectively countering terrorist cell activities. The Northern League, already engaged in a head-on attack against the euro since the French and Dutch rejection of the E.U.'s Constitutional Treaty, is -- as expected -- now pushing for suspension of the Schengen Treaty, thus contributing to the ruling coalition's embarrassment.

On July 12, the Italian military intelligence agency S.I.S.M.I. released an alarming report where it stated that some 300 Islamist suicide fighters successfully reached Iraq from Italy. Because of this, questions are being asked as to how Italy can eliminate terrorist cells within its own country when it cannot even stop militants from leaving Italy to fight in Iraq.

As a matter of fact, Italian political parties do not share a common view of Italy's security, either in foreign or in domestic affairs. Berlusconi's government had wagered on the U.S.' ability of forging a democratic and pro-Western Middle East in 2002-2003, and is now very worried about a possible U.S. failure. Propositions to pull out troops earlier than expected go beyond the current terrorist threats and current election strategy.

In addition, the link between the Iraq conflict and the wave of terrorist attacks in Europe is all too obvious in the view of the neo-communist Left, but is in no way evident according to the more pro-American right-wing. Moreover, any real strategic vision on immigration is completely lacking, as in the last decades the issue has been analyzed in purely economic or merely cultural terms, with very little geopolitical insight. What is sure, however, is that the London bombings have had a deep impact on Italy's politics.

The Bottom Line

Faced with both economic and political crises, Italy looks vulnerable militarily, and also politically, to a possible terrorist attack. The London attacks have complicated the withdrawal from Iraq even further because the battle over the timing of the Italian troops' departure now incorporates a new variable: its perception in terms of an unacceptable yielding to terrorist threats. Concern over creating this perception is likely to be reiterated, and to gain even more prominence as the country enters a year of decisive institutional change. A gradual withdrawal from Iraq appears likely, in part because pulling out from Iraq little by little could mitigate the political significance and insight of such a move.

Widespread insecurity and political instability will hamper the government's ability to perform significant reforms in its last year before the elections. Therefore, a continuation of the country's malaise and poor economic performance is to be expected. In the event of a worsening of the Iraq conflict -- involving an early withdrawal of U.S. troops -- look for Rome to rapidly seek to reestablish closer ties with Paris and Berlin.

**************

To see all of PINR's past Intelligence Briefs, visit the following URL: http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_region®ion_id=23

India's Project Seabird and the Indian Ocean's Balance of Power

Drafted By: Adam Wolfe, Yevgeny Bendersky, Federico Bordonaro

News on New Delhi's foreign policy has recently been among the top stories in the media. On April 11, 2005, India started a strategic partnership with China, and, on June 29, 2005, signed a 10-year defense agreement with the United States. Western observers, however, have paid less attention to an ambitious Indian move in the military field: Project Seabird. This plan -- with origins from the mid-1980s -- is to be assessed in light of two geopolitical triangles juxtaposing on the Indian Ocean's background: U.S.-India-China relations and China-Pakistan-India relations. In this complicated geopolitical configuration, New Delhi is not simply a partner of China or the United States: India is emerging as a major power that follows its own grand strategy in order to enhance its power and interests.


India's New Diplomacy

India is emerging as a decisive player in U.S.-China bilateral relations, often regarded as the real landmark of this decade's geopolitics. New Delhi launched a potentially revolutionary "strategic partnership for peace and prosperity" with China on April 11, 2005. The move was aimed at ending the Sino-Indian border dispute on Aksai-Chin (existing since 1962), and at boosting mutual trade and economic ties. Prospects for a more cooperative relationship between the two Asian giants are to be read in light of regional powers' ambition to reshape world order along the guidelines of a balanced multipolarity -- a goal already expressed by China, France and Russia, among other states.

However, in order to rise as a great power, India needs more than economic assets and a strong military; "infusions of U.S. technology and investments in infrastructure," as former Indian envoy Lalit Mansingh told the press on July 14, are necessary for India to "become a major global player." These Indian needs -- along with concerns over the Indian Ocean's security -- form the context that led New Delhi to sign a 10-year defense agreement with Washington on June 29. Strategic partnerships are not intended to directly challenge the U.S., but rather to rapidly obtain economic, technological and military power. Thus, India's strategy is not contradictory. On the contrary, it is a sophisticated policy whose endeavour is to create the necessary balance of power in its geostrategic environment in order to concentrate on economic, technological and military matters indispensable to its emergence as a true great power. [See: "Great and Medium Powers in the Age of Unipolarity"]

Interestingly, as the Wall Street Journal reports, U.S. President George W. Bush clearly said that the United States is involved in helping India "become a world power" -- which could be a sign of Washington's gradual acceptance of an embryonic multipolarity in Asia. However, U.S. fundamental interests in developing better relations with India are the necessary containment of China, and New Delhi's help in the war against militant Islamic groups -- a need that is growing stronger due to the unstable political landscape in Pakistan.


Project Seabird

Such a political and diplomatic framework is the background of India's ambitious Project Seabird, which consists of the Karwar naval base, an air force station, a naval armament depot, and missile silos all to be realized in the next five years.

Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee said on May 31 that the naval base INS Kadamba in Karwar, Karnataka state will protect the country's Arabian Sea maritime routes. Kadamba will become India's third operational naval base, after Mumbai and Visakhapatnam. Six frontline Indian naval ships, including frigates and destroyers, took part in the commissioning. Kadamba extends over 11,200 acres of land, along a 26-km stretch of sea front, and it will be the first base exclusively controlled by India's navy. Eleven ships can be berthed at Kadamba once the first phase of it is achieved; 22 ships after the second phase of construction will be completed around 2007, according to INS Kadamba's first Commanding Officer Commodore K.P. Ramachandran as reported in the international media. Moreover, the new harbor is designed to ultimately berth 42 ships and submarines once completed.

The geopolitics of the Arabian Sea and the Western Indian Ocean largely explains India's determination in such an $8.13 billion enterprise. The China-Pakistan-India triangle is more than ever the Arabian Sea's decisive geostrategic setting. For the Chinese, this trilateral relationship is crucial for two reasons: from the point of view of energy security, the Arabian Sea and Pakistan are Beijing's access points to the oil-rich Middle East; from the perspective of military security, Pakistan provides China an effective counter-balancing partner in front of India's ambitions.

Therefore, faced with geographic constraints, the Chinese successfully proposed to Islamabad the sharing of the Gwadar naval base back in 2001. This latter serves the Chinese purposes in three ways: first, it serves as a tool to secure Beijing's access to the Gulf's resources; second, it is a useful military base to counter Washington's influence in Central and South Asia: in fact, the Sino-Pakistani agreement came into being just four months after U.S. troops entered Kabul in 2001; third, Gwadar functions as an excellent wedge between India and the Middle East and as an offset against India's naval power.

Sino-Pakistani cooperation has contributed to accelerating India's plans to regain the upper hand in the Western Indian Ocean.

India and U.S.-China Competition

The slowly escalating competition between the U.S. and China has helped to create a fertile environment for India's ambition to gain status as a great regional power. Cooperation with China has become one of the most discussed issues in India's business community for a number of reasons, but the loudest talk has been the opportunities based in combining India's "software" economy with China's "hardware" economy. There are also geopolitical motivations for India to align itself with China. Both countries favor multipolarity: for Beijing, this trend will help to weaken U.S. influence in its sphere of influence; for New Delhi, this shift creates an environment for it to gain influence over its near-abroad.

However, India is also seeing gains from advancing its relationship with the U.S. Washington has often touted the "natural alliance" between the two expansive, multi-ethnic democracies, but it is on military issues that India would most like to develop its relationship with the U.S. During the recent tsunami relief effort, the two states' navies worked together, which helped to cement their budding military-to-military ties. The U.S. would like for India's navy to serve as a bulwark against China as Beijing becomes more active in the Indian Ocean. Also, there are some areas where the U.S. Navy cannot operate, such as the Malacca Straits, where India's presence might be seen as less threatening than that of the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks to aligning too closely with either power for India. On energy security, India and China have found cooperation to be easy in Iran, but, as finding new sources of oil becomes more difficult, there are bound to be areas of friction. For example, China views the Andaman Sea off Myanmar's coast as an important source of oil to fuel the economic expansion of China's western provinces. However, New Delhi sees building a port at Dawei, Myanmar as a major component to its future security strategy for the region. China's presence in the area is an unwelcome development for India.

Washington's relationship with two of India's neighbors, Iran and Pakistan, are the major sticking points in their relationship. The U.S. prefers to starve out the current government in Iran, but India sees the country as an important source of energy for its expanding economy. Washington's support of Pakistan's military since September 11, 2001, has been protested loudly and repeatedly by India. However, the U.S. is unlikely to abandon this support because the Central Asian countries aligned with China in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (S.C.O.) have recently signaled that they favor a U.S. withdrawal from the region. Because of this, the U.S. will now need Pakistan's support even more for the success of its operations in Afghanistan.

Even though Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush announced on July 18 a new agreement for the U.S. to cooperate with India's civilian nuclear industry in return for international oversight and a continued moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, Washington's support for New Delhi's nuclear industry will continue to be tempered by India's unwillingness to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

In this environment, India has been very successful in using strategic partnerships with both Washington and Beijing to further its interests on the Indian Peninsula and Indian Ocean. For the near term, New Delhi can be expected to emphasize points of agreement with China and the U.S., while looking to gain better positioning for itself in the region.

Another Interested Player: Russia

India's increasing ambitions in the Western Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf will most likely draw in actors other than the U.S., China and Pakistan. The Russian Federation will no doubt assume greater importance for India as a major source of military hardware that is currently fueling India's drive for a blue water navy. Since the flagship of Karwar, INS Kadamba is a Russian-built aircraft carrier with Russian-designed Mig-29 aircraft, India will rely on Moscow for a major portion of spare parts and maintenance in the short and medium run.

India's growing naval ambitions represent an expanding area of interest for Russian manufacturers. Currently, China is a major customer of Russian-made submarines, surface ships and surface-to-surface weapons systems that are adding to Beijing's growing naval strength. Since Karwar, INS Kadamba is expected to accommodate an increasing number of military ships, India may augment its indigenous production capacity with ever-growing numbers of Russian-made vessels.

This may spark a naval race in the Western Indian Ocean if China places its most advanced vessels in Pakistan's Gwadar Port. The two countries have much to gain from cooperation in the business and trade sphere, and an outright military clash between their navies is unlikely. However, the two could be drawn into a confrontation if the vessels of other navies, aligned to either state, get involved in a conflict.

If more political and military problems develop between India and Pakistan, then even a growing rapprochement with China may not prevent a dangerous escalation for New Delhi. Washington may find itself powerless to act in this case, as it will be unwilling to compromise both its tactical relationship with Islamabad and its growing "alliance of need" with New Delhi. On the other hand, Russia may well benefit from such a scenario, as it has experience in supplying two belligerents fighting each other at the same time. Moscow sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in the 1980s when the two countries were at war. Presently, Russia will be content in selling naval ships and technology to both India and China, even as the two states may be inching towards competition in the strategically important Western Indian Ocean.

There is much to gain from cooperation for India and China when it comes to shipments of oil from the Persian Gulf. A major disruption of such flow -- whether from an intentional military escalation by the two states or even from a combination of factors having less to do with both countries, such as an Iranian military action or a terrorist attack -- will have negative consequences for the economies of both countries. Peaceful shipments of oil and gas are in everyone's interests. Still, the construction and use of both Karwar and Gwadar will certainly invite some form of competition, as India and China may view each other's minor advancements in naval technology, number of vessels or any other technical factor as a less-than-benign show of strength.

The dynamics of the region still call for a balance of power approach rather than a straight alliance. China-Pakistan cooperation will figure prominently for Indian decision makers, just as India's warming relationship with Washington may be a concern for China's People Liberation Army planners. The construction of both Karwar and Gwadar may signal both India's and China's readiness to upgrade their naval strength from brown water to blue water capability, but cordial relations between both states may be no guarantee of the peaceful use of the Western Indian Ocean.

Relying more and more on advanced military technology that is not currently indigenously produced by both states, India may turn to Russia to supplement its increasing naval needs. This may enhance Moscow's status in the region, as well as offer the possibility of countering Washington's current undisputed naval primacy in that part of the world.

Conclusion

The rise of India as a major power, coupled with the better-known -- and frequently analyzed -- Chinese rise, is changing the structure of the world system. Not only is U.S. "unipolar" hegemony in the Indian Ocean facing a challenge, but the strategic triad U.S.-Western Europe-Japan, which has ruled the international political economy for the past few decades, is now also under question. Nonetheless, when confronting the new reality, Washington seems eager to help India rise in order to counter Beijing's growing influence. Moreover, India's increasing power is also a part in the process of a major shift occurring in international relations, from U.S.-based unipolarity to a "multifaceted multipolarity," which could be the prelude of a new multipolar order. [See: "The Coming World Realignment"]

In this transition phase, the Indian Ocean's security will be a crucial issue. Massive military build-ups have already started, and the risks of miscalculations by the traditional and new great powers are getting higher. We can expect the South Asian region to be one of the system's key areas to be watched in the next decade.
**************

URL:http://www.pinr.com

From Bishkek to Baghdad, the Caliphate's time has come

By Simon Jones
Tashkent,Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan's unending tragedy - 15 years of unremitting repression of its Muslims (OK, make that a century) - has reached a critical impasse. With the massacre of up to a 1000 innocents in Andijan, the mood in the country is set against Karimov: there is no graceful exit for this once wily balancer of clan greed, untempered by any basis in Islamic principles of social justice and public service.

But K and Uz are not alone. A recent analysis of Tunisia (Le Monde 6/5) describes the poverty and anomy of life under its repressive, secular, pro-US dictator Ben Ali, with his playtime democracy, prohibition of all Islamic parties and general discouragement of Islam, and above all the fear to make even the mildest public criticisms. We can say “Ditto” more or less for Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia... Then there are such embarrassments as Dubai, which is building a high tech Disney-style archipelago replica of the world for the super-rich, or the Emirates, which imports Russian and Uzbek women as sex slaves. It is very hard to find a Muslim country which reflects the austere social justice of the Koran. But then it is hard to find a Muslim country which is not a US-client state. Malaysia and Iran come to mind, and in their own very different ways, they offer some hope.

In his July 4th speech this year, Bush hailed the new era of democracy, the result of US battles “from Bunker Hill to Baghdad”. Leaving aside Bunker Hill and what's left of the American Revolution, we can already see the democracy that the US is bringing to Baghdad and Kabul - the kind where the living envy the dead, of which there are hundreds more with each passing day. No. The call should be: 'From Bishkek to Baghdad, the Caliphate's time has come.' And ironically, though Karimov loudly proclaims himself its greatest enemy, he is unwittingly one of its greatest assets, constantly raising its specter in justification of his persecution of Uzbek Muslims. Irony: never has the Muslim world been so enslaved to kufr (anti-Islamic) countries and leaders, and yet never has it been so demonized and despised by them. While western media construct fantasies to the contrary, this is the sad, tragic reality.

K's contribution to the Caliphate

K's relationship with Islam is complex. In 1990, when he was campaigning for president in Uzbekistan's only relatively free election, he addressed an Islamic meeting of 40,000 in Namangan organized by the religious movement Adolat (Justice), even praying on stage, to the delight of the demonstrators, and promised its charismatic leader Tahir Yuldashev, the future founder of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, that he would build lots of mosques and let Islam flower, that "the road should be opened to become friends with and get help from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey, so that we can become a united Muslim state."*

Coincidentally, after securing his election, he also promised his secular nationalist rival Mahammad Salih of Erk, who had come a respectable 2nd, that he would be a strong nationalist leader and allow the flowering of secular democracy. Apparently he was convincing, as both leaders were taken in and initially supported him. Of course, he reneged on both these incompatible promises and proceeded to issue death sentences on both his nemeses. (The heroic Yuldashev died fighting to overthrow K; the wily Salih lives comfortably in Norway and recently met with Secretary of State Rice.)

US choices

Now that the US willingly or unwillingly has chosen to bring on another of its CIS velvet revolutions, what are its alternatives? It looks like the pressure is on to allow the legal operation of only pro-US, pro-market nationalist parties Birlik, headed by Pulatov (living in exile in US), and Erk, headed by Salih (living in exile in Norway), plus Hidoyatova’s Free Peasants party and Umarov’s Party of Agrarians and Entrepreneurs. [Update: the business leaders associated with the unofficial opposition 'Sunshine Coalition' are now being persecuted and some are fleeing the country. One of Umarov's sons Guliambek was poisoned but survived and the other Sardorbek fled the country.] Recently a Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan was set up in the US by these and other US-sponsored Uzbek dissidents, bringing its favorite sons together in one happy, politically correct opposition force much like Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

In short, a mirror image of the phony independent parties set up by K to give a semblance of democracy (National Democratic, Patriots, etc). Not a word about religious parties or greater freedom for Muslims to organize, and certainly no intention of promoting Muslim unity.

Stalin without socialism

By obsessively condemning the idea of Islam as the formative principle of Uzbek society, K takes his direction from an earlier dictator who ruled over Uzbekistan. And I don’t mean Amir Temur. His style and methods are chillingly like those of Stalin in everything except Stalin's concern for basic economic standards for the masses. There is no social security net anymore, and Stalin (oops, K) can't seem to understand that his self-exaltation and cold-blooded disdain for his people is his nemesis, that violence will now increase until a full-blown crisis, including international isolation and possibly intervention, is reached.

Because Stalin could point to the solid socialist achievements of his ruthless reign ('Islam without Allah'), and because he had control over a huge territory, his rule was safe as long as his terror apparatus was in tact. Thus, the 1920-30s movement for a united Turkestan was easily repressed and indeed forgotten as the SU consolidated itself as a political system without meaningful internal borders, and ancient Turkestan was carved up into competing, dysfunctional Central Asian 'republics'. Furthermore, the pressure for a modern-day caliphate was not so great where all Muslims could interact in work and culture, and where basic social needs were met.

Logic of the Caliphate

But 'caliphate'? Yes! By first promising the idea, and then ruthlessly suppressing even the normal practice of Islam, let alone any mention of some hare-brained caliphate, Mr K has made himself captive to it, and like Lady Macbeth, must wash and wash and wash again the guilt for his political intrigues from his bloodied hands. By continually harping about Hizb ut Tahrir and its program of trying to revive the political unity of Muslims, he merely provides greater legitimacy to the idea. A unique feature of this part of the Muslim world is that it has experienced both socialism and capitalism and knows first hand the weaknesses of both, so the argument in a nutshell, to paraphrase Lenin, would be something like "the 21st c Caliphate = communism + the Koran."

An Islamic explanation would take the following form:
Muslims base their identity first and foremost on Islam, and Islam being a universal religion, they naturally will overcome kufr nationalism and work together to realize the ideal state, based on the Koran's detailed and surprisingly robust program. The very concept of nationalism is a western one and became the predominant political force surprisingly late, only with the triumph of capitalism and the ascendancy of secularism in the 19th c. It reached its most criminal form in Nazi Germany and today in Israel. It must be abandoned in favor of the unity of all Muslims, rejecting the nationalist regimes sponsored by imperialism - first British and now American - to keep Muslims divided.

This politics, once reversed throughout the Muslim world, would of course lead to all Islamic countries working together. Yes, Mr K, that's what the dreaded caliphate is all about. And what's so wrong with it? Why shouldn't Muslim countries throw off their western masters and use their immense clout to fight the real sources of terrorism - USrael and its secular quislings like you?

History of the Caliphate

The Caliphate refers to the first great flowering of Islam and its rapid spread to form a mighty spiritually-based empire with various centers from the 7-14th cc in the Middle East and Central Asia. The Caliph is the leader of the Ummah (community of Islam). The word caliph (khalifa) is Arabic for stewardship of nature and family, a key obligation of all Muslims (vs the Old Testament "dominion over nature"). The Caliphate was unquestionably far more civilized than feudal Europe, despite a near death blow from invasions by the Mongols (who were NOT Muslim) and the Europeans in the 10-12th c.

For a while in the 8th c it even looked like Christianity reconcile with this latest monotheism, but Rome suppressed its revisionists and eventually the disastrous Crusades turned ecumenism back a 1000 years (just as Bush's present Crusade is ensuring that no compromise is possible with the Muslim world). It was only with the rise of capitalism and imperialism that the Ottoman Caliphate was overpowered by a now secular, materialist monolith and destroyed by the ‘winners’ of WWI, the spoils divided among the Judeo-Christian empires of Britain, France and later the US and Israel.

In reality, the present war against Islam began in the late 19th c and has continued ever since. While Jewish and Christian cultures embraced the soulless materialism of capitalism, Islam remained and still remains unwilling to reform itself to suit the needs of Mammon. However, the onslaught by the capitalist powers and the ex-Soviet Union has had its toll on the Muslim world, setting up small malleable states with secular governments now dominated by the US. The aim is to continue to westernize Muslim societies, by seduction or force if necessary, to make them willingly accept US (make that USraeli) imperialism. But the final count is not in.

Present Nadir and rebirth

Islam has shown incredible resilience in the face of this unremitting attack, which has increased exponentially since the collapse of the SU, or rather, because of it and the blow that dealt the left in the West. Since then, it's been full steam ahead for the USraeli imperial project, leaving Muslims (plus Cuba's communists and Venezuela's Bolivarians) as the only significant countervailing force.

"The triumph of Islam will most likely come after severe crisis - social, economic and ecological - leading to the military abandoning the kufr regime [Uzbekistan looks like a case in point] and through a coup d'etat proposing a pro-Islamic system to stabilize the society now bankrupt and suffering economic collapse."*** Think Nasser or Chavez.

There is the distinct possibility that soon the international order will collapse, along with the US $ as world currency, and bank-created fiat money, with or without the 'peak oil' wildcard. So this scenario is not as far-fetched as you might think. Look for more about Iran and Malaysia's gold dinar as the $ continues to sink. Funny how capitalism's physical nemesis - oil - is found predominantly in Muslim countries, along with its spiritual nemesis - the Islamic ban on fiat money and usury and other (wise) restraints on economic activity. Funny how precisely the Muslim world holds all these keys to the world's economic salvation. Perhaps Allah really does exist.

No doubt Marx would chuckle if he were to be told that "Yes, world capitalism is doomed to collapse, but so is socialism, and it is ancient Islam that will survive to rebuild economic relations built on stewardship of nature, social justice, the gold standard and prayer."

Central Asia as a crucial link in the logic

Just as the secular attempts at pan-Arabism by Gaddafi, Nasser and Hussein failed, Kemal Ataturk's earlier flirting with pan-Turkish nationalism in Central Asia collapsed as the Soviets consolidated their grip in the 1920s and replaced Islam as a binding force with socialism. However, with the collapse of the SU, the pressure or desire for such a union of all Muslim Central Asian states is much more compelling, and with the revival of Islam in Turkey, it is in a position to dispense with its wanabe fascination with secular Europe and turn to embrace the Muslim world to the east. The only solution to the 'Kurdish' problem is to base society on its one common denominator: Islam. Already Afghanistan and Iraq, with their US-controlled governments, have formulated constitutions based on Islamic law and Iraq has begun to work closely with Iran. And the only way to hold Iraq together and to end the stand-off in Afghanistan is (excuse the mantra) to appeal to the one common denominator: Islam.

The pseudo-nationalism promoted by Central Asian leaders to secure their power and state theft has meant that they are all pathetic backwaters, unable to create a meaningful common economic space. Borders, visas, customs, etc. are all used to fill corrupt officials’ pockets, hindering any rational economic revival. The blatant maneuverings here of Europe, USrael, China, and Russia, each with its own anti-Muslim, anti-Central Asian agenda, makes it especially urgent that Central Asia unite.

Interestingly, even in the present state of political disarray, both Kyrgyzstan, with its 'tulip revolution' and Uzbekistan with its ruthless pro-US (oops, anti-US) dictator, are trying to close their US bases, suggesting there's a compelling logic to resist US hegemony, even without that unity. Ironically, the very suppression now of Islam throughout the region only adds fuel to the desire to rebuild society without Big Brothers imposing their secular fantasies.

Once Islamic-based parties such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir are allowed to organize openly, honest citizens will be able to criticize the horrendous mess here. This is what ‘democracy’ should be about. It would also empty the jails of many thousands of devout Muslims in Uzbekistan. So what if an Islamic party comes to power and Central Asia becomes greater Turkestan? So what if women wear headscarves? I suspect local Russians (i.e., everyone) would be much better off than under the present clan-based mafias and the ever-present specter of official or opposition violence. Of course, it would mean a drastic reduction in prostitution and restricted alcohol sales. And a big move away from the trashy American culture that floods the TV and airwaves here. A small loss IMHO.

Long-term scenario

The focus of Central Asian politics should be to unite the 60+m Central Asians, with their rich resources and ethnically close peoples, as a political and economic block to resist the various imperial agendas, to ensure the dignity and livelihood of the largely Muslim, Turkic peoples living here. Combined with Turkey's 70 million, Iran's 70 million, Pakistan's 140m and the Middle East, and we can see a superpower in the making second only to China, but one based on social justice, not greed and violence.

This will be the first step in uniting all Muslims from Morocco to the Philippines. Once the Central Asian states shake off the western imperial yoke, including their erstwhile 'friend' Russia, and join with their Turkish cousins, their example will inspire the Arabs to the west and the Asians to the east. Whereas once upon a time, the Caliphate emanated from Mecca, now it will be renewed from the home of the medieval Islamic renaissance, the home of Biruni, Avicenna and Ulugbek.

Yes, the time for reconstituting the Caliphate, uniting Muslims throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, has come. The free ride that British and US imperialism (OK and the Soviet Union) have had, training and propping up secular political leaders (fluent in English or Russian and trained in the UK, US or Moscow), is over. The SU pushed too far in trying to incorporate Afghanistan into the socialist fold, and the US has gone one better (i.e., worse) with its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and its attempts at soft landings for other Muslim states-in-trouble are not panning out. Uzbekistan is a fine example of this.

There is no way out except by turning to Islam as the only force capable of overriding the greed and downright evil of secular politics. This is not an easy road. Imperialism will not give up without a fight, and just as it ably assisted in destroying the SU, it is hard at work undermining any Islamic alternative. We can only thank Allah (and maybe his Catholic and secular fellow travelers in Latin America) that there is still a light at the end of the long, dark tunnel.
***

*Mir Kaligulaev, "The road to death is greater than death," Black Quadrat UK 2005
**HuT, "The method to re-establish the Khalifah," UK 2000
***Abid Ullah,
"Approaching the actual end of history" 3/6/5

URL:http://simonjones1.blogspot.com/2005/07/from-bishkek-to-baghdad-caliphates.html