The importance of regional alliances cannot be overstressed for an embattled and – for the moment – ‘government-less’ Pakistan. At such a critical moment, with relations with its long-term ally, the US, strained over the go ahead to the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, President Zardari’s two-day visit to the International Conference on Nauroz in Turkmenistan is a welcome omen.

The President went in with a specific agenda, to underlie the potential strategic importance of Pakistan as a bridge between the Central Asian states and South Asia, and shared it with the heads of participating countries, including Turkmenistan, Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. It was indeed important to reiterate Pakistan’s priorities as it has committed to building two key projects: the Gwadar Port and the Iran-Pakistan pipeline.

In his address to the conference, President Zardari underlined the geostrategic importance of the region and the need for regional alliances based on economic cooperation. He stressed on the need to build robust road and rail links to enable the countries to fully exploit their natural resources. The President delivered three key statements of intent: willingness “to facilitate the transport of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Central Asia to South East Asia and other world markets,” “the Gwadar [port] is the shortest route for Central Asian states to the Arabian Sea,” and “provide safe transit of piped gas to neighbouring countries.” The underlying message was that Pakistan was still keen on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline if the other countries were interested.

Addressing a conference attended by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Tajik President Emomali Rehmanov and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Zardari could have made an important strategic move in the long-term. Projects like the Gwadar Port and the Iran-Pakistan pipeline make no sense without strong regional cooperation between Pakistan’s immediate neighbours in both South and Central Asia. Trade and economic development are the best routes to long term regional peace. More so, the conference came at a timely moment for Pakistan, facing criticism for its strengthening relationship with Iran. Zardari’s choice to attend the Turkmenistan conference was an indicator that threats will not force Pakistan to act against its own interests. But it is important to note that while the verbiage was all positive, no major agreements were signed at the moot. Regional cooperation in the Central to South Asian corridor is still walking its early footsteps. Peace in Afghanistan and the end of terrorism in Pakistan appear to be the two key determinants. But the question is: does peace come first or a commitment to cooperation? It appears President Zardari, for now, has made the right choice.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013...at-conference/

March 25, 2013
Iftikhar Ahmad Yaqubi

Pak-Iran gas pipeline is the subject of hectic debates in media and foreign policy making elites these days. The point of debate is not that Iran is selling gas and Pakistan is going to buy it. Such type of business is considered to be a matter of routine between two sovereign countries.

The controversy has arisen due to the US sanctions against Iran due to the latter’s nuclear program which the former alleges is for weapons purposes while the latter denies such an objective. The sanctions allegedly prohibit foreign companies and governments from doing any kind of business with Iran. The main purpose of these sanctions is to prevent it from diverting its nuclear program to weapons purposes. The US applied tremendous pressure on Pakistan to back out from this deal with Iran. It used both carrot and stick for this purpose.

As a carrot it dangled cooperation in the field of energy and as a stick it threatened Pakistan with sanctions which would cripple its already faltering economy. But it withstood all this pressure and started construction on the pipeline on its own side.

Analysts in both Pakistan and the US fear that the construction of the gas pipeline would trigger crippling sanctions against the former by the latter. But this approach seems too much legalistic which presume that the US laws, so for as dealings with the foreign countries are concerned; apply automatically without taking note of their impact on the geo-strategic interests of their country. But if history is a guide to looking into the behavior of states, then we may presume that the US will not apply sanctions against Pakistan because by doing so it will jeopardize its own interests. Pakistan is still very important in the calculations of the American strategists. The war in Afghanistan is in final stages and Pakistan is expected to play a key role in any settlement for peace in this country.

The US wants pull out of its forces from Afghanistan by 2014 at any cost. Pakistan’s role is very crucial for any peace settlement and stability in its aftermath in Afghanistan.

Any US sanctions imposed against Pakistan will have adverse effect on the Afghan peace process and may forestall Pakistan’s support in this respect which the US cannot afford at this juncture and in the near future. The US will think twice and thrice before imposing sanctions against Pakistan at a time when they need its support for the withdrawal of their forces from Afghanistan and ensuring a settlement of the issue which cater for their legitimate interests in this country.

There is another factor also which goes against the sanctions regime to be tightened against Pakistan. Any sanctions imposed against Pakistan will strangulate its already shattered economy which will leave it with no other option but to cooperate with Iran or any other country in the field of nuclear technology which may do harm to nonproliferation efforts.

So the fear that imposing sanctions against Pakistan might instead of halting Iran’s nuclear program further promote it will always haunt the Americans. And Pakistan will be justified in adopting such a course for it will feel being punished for an act which it undertook for addressing its acute energy problems. The US will also run the risk of losing an important country like Pakistan which in addition to being a nuclear power and located in a strategically vital region is and has always been ‘’ the most- allied-non-NATO-ally’’.

The drifting away of such a strategically important ally is in no way in the US interests. The Americans also understand that Pakistan is facing grave energy problems which it cannot overcome without importing gas from Iran.

The transportation of gas from Turkmenistan through pipeline remains un-materialized due to unsettled situation in Afghanistan. So Pakistan has the only option of importing it from Iran.

Pakistan should go ahead with this project. The US is unlikely to impose sanctions against it.

If it has to do it at all it will impose only nominal sanctions just to fulfill the minimum requirements of the law and at the same time to protect their strategic interests by letting Pakistan stay with it as a friend. It will not dare lose an ally for the sake of tightening noose around an enemy. It will be a strategic blunder on its part and the US is not so stupid to commit such a blunder.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/213598/

March 28, 2013 53

As the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline is becoming a reality and as the construction work inside Pakistan’s territory is likely to get underway soon, India is starting to look at the flip side of staying out of the project. It is envious also since Iran has one of the largest reserves of natural gas that it will be selling to Pakistan at affordable rates. The hint came rather too obviously from the Indian Petroleum Minister Veerappa Moili, who expressed a keen desire to become a part of the project and even urged the need to ask Islamabad towards that end.

Over the years, India has been displaying a behaviour that cannot be deemed as friendly towards us; on the contrary, evidence shows that it has been particularly against our economic development and all that could have benefited Pakistan. A recent example is that of Bhasha Dam that despite being in our territory with which India has virtually nothing to do, New Delhi used its leverage in the international community to discourage the donors from funding the project. That behaviour does not show India is ever willing to have good ties with us. It is hence necessary to be on our guard. Pakistan has to be cautious when venturing to have such economic cooperation with India since at every turn there would be a possibility of being stabbed in the back. Besides, it was India’s own decision not to be a part of the IP pipeline that also delayed the project. It should now be made to reconcile with the consequences of its choice.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials

Raza Khan


Pakistan recently declared that it attaches 'priority' to the completion and implementation of the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan India (TAPI) gas pipeline at a time when it is facing stiff diplomatic pressure from the US on finally giving the go-ahead to the Iran-Pakistan (IP) pipeline. The declaration regarding TAPI came from President Asif Ali Zardari in Ashgabat, the capital of Turkeministan, who was there recently along with other regional leaders to attend the international Nowruz Festival.

Islamabad's commitment to the TAPI gas pipeline at a time when it has finally decided to construct its part of the IP gas pipeline in the face of stiff resistance from the US and the West can be described as both good and bad diplomacy. By emphasizing on the importance of TAPI, President Zardari seems to have sent a strong message to the international community that whether it is the IP or TAPI, Pakistan's main interest is to search for as many sources as possible to meet its burgeoning energy needs. It is also an effort on Islamabad's part to deflect criticism that it has entered into the IP agreement with Iran to give the latter's sanctions-hit economy breathing space. However, emphasizing on the construction of TAPI at a time when Iran has come all out to help Islamabad construct its part of the IP may send a negative message to Iran. But Iran has to understand Islamabad's compulsion in this regard as the latter cannot defy the US-led West to appease Tehran.

Insofar as the importance of TAPI is concerned it is not only critically important for the energy-deficient Pakistan but also the entire region. It is also important to note that the agreement for laying the much-awaited gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan reaching India was arrived at in 2010. Despite that, there has not been any significant development regarding its implementation. The construction work on TAPI has also not commenced as yet. The project, whose acronym TAPI indicates the route of the pipeline, agreement was signed by leaders of all the concerned countries in 2010, after taking almost 15 years to agree upon initiating the project after it was first proposed in 1995. The gas pipeline, if completed, will go a long way in fulfilling the ever-increasing industrial and domestic energy needs in energy-deficient Pakistan and India besides Afghanistan. But more than merely providing energy to the recipient countries, TAPI is a project of colossal economic, political and strategic value.

The gas project if completed will supply 3.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from Turkmenistan's gas fields to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. The share of the three countries would be Afghanistan 500 million cubic feet (MMCFD), Pakistan 1,325 and the rest for India. In this way India would be the major recipient of gas. However, Afghanistan and Pakistan would not only get the required gas but also transit fees for the length of pipeline using their respective territories.

TAPI has far-reaching economic implications for the regional countries. It will enable the cash-strapped economy of Turkmenistan to raise huge revenues by selling gas to India and Pakistan. Obviously, Turkmenistan has colossal gas reserves which are far beyond its domestic and industrial needs, particularly at a time when there is no worthwhile developmental and industrial activities going on in the area. The fact of the matter is that selling its energy resources and, thus, raising revenues has remained the only hope for Turkmenistan and other Central Asian countries to revive their stalled economies and make use of their well-laid industrial infrastructure.

The need of Pakistan for gas and electricity is, perhaps, more dire than any other country in the region, as it is already facing severe energy shortfalls. Pakistan's economy is worst-hit by continued substantial power crisis due to which already a large number of industrial units have been shut down, while numerous are working below their capacity. In Pakistan, the demand for natural gas has increased by almost 10 per cent between 2000 to 2008 reaching around 3,200 million cubic feet per day. In 2008, the gas demand in Pakistan exceeded with the difference of 203 MMCFD. To maintain even the current full capacity of the manufacturing sector Pakistan needs an uninterrupted supply of gas and electricity. Moreover, in the next five years, Pakistan would be trying to gradually have accelerated economic growth; then gas from TAPI would be direly needed. TAPI would supply 1,325 MMCFD gas to Pakistan.

India's economy is also going to gain substantially from the TAPI gas pipeline, as it is an energy-deficient country. The sustaining of 9-10 per cent growth, which the Indian economy has achieved in recent years, would be unimaginable without energy from projects like TAPI. This India knows quite well and therefore it has trying to materialize this project.

Afghanistan is also going to benefit substantially from the TAPI gas pipeline as its vast energy reservoirs remain dormant and will remain so for years to come and the huge reconstruction and rehabilitation process in the war-devoured country will increasingly require energy sources. Moreover, Afghanistan is also going to earn millions of dollars in transit fees from the project which would be critical for the country's ruined economy.

TAPI is a good initiative for boosting the regional economy of South Asia in particular, because it will fulfill the growing energy requirements of both India and Pakistan. Both the countries are going to get cheap gas as a result. Pakistan is going to get 700 million dollars as royalty as a result of the pipeline passing through Pakistan to India which is good for our economy. It will generate more employment in Pakistan specially, and new cities might develop because of the pipeline passing through various remote and uninhabited points in the country.

The TAPI gas project is going to have significant political and strategic ramifications, largely beneficial for the region. The project will increase, in importance in case that Pakistan and India increase cooperation. Although TAPI is a very old project, but Pakistan has to go for it, as no one can guarantee that the IP could be constructed.

http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/

Salman Rafi Sheikh

One of the aspects of change in the mode of warfare, which has come to prominence after World War II, is the non-military aggressive tool of ‘economic strangulation’ through which the powerful states try to politically subjugate their target countries. Unfortunately the development and application of this tool has been facilitated to a great extent by the misuse of the otherwise positive aspect of the integration of the international economic system.
That misuse has mostly been committed by US and its European Union (EU) allies who managed to gain control of the international economic system right from the beginning because of their politico-economic domination of the international institutions like International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), etc, and even the international avenues of commerce and trade. It is a common knowledge that this ‘tool’ is applied in the form of ‘sanctions’ and the geopolitical manipulation of the policies of IMF, WB, etc.

However, the intricate mechanics of these is not much covered in the generally available published material. Factually an understanding of these is one of the essential aspects for any meaningful study of the prevailing and projected time-frame international scenario. One of the most relevant case study in that context is that of the current US’ efforts of economic strangulation of Pakistan and Iran over the Iran-Pakistan (IP) Gas Pipeline Project. This project is economically critical for both these countries, but US considers its scuttling vital for its own foreign policy application in this region. It is therefore significant to presents an analytical elaboration of the mechanics of that ‘tool’ of economic strangulation, as also of it application by US in the case of the IP Gas Pipeline Project.

The modern (post-war) world economic system, characterized by complex interdependence, evolved out of the ruins of pre-war economic recession. It was thought to be such a system as would bring not only interdependence but also ensure economic stability in order to avoid economic collapse.
The US dollar was placed as the central exchange currency of this system, and the entire system was institutionalized by establishing IMF and World Bank. The US played central role not only in establishing this system but also in its expansion across the world. Although President Nixon suspended the link between US dollar and gold, which was the central element of this system, the US dollar continues to be the central exchange currency for International trade, enabling the US to ‘hijack’ economies of its target countries.

The very expansion of the capitalist system, or ‘financial occupation’ of the entire world by the Western capitalism, is unique in the sense that it is being used as a weapon of economic warfare. Today’s economic policies are made not only to ensure state’s economic prosperity but also aim at achieving certain political goals. Politico-economic domination of the world economy and its institutions by the developed economies enables them to translate this domination into an effective tool of foreign policy application.

There are different dimensions of the application of this tool; however, economic strangulation is one dimension which has come to be used more frequently in recent years by the major powers. Economic sanctions, boycotts, refusing funds for development projects are the tools being increasingly applied against the target countries in order to influence their policies. What motivates the application of these tools has been a matter of study for many.

There has been an ongoing debate among intellectuals; some argue that economic aspect is more important than the political; others argue vise versa. Besides that, there are others who argue in favour of geo-political factor as, though not the only, but one of the most important contemporary factors.
Although it is difficult to categorically determine which factor influences more than the other one; yet in the case of our study of IP Pipe Line, and given the current political scenario of both Pakistan and Iran vis-à-vis US, it seems that it is the very geo-political factor that is most explicitly at work.

US’ ‘concerns’ with regard to this project have geo-political underpinnings and explain its opposition to this project. Geo-political importance of Pakistan and Iran, under current regional circumstances, for the US can be construed when we take into account both internal and external dynamics of the polities of both the countries. To begin with, it is important to have a conceptual understanding of what geo-political factor is, and how it is measured.
Geo-politics is often defined in terms of casual relationship between political power and geographic space, between state’s land power and its impact on its relations with other states. Geo-politics has, therefore, to be related not only to a state’s power potentials, but also its ability to translate its resources into actual power; to its position in the world; to its importance under the given circumstances; and to its location on the map of the world with regard to its neighbour states. Given the peculiar volatile nature of the International political system, it is, to a reasonable extent, the external environment which enhances or reduces the geo-political importance of a state for another state.

The International system is a sort of oligarchy which five major powers have been dominating since the end of World War Two. Geo-political factor has, therefore, also to be understood in terms of a (minor) state’s importance for a (major) state’s agendas. It is this particular aspect of the geo-political factor which is very relevant to IP Pipeline Project. As indicated earlier, materialization of this project can have significant implications for the US’ Middle Eastern and Eurasian objectives. It is in this context, therefore, that the geo-political importance of both Pakistan and Iran for the US needs to be understood, as also the US’ policies towards both these countries in current regional political scenario.

When we apply this concept of geo-politics on Iran and Pakistan under the current circumstances, it becomes reasonably evident why the US has been and is opposing the IP Gas Pipeline Project, and putting pressure on Pakistan. Firstly, we shall analyze the geo-political importance of Iran. Iran is one of the major countries of West Asia. Its nuclear programme and its possible implications for the entire region, its ideological disposition, its huge oil reserves, and strategic and economic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, all make Iran an important regional actor. Iran’s transition from secular state to an Ideological state caused a major transformation in its geo-political significance for the US and other regional states.

It completely changed Iran’s outlook, in US’ calculations, from a “pillar” of US foreign policy in the Middle East into a potential foe to be reckoned with, turning former allies into foes and former foes into friends. This transformation would suffice to illustrate the point that it is the external environment which impacts, to a reasonable extent, the geo-political significance under given circumstances. From strategic point of view, Iran is connected not only to the Middle East, but also to South-West and South Asia. As such, an economically powerful and nuclear-powered Iran is likely to jeopardize the US’ geo-strategic and geo-energy dominance objectives in the entire energy rich region.

Similarly, Iran’s military preparedness, its gradual shift towards nuclear energy, its huge oil reserves, and extremely crucial significance of the Strait of Hormuz in oil shipments to numerous countries make the case of Iran highly significant. It is now in this context that the US’ policy of imposing sanctions on Iran needs to be understood.

This policy of ‘financially occupying’ aims at puncturing the target country’s drive towards transforming its resource-potential into tangible power i.e., using resource-potential to build military power, develop advanced technology, and develop economically and politically. A brief look at the kind and range of sanctions imposed on Iran would suffice to illustrate this point.
Apparently, the reason for imposing sanctions on Iran is to change its nuclear policy; however, as mentioned earlier, nuclear issue can only be ‘a factor’ but not ‘the factor.’ The geo-political significance of Iran as highlighted above provides a combination of factors, due to which US and its allies are trying to contain it by using the 21st century tool of warfare, i.e., economic strangulation. The Iran Sanctions Act is a core of energy-related US sanctions. Iran’s decision of opening up the energy sector to foreign investment in 1995 provided the US with an opportunity to harm it, hence the Sanctions Act.

It is an “extra-territorial act” which enables the US to control and impose penalties on foreign firms and multinational corporations, many of which are incorporated in the US’ allies. The ‘complex-interdependence’ of modern economic system, US’ and its allies’ domination of this economic system, its institutions, and policy-making, enable US to impose sanctions.
The range of sanctions include not only energy sector, but also sales of arms and ammunitions, banking sector, Iran’s military transactions, revolutionary Guards, trade and investment, and financial sector (dealings with Iran’s central bank). Although the US has not been able to achieve its desired results, sanctions on major economic sectors of Iran have done harm in shape of declining oil and gas exports as well as falling exchange rate of Saudi currency.

Economic instability is likely to have political repercussions, at least in the US’ calculations. Now, in this scenario, the IP Gas Pipeline is very significant for reinvigorating Iran’s declining economy. Because of the sanctions imposed, Iran’s energy export, one of the primary resources of foreign exchange revenues, has declined considerably.

As a result of the completion of this pipe line project, Iran would be able to give a positive push to its declining economy, hence lessening the effect of sanctions and defeating the purpose of the US’ policies towards Iran. It is for this reason that the US views this project not from political or economic aspects but mainly from geo-political perspective; for, completion of this project may also enhance Iran’s political clout in the region; therefore, the project is being viewed not merely as a project but as having the potential of long term Iran-Pakistan cooperation with significant implications for the US’ objectives in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, importance of Pakistan for US is immense due to US’ urgently critical requirement of reaching a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan, especially with Taliban, that may enable the US to achieve its ‘minimum regional objectives’ is immense. It is therefore of prime importance for US to keep Pakistan in its camp; and Pakistan is well aware of this factor.
However, the approaching endgame in Afghanistan and the rapidly changing internal balance of power between the Taliban and the incumbent US-backed Afghan government is likely to affect Pak-US relations negatively, as also the transit issue of TAPI and CASA-1000 mega projects.

Although Pakistan hopes to get exemption like China and India have, the volatile history of Pak-US relations, repeated abrasive and even aggressive anti-Pakistan actions of the US since 1990, the recently increasing mutual mistrust, are the factors which hinder the possibility of any ‘warm-relationship’ between them, at least in the immediate future. It is in the backdrop of the Afghan war and the US’ perception about Pakistan playing double role there, that one needs to see things taking place.

Unreliability and uncertainty of future and the rapidly deteriorating energy crisis have left Pakistan with no option but to look for alternatives. Secondly, it is not merely the Afghanistan factor which explains Pakistan’s geo-political importance. Pakistan is the only Islamic Nuclear power. It has huge proven reserves of natural resources.

Although Pakistan is yet to translate that power potential into actual power, they do account for the land power which Pakistan possesses. The impact of becoming nuclear, which Pakistan did in the face of US opposition, goes negative on major powers’ policies towards Pakistan in the given scenario. An economically and politically stable nuclear power like Pakistan, with strong military power and strategic culture can become a hurdle in way of the US’ regional objectives.

The US, by opposing and threatening to impose sanctions, wants to keep Pakistan dependent on US’ own sponsored energy projects, thereby also attaining the leverage to exert undue influence in Pakistan’s internal affairs. The US, therefore, is pressurizing Pakistan by showing its ‘deep concerns’ over the finalization of this project. As in case of Iran, Pakistan’s geo-political importance with regard to the US’ own regional interests is the dominating factor dictating the foreign policy application of the US through threats of sanctions.

To increase international compliance with the US’ sponsored sanctions on Iran, the US President Barak Obama issued an Executive order on May, 1, 2012 which authorized the Treasury Department to identify and sanction (cut off from the US and markets) foreign persons and companies who help Iran and Syria evade the US multilateral sanctions.

European Union has already been taking action against Iran in league with the US treasury Department since 2011. The Executive order of the US President is meant to ensure maximum compliance to the sanctions imposed on Iran.
In other words, this executive order is a tool of the US’ foreign policy application and manipulation of other states’ policies in extra-territorial regions, such as Pakistan in case of the IP Pipeline Project.

That ‘economic strangulation by US explains the refusal of Pakistan’s Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (ODGCL), and National Bank of Pakistan to finance this project, because of the fear of US sanctions. On December22, 2011, the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), responsible for raising the rupee component of the project, informed the Economic Coordination Committee’s (ECC) Steering Committee on Iran-Pakistan (IP) Pipeline that it had “branches in different countries of the world and therefore it feared that these branches could be closed due to US sanctions.”

Subsequently, the NBP pulled out of the project. In December 2011, the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) “already cash constrained due to the circular debt, informed that its US investors had threatened to retreat if the company financed the IP Gas Pipeline Project.” Subsequently, OGDCL pulled out of the project. On March 14, 2012, the Beijing-based Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd (ICBC) also backed out of a deal to finance this gas pipeline project.

On May 14, 2012, Gazprom, the largest extractor of natural gas in the world, too pulled out of this pipeline project.

Consequently, Pakistan was left with no other choice but to ask Iran to finance the pipe line project inside Pakistan. But, as mentioned earlier, Iran’s economy is hard pressed because of the US sanctions; it must be very difficult for it to finance the project. The condition of Iranian economy can be judged from the fact that Iran defaulted on payments for wheat imports from Ukraine on February 6, 2012; and on February 7, 2012, Iran defaulted on payments worth $ 144 million for rice shipments from India.

It is not merely the US’ concerns with regard to its future in Afghanistan; the IP project has also much to do with the future of the US sponsored TAPI pipe line, which is to pass through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India; and which is a projected means of materializing the US’ geo-strategic and geo-energy objectives in the Eurasian and South Asian region. But the future of TAPI as well as of CASA-1000 electricity transmission line between Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, is highly uncertain because of the internal situation of Afghanistan.

As long as law and order are not restored in Afghanistan, and writ of the government established in the tribal areas of Pakistan, one cannot expect to see these projects getting finalized. Furthermore, the rapidly changing internal situation of Afghanistan and the prospects of Taliban emerging as a potential political force is likely to make the situation more complex; for, it was the same TAPI project which is said to have triggered conflict between the US and Taliban in late 1990s.

It is for this very reason that the US is repeatedly expressing its concerns over IP Gas pipeline Project, which offers a much better alternative to TAPI; for, without keeping Pakistan engaged in this projected constructive engagement or pipe line politics, the US might have to face more difficulties not only in withdrawing its forces but also in paving war for its military or non-military presence in Afghanistan. That is why Pakistan must view US objections to the pipeline project with skepticism; for, they exist in a broader regional context.

The pipeline will, for example, help Iran check growing US influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. By exploiting its vast gas reserves, Iran can improve its economy and exert political leverage; and the last thing Washington wants to deal with is a Tehran enjoying more regional clout and therefore defying US’ pressure, as also keeping Pakistan dependent on the US backed-project.

The above explained factors show that geo-political factor is one of the most important factors in determining foreign policy objectives, and economic strangulation as one of the most applied means of foreign policy application as well as attainment of those objectives. The geo-political importance is primarily determined by the location and power potential of a state; however, the external environment in which states function also considerably shapes a state’s importance under the given circumstances.

The regional geo-political scenario of West and South Asia and the US’ presence in Afghanistan for the attainment of its objectives are the primary factors behind the pipe line politics.

The US is able to attain its objectives not only through use of force but also through economic strangulation of the target countries, hence sanctions.
The intricate dynamics of economic strangulations and imposition of sanctions have more geo-political underpinnings than economic; these are non-militant but coercive. It is the peculiar structure of international economic system which enables the major states to be in a position to achieve their objectives by economically and politically isolating the target states.

The US, because of its domination of international economic system, is trying to pressurize Pakistan and Iran by giving threats of sanctions and economic strangulation because the IP Pipe Line Project is likely to jeopardize the US’ objectives in the region.

(The author is a research-analyst of International and Pakistan Affairs)
salmanrafisheikh@hotmail.com

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

The much-awaited Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline or the Peace Pipeline is finally moving ahead despite US opposition. Iran and Pakistan are the main players; however, India was also part of the equation before it opted to avail the US nuclear deal and decided to back out of the gas pipeline deal in 2009. The $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline will help Pakistan overcome its energy crisis, which has taken a toll over the industrial sector of the country that has largely affected the output hence leading to a decline in exports and raising of the external debt. In addition, the fertilizer and textile sector, two of Pakistan’s leading industrial domains are operating below par because of long haul power outages.

The business community of Pakistan took a sigh of relief over the inauguration of Pakistan’s side of the Peace Pipeline earlier in March this year because businesses will revive once Pakistan gets the much-needed gas from Iran. The pipeline is expected to supply Pakistan with nearly 21.5 million cubic metres of gas per day from its gas field in South Pars.

Pakistan and Iran laid the foundation of the pipeline project in the 1980s but the project, marred with delays, is back on track with Iran soon to complete its end of the pipeline. Islamabad has agreed to build its side of the pipeline by 2016, the deadline mutually proposed by both countries when the pipeline will become operational. Although the Peace Pipeline is in Pakistan’s interest, it never earned Washington’s acceptance. First, Pakistan did not follow Washington’s orders to follow an alternate gas supply route beginning from Turkmenistan but opted to side with Iran, and second, US has its qualms over the project as Pakistan is seeking support from Iran, a rogue country in Washington’s opinion. Although Pakistan is hopeful of completing the project as per schedule, Pakistan’s ability to pay $1.5 billion for the project is keeping Washington doubtful over the pipeline’s timely completion.

Pakistan will possibly face US sanctions for seeking support from Iran. Analysts fear that the Peace Pipeline will put Islamabad under pressure from Washington, which can impose sanctions according to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act. This allows the US government to place embargo on any non-American company that makes an investment in the Iranian oil and natural gas sector exceeding US $20 million.

The US has not been satisfied with the gas pipeline plan ever since it was in its blueprint stage. Washington proposed to Pakistan an alternate route from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan and to India, however, it seems Iran and Pakistan didn’t prefer to work with more players.

Even with Washington scrutinizing the project from every angle, President Asif Ali Zardari is confident that the Peace Pipeline will prove to be a breakthrough project for Iran-Pakistan relations. President Zardari at the inauguration ceremony said that, “The completion of the pipeline is in the interest of peace, security, and progress of the two countries. It will consolidate the economic, political and security ties of the two nations.” As the possibility of an aggressive diplomatic strategy from the US looms over Islamabad, the Foreign Office of Pakistan is certain that the US will not take any harsh decisions and that it will accept the reasons that led Pakistan to go ahead with the Peace Pipeline.

Pakistan and Iran have a history of diplomatic ties. Pakistan supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, provided training to Iranian Armed Forces, and both countries enjoy a healthy trade relation. With the Peace Pipeline now in the picture, the US will probably assert its reservations that might thwart Pakistan-US ties. However, Washington will think twice before imposing any sanctions on Islamabad because Pakistan holds economic and strategic importance in the South Asian region. By arguing over the Peace Pipeline, the US might lose a close ally that has stood with the US through thick and thin.

(The writer is a Karachi-based journalist who writes frequently on regional issues with focus on South Asia)

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/