A change of balance in the South Pacific? : the China- Australia relations and US attitude

A region of the globe that has been a major concern for the international community for the last three years is the southern Pacific basin. The cause for the emergence of interest was the steadily rising power of China. This power confronts China with other nations in the region. One of these nations is Australia. The challenges that arise affect Australian-Chinese relations, while the intervention of the American agent is not expected to smooth the climate.

The sector of economy-technology

Economy and technology are the one cause of challenges. China with a GDP of $13,4 trillion far exceeds Australia of $ 1.5 trillion by figures of 2018. Only this evidence proves that the economy can be a point of friction. China's economic dynamism enables it to expand itself economically throughout the world. Oceania and Australia, in particular, cannot be an exception.

The Chinese cultural, economic and technological influence is very big. Chinese tycoons have invested in pro-Chinese think tanks, their presence is predominant in the business, academic and political world, while the Chinese state uses both the Chinese people of the diaspora and former Australian politicians who act as lobbyists in its favor. At the same time, China's technological contribution to the country's infrastructure is strong, with Huawei taking over the upgrade of the country's 5G network. In addition, the governor of the federal state of Victoria signed with the Chinese side an agreement to connect the state with the "One Belt One Road" initiative despite the unacceptable attitude of the official government towards this. It is also worth mentioning that China is a very important importer of Australian coal, offering billions of dollars in revenue to the Australian funds. Beijing also encourages Chinese tourists to visit Australia and New Zealand, contributing significantly to the economic development of the two countries. Consequently, the Chinese influence in the country is indisputable.

Australia, on the other hand, is at a disadvantage. Not only is its GDP less than China, but it cannot compete productively the Asian country. Also, the federal government is afraid of foreign influence and espionage. So, its attitude is defensive. It is no coincidence that the Australian governments of Turnbull and Morrison and after indirect pressure have a negative attitude towards Beijing. The political rhetoric of the former government was based on the Chinese expansive aspirations in the Southern China Sea and on the political system of the Asian state. The present government since August 2018, when it took office, with bills that voted, marks a barrier to the Chinese expansion. In particular, in September 2018 the authorities excluded Huawei from its participation in the consolidation of the 5G network. In January 2019, the entry of the tycoon Huang Xiangmo who also funds the Australia-China Relations Institute in the country was canceled because of his great influence. In addition, since March, a law is in place to restrict the ability of a lobby of foreign interests to be activated into the country. Within this framework, many former Australian politicians working for Chinese companies were forced to resign, including a former minister of foreign affairs Carr, who was a member of the above Institute and the former Governor of Victoria. In addition, the new legal framework also provides for transparency conditions in order to control the activities of foreign lobbies.

The defensive and "sinophobic" policy of the Turnbull and Morrison governments as logical has caused discomfort and anger in Beijing. The inflammatory statements of the former Australian government annoyed that of Xi Ziping, while the upgrade of the "sinophobic" attitude of the new government cause reactions in the Chinese side. The latter does not hesitate to take action. In February 2019, the value of the Australian dollar fell when in the port of Dalian, the Chinese authorities delayed the import of Australian coal. The causes for this action are not known. However, this move caused fear in Australia because China is a major importer of its coal. Fear turned into horror by thinking what would happen if such restrictions were imposed on all the Chinese ports. In such a case, the financial blow to Australia would be enormous. The dependence of Australian exporters from China has been perceived. Economic circles worry further because they know that the Chinese have alternative sources of coal imports from Indonesia or Mongolia. Australia will be very difficult to find a new market. Finally, in Canberra, they worry that this action is a financial retaliation for the deterrent stance towards the Chinese due to the legal framework that has been imposed from Australian authorities.

The sector of military power and diplomacy

From 2015 to 2016, the Chinese government is implementing a plan that will lead to a strong military force. Not only is it re-equipped with state-of-the-art weaponry systems, but also it transforms scattered small islands into military bases or creates such an artificial way, a move that refers to a doctrine of "islands-fortresses". These islands are located in the Chinese Sea. This creates a Chinese military zone, which also acts as a "shield" protecting the Chinese hinterland. At the same time, the Chinese Armed Forces acquire both defense and attack bases. The result as the militarization of the maritime region continues will be to be turned into a "Chinese lake" with whatever it implies for neighboring states and the status of international shipping. A typical example is the harassment of Australian warships from corresponding Chinese sailing ones in the area without serious cause. Still, because the bottom of this sea is rich in natural resources, China will be able to exploit them by itself, putting cemeteries or deterring other states from their exploitation rights. As a result, China will become the absolute dominant country in the region.

Australia, because it has not hidden its aspirations to exploit the deposits in the southern Pacific Ocean, is facing with skepticism and concern the progress of the Chinese in the military sector. This development has revealed two serious shortcomings in Canberra: the first is that the Australian Army is not ready for a war, while many of its equipment is outdated. The second concerns the non-strengthening of the diplomatic presence of the country in the Pacific nations. But the last two Australian governments received the message and took action.

The Turnbull government decided to implement an ambitious plan to modernize the Australian Armed Forces. For this reason, it purchased armaments from Rheimentall to modernize the units of armored combat vehicles. At the same time, before the New Year, a few of F-35s were delivered from the 72 which were ordered. Finally, from 2020 onwards, the Naval equipment will also be upgraded. The Morrison government supports the strengthening of the armed forces. The Australian military restructuring plan is seen as a first step in addressing the Chinese military threat.

The second step is to create a cluster of cooperative and allied relationships with other Pacific countries that also fearfully perceive Beijing. It is no coincidence that Australia is in discussions with other states in the region to balance diplomatically with the Chinese influence. In other words, it seeks to create a "shield" that will inhibit Chinese expansionism throughout the Pacific and will not lead to its isolation.

The US attitude

The government of Trump plays a very important role in the events. It understands China's greatest threat to the US interests and aims to fight it. This is why it declared a trade war in order to weaken it economically. In this "war" effort, the American president wants allies, willing or reluctant. The Australians are his allies and he knows it.

Trump did not like the good climate which was prevailing in Sino-Australian relations, especially with the free trade treaty that had been signed earlier. The White House is worrying about Chinese influence and penetration both in Australia and New Zealand. That is why it must be eliminated. Thus, Washington indirectly exerts a clear pressure on Canberra to halt the Chinese "raid". This is one of the reasons why the Australian governments take such tough measures against the Chinese. US diplomatic support is complete, although Trump is indifferent to whether such defensive measures will hit the Australian economy.

At the same time, the US also helps the country militarily. Already, Australia is one of the main importers of US weapons systems, while US military penetration is complete. The use of Chinese fear also serves American military industries. Australia can be a major market in its attempt to re-equip its defence forces.

In conclusion

The balance in the southern Pacific Ocean is overturned. Australia and China since 2016 - the year of the election of Trump - have experienced an unprecedented coldness and hostility in their relations. Australia is de facto more disadvantaged. While it was moving on two axes earlier - good economic relations with China and at the same time an alliance with the US - now it has to choose. Whichever option will have consequences, as demonstrated with Dalian. A move to normalize bilateral relations took place in November when Foreign Minister Marise Payne visited China and had discussions with Chinese government officials in a positive climate. However, Morrison's tough policy and that of the US can hardly eliminate the coldness of Beijing.

China, in turn, has not carried out extensive dynamic actions at the expense of Australia. But being in a more advantageous position can do it. Yet, poor bilateral relations do not prevent it from continuing its policy: global financial penetration and military empowerment. Australia is an important hub both because it is a major market of almost 24 million people and because it is one of the main US allies. USA will be hit if Chinese influence is established in Australian soil.

Finally, Washington seeks primarily to ward off the Chinese economic expansion. Oceania is a key partner in the economic war against China. Washington also seeks to contribute to the strengthening of the armed forces of the Anglo-Saxon country. The US pressure will continue to exist and the Australian government will have to balance between the two most powerful states in the world. Thus, Australia and New Zealand will act as a "barrier" to the Chinese expansion in the Oceania continent.

Proposed Sources

1) Euan Graham, Lowy Interpreter, Responding to China's not-so-secret influence campaign, 20 March 2019,https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-not-so-secret-influence-campaign  access:19 March 2019.

2) Martin Choi, Catherine Wong, South China Morning Post, China- Australia relations "will not be helped" by foreign influence register, 21 February 2019, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2187165/china-australia-relations-will-not-be-helped-foreign-influence, access: 20 March 2019.

3) Tony Walker, TheConversation, Chinese- Australias relations may not be "toxic" but they do need to keep warming up, 14 March 2019, https://theconversation.com/chinese-australia-relations-may-not-be-toxic-but-they-do-need-to-keep-warming-up-113545, access: 20 March 2019.

4) Lachlan Colquhoun, Asia Times, Australia slide towards a trade spat, 25 February 2019, https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/02/article/china-australia-slide-towards-a-trade-spat/, access: 20 March 2019.

5) David Belgrave, TheConversation, Huawei or the highway? the rising costs of New Zealand's relationship with China, 20 February 2019, https://theconversation.com/huawei-or-the-highway-the-rising-costs-of-new-zealands-relationship-with-china-111909, access: 20 March 2019.

6) Nicholas Stuart, The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's planned defence inventory already looks obsolete, 04 December 2018, https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-s-planned-defence-inventory-already-looks-obsolete-20181204-p50k4v.html, access: 21 March 2019.

7) Matt Young, News.com.au, Australian Army set for a massive overhaul of fighting vehicles in "discrete" reequipment megaproject, 

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/australian-army-set-for-a-massive-overhaul-of-fighting-vehicles-in-discrete-reequipment-megaproject/news-story/0a1c062a4f23ad87e87236938b575667, access: 21 March 2019.

8) Jason Fang, Jack Kilbride, Tracey Shelton, Chinese- Australian relations have had a rollercoaster year in 2018, 27 December 2018, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-27/chinese-australian-relations-have-had-a-rollercoaster-year/10638590, access: 21 March 2019.  

9) International Monatery Fund data (2018)

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=61&pr.y=18&sy=2017&ey=2018&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=193&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=44&pr.y=11&sy=2018&ey=2018&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C668%2C914%2C672%2C612%2C946%2C614%2C137%2C311%2C546%2C213%2C962%2C911%2C674%2C314%2C676%2C193%2C548%2C122%2C556%2C912%2C678%2C313%2C181%2C419%2C867%2C513%2C682%2C316%2C684%2C913%2C273%2C124%2C868%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C836%2C918%2C558%2C748%2C138%2C618%2C196%2C624%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C626%2C449%2C628%2C564%2C228%2C565%2C924%2C283%2C233%2C853%2C632%2C288%2C636%2C293%2C634%2C566%2C238%2C964%2C662%2C182%2C960%2C359%2C423%2C453%2C935%2C968%2C128%2C922%2C611%2C714%2C321%2C862%2C243%2C135%2C248%2C716%2C469%2C456%2C253%2C722%2C642%2C942%2C643%2C718%2C939%2C724%2C734%2C576%2C644%2C936%2C819%2C961%2C172%2C813%2C132%2C726%2C646%2C199%2C648%2C733%2C915%2C184%2C134%2C524%2C652%2C361%2C174%2C362%2C328%2C364%2C258%2C732%2C656%2C366%2C654%2C144%2C336%2C146%2C263%2C463%2C268%2C528%2C532%2C923%2C944%2C738%2C176%2C578%2C534%2C537%2C536%2C742%2C429%2C866%2C433%2C369%2C178%2C744%2C436%2C186%2C136%2C925%2C343%2C869%2C158%2C746%2C439%2C926%2C916%2C466%2C664%2C112%2C826%2C111%2C542%2C298%2C967%2C927%2C443%2C846%2C917%2C299%2C544%2C582%2C941%2C474%2C446%2C754%2C666%2C698&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=#cs120

Why was the radical Islam not be defeated after the death Osama bin Laden and the weakening of Al-Qaida ?

The death of Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda's executives combined with the coordinated operations of the anti-terrorist alliance led to the weakening of the organization from 2011 onwards. A terrorist organization that shocked the world for a decade and was responsible for the biggest terrorist hit in history.

However, logically, radical -fundamental Islam would weaken until it disappears. Wrong. The developments with the "Arab Spring" proved that it was not only disappeared, rather it returned stronger in the form of ISIS, whereas other terrorist organizations, including Al- Qaeda allied with it. Why did this happen?

From past to the present

The19th century, a change in the Muslim and especially in the Arab world took place. The Muslim regions passed into the dominance of European Christian empires. The European colonizers imposed their power on territories that the Ottoman Empire and other conservative Muslim regimes dominated. Islam, therefore, accepted the European (western) influence. This development gave rise to two trends: one related to some Muslim scholars who tried to bring the Western and Islamic traditions together. The other concerned those who rejected anything of Western origin and proposed the return of Muslims to the traditional way of life. Thus, the two tendencies that would "mark" the Islamic world began to emerge: the secularism and the conservatism that would eventually turn into radicalism - terrorism.

The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the imposition of Mustafa Kemal's western-style regime in Turkey, colonialism in the Muslim world and the prevalence of elements of Western culture in independent Muslim states since 1945 led to the consolidation in most countries of secular regimes, i.e. political forces who did not adopt religious conservatism. At the same time, they led to the emergence of Islamist organizations struggling to overthrow secularism and impose God's will on Earth and politics. These forces appeared strongly within the states and quickly turned into powerful political factions that opposed the secular regimes and had resonance with the pious people. Their appeal was great because the secularization was limited to a circle of educated officers and politicians, at the same time that people and especially the provincials were devoutly practicing their religious duties and the secular leadership for them was something strange.

The secular regimes perceiving the threat mercilessly persecuted the Islamists by imprisoning, exiling, and killing them. At the same time, in the early post-war years, they introduced a political program to upgrade the position of the citizens. They tried in every way to fight the Islamic ideology and faction. There have been some successes until the late 1970s. Two crucial events occurred then: the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1979) and the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan (1979). The former overthrew the corrupt and secular regime of the Shah and brought into power an Islamic one led by Ayatollah Khomeini. The second was to get the Soviets to gain access to the Gulf and consolidate communist ideology in Central Asia. These developments terrified the US, who saw their security system in the area on the brink of collapse. However, the American leadership would be determined to hold a risky stance.

The Islamic Revolution was not a good event for Washington. It toppled a loyal ally in the region and brought an anti-imperialist and religious conservative form into power. Iran was too "big" for the US to lose it. It is no coincidence that the US held a strict and tough stance against Tehran. Conservative Islam, however, was not an enemy somewhere else: in Afghanistan. The CIA, aware that in the USSR there were also conservative Muslim populations, began to print before these two events the Qur'an in copies to share it in the above populations and to incite rebellions and revolutions within the Soviet territory. However, this tactic did not yield the expectations due to the effective action of the KGB. In Afghanistan, Washington could help the Islamists. And it did it.

The strategy of US presidents Carter and Reagan was the following: to organize a guerrilla struggle against the Red Army in the Afghan mountains supporting the Islamic militants. They would use the religion to oppose an atheist country. To strengthen their strategy, they approached their close and rich partner, Saudi Arabia. Riyadh would take the responsibility alongside CIA to send money, weapons, and fighters in order to enhance the Islamic guerrillas (mujahideen). The result was an intense guerrilla warfare that was perceived by a multitude of Muslims as a religious war for the establishment of a caliphate and which irreparably damaged the Soviets. Indeed, he forced them to leave and fairly Afghanistan was called "the Vietnam of the Soviets". Many Saudis were also distinguished in this war. One of them was Osama bin Laden, an associate of the Americans

The success of Islamism in Afghanistan also affected the Islamist organizations within Muslim states. The secular governments that had been terrified by the Iranian Revolution now experienced new fear. The corruption, the downgrading of the quality of life of the citizens and economic hardships led a lot of people, especially the young ones, to get radicalized. So, the number of the fighters grew not only among the teams of mujahedin but also among the local organizations. Islam, with the promise of social care, was the right alternative. In the early 1980s, local organizations thwarted the secular regimes even reaching the murder of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

At the start of the post-Cold War era, the conservative Islam that had emerged with Iran and had been forged and publicized with Afghanistan would generate new challenges. Muslims who had collaborated with the West against the Soviet Union had now become powerful and questioned the status quo. Bin Laden was one of them. He founded Al-Qaida, a terrorist organization which goals were the return of the pious Muslims to the way of life of the first Muslims (fundamentalism), the proclamation of a sacred war against the imperialist West with particular emphasis on the United States and the overthrow of secular and corrupt Muslim regimes. At the same time, it was trying to recruit fighters and aspiring suicide bombers from across the Islamic world. It was a transnational, terrorist, Islamist organization.

The "red" fear was followed by the "Islamist" fear in the post-Cold War era. Throughout the 1990s, Al-Qaeda became a dangerous opponent for Washington, its appeal grew, its networks were expanded and Osama bin Laden became one of the most famous people in the world. In 1998, he terrorized the Clinton government with two bombing attacks against US targets in eastern Africa. At the same time, from Afghanistan, where he had found refuge in the Taliban's conservative Islamic regime, bin Laden and his colleagues were controlling their networks and were organizing their attacks.

In the same decade, the activity of Islamic radical organizations became evident in Islamic and non-Islamic countries, from Central Asia and the Caucasus to the MENA region. The dissolution of the USSR and the chaos it caused combined with poverty led to the "Caucasus Emirate". Degraded living conditions, corruption, authoritarianism, Islamic ideas, the pro-western stance of the regimes and the uncertainty of the future also exacerbated many Egyptians and Algerians. Egypt occasionally experienced a peculiar civil war, while Algeria experienced a lethal civil war. Radical Islam had survived.

But Al-Qaeda was an international threat, not a regional one. It contested the American hegemony and caused friction between USA and its allies because of the insecurity that prevailed. The US intelligence services therefore began to gather information on Al Qaeda. The conflict was clear now. In 2000, Al-Qaeda hit an American warship in Yemen. On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hit by Al- Qaeda, its first strike into US territory. The international radical Islam and the organization that promoted it had enormous power and could reach any target. The US government reacted dynamically. It created an alliance of states willing to fight international Islamic terrorism. The "War on Terror" as it was called, included military and espionage operations. It also involved Muslim secular, pro-Western countries. In October 2001, NATO bombed Afghanistan, the Taliban regime collapsed, and a power vacuum was created in the country that would cause great problems in the future. It could be said that humanity was in turmoil of a cultural war.

In 2003, the United States and United Kingdom invaded Iraq and overturned their ally Saddam Hussein. The power gap created would have unpleasant consequences. On the one hand, Iran, an enemy of Iraq, has benefited and increased its influence on the Shiite populations of the country. On the other hand, Al-Qaeda guerrilla groups - who had in the meantime attracted officers of the defeated Iraqi army - took action against Western occupation troops. The latter would undertake a very difficult task for some years, trying to neutralize the Islamist groups. Despite Washington's attempts to create a government, Islamism was tingling. Finaly, the Americans managed to limit al-Qaeda's guerrilla groups. But they did not beat them. Sectarian violence and economic cessation in Iraq offered opportunities to Islamists.

In 2005, a new bloody attack in London caused shock in western societies. Al-Qaeda was everywhere. The conflict between Christianity / West and fundamentalist Islam was a fact. At the same time, the Russians were living in Chechnya with the negative consequences of Muslim terrorism. Southeast Asia, in turn, was transformed into a field of action by Al Qaeda.

 In December 2010, protesters flooded the streets in Tunis. They protested against Ben Ali's secular, authoritarian and long-standing regime. The demonstrations with the new year quickly spread to other states with authoritarian regimes and were called "Arab Spring". The name was a variation of the "Spring of the Peoples" a series of uprisings and revolutions by European people, demanding better economic, social and political conditions that shook the monarchies in Europe in the 19th century. The same demands were made by the Arab protesters.

However, Arab uprisings would bring radical Islam into a more upgraded form. The regimes in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen collapsed and within chaos, a vacuum of power and security was created that Islamists covered except for Tunisia. Guerrilla warfare divisions began to operate in Libya and Egypt, bringing the authorities into trouble. At the same time, in Syria, where the demonstrations were many, the Assad regime resisted. Then, the West used a "tool" that had also been used in Afghanistan: the equipment of the opposition and the entry of radical Islamists in the country to take action against the government. Thus, Islamism was used to crush a Muslim and more liberal regime that was not so pro-Western. At the same time, in May 2011, a US Army special forces operation contributed to the killing of Al-Qaeda's leader in Pakistan, an act that caused awe and anger.

These actions created ISIS. Its action began in Iraq and expanded to Syria, on lands not controlled by the Syrian Army. Thus, the civil war between the government and the opposition became transnational as Islamic militants entered it, as well as the most powerful countries on the planet. From 2013 to 2017, the Assad regime suffered many shocks, but it did not collapse. In the period 2014-2016, ISIS was powerful. It controlled much of Iraq and Syria forcing the US to form a coalition to fight it. It had evolved into a global threat because it had not only made more victories than Al-Qaeda in the battlefield but also because it could recruit militants from all over the world - Muslim and non-Muslim. The promise of military action, a better life based on traditional customs and the ultimate goal of establishing a global caliphate, were quite convincing reasons to attract many members. In addition to military success, ISIS fans have carried out many terrorist acts in Europe, imitating al-Qaida and causing terror in Western societies. Finally, ISIS skillfully exploited the internet to establish a "digital caliphate" that would make it an important player in cyberspace and it could bring its message to every Muslim wherever he/she may be. It was obvious that he had overshadowed al-Qaida.

However, the concerted military action of the West and Russia against the Islamic State has helped to see in our days that its lifetime is measured. However, despite the military successes, the Islamic State will not be easily eliminated. The internet will be used as a weapon from it. Still, from Africa to Central Asia, new Islamic armed organizations appear to be extremely lethal, mimicking ISIS and claiming to be subordinate to it. Especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and in the Maghreb, the situation is degraded. It is no coincidence that the US is sending military missions to train local armies as well as financial assistance to improve the lives of citizens there. However, these actions, although reducing the phenomenon of international Islamic terrorism, do not eliminate it.

So, which are the causes?

History teaches us. From the evolution of radical Islam, the causes why the weakening of Al-Qaeda and the death of its leader didn't eliminate the fundamentalist- radical Islam. So which are they? 

Initially, the root cause is the primordial conflict in Islam. The conflict concerns two major factions. The former advocates an Islam not so conservative and "enriched" with Western elements, while the latter seeks and claims an Islam more conservative, more authentic, without additions, based on the foundations of the first Muslim period and in accordance with its principles Prophet. This conflict is still hampering the Islamic world and leading to intra-Islamic clashes. Part of the second faction is radicalized and thus armed conflicts arise.

Yet another key element is the failure of secular Muslim regimes. In the beginning of their course, they contributed greatly to improving the living conditions of their citizens. However, their prolonged stay in power made them corrupt. The standard of living began to deteriorate and signs of improvement for society did not appear anywhere. These regimes were confined to a circle of officials who were cut off from the rest of society and who were aiming for personal enrichment. The ideas of secular Islam did not dominate the main mass of pious individuals. The popular dissatisfaction was exploited by Islamists, who, through a social policy compatible with traditional Islam, managed to gain a host of supporters. The secular regimes, in a few words, have not won the hearts and minds of the rest of the Muslims. This does not mean that all Muslims are pro-Islamists.

A third cause is the idea of ​​pan-Islamism. It promotes the creation of a Caliphate that will encompass all Muslims, regardless of nationality. The roots for the realization of this idea go back to Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989 while ISIS, which declared it in the territories it held, seemed to realize it to a certain extent. It is no coincidence that Muslims from all over the world rushed to be classified as warriors to fight against the "infidels" of secular regimes and later of the West. The supreme idea of ​​a pan-Islamic state is enough to mobilize the pious people wherever they are, especially the young ones. Islam is not just a religion with some obligations for those who accept it. Islam is a way of life. It regulates every aspect of the believer's personal and public life. It is not strange, therefore, that the Muslim communities in the western societies, despite the support they have received and the assimilation that has taken place, have into their body people who place Islam above personal interest, not least above the interest of the Christian western world. pan-Islamism is above any terrorist organization occurring from time to time.

In addition, some Western countries and especially the USA have a major responsibility for this phenomenon. Those were where used the religion of Islam in order to defeat USSR, those supported corrupt and authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world to stifle radical Islamists and those with wrong moves (Saddam Hussein's fall) gave the chance to radical Islam to survive. The US and its allies also supported both the Syrian opposition and the Islamists, so that the latter would beat the secular Muslim regime of Bashar al-Assad. But their policy failed because Assad with internal and external support stayed in power and survived and the emerging ISIS escaped control. Like the Frankenstein monster which attacked against its creator, ISIS has turned not only against Assad but also against the West. Co-ordinated military operations were needed to crash it, even in the military sector.

From the above, it is evident that Islamic radicalism not only was not defeated by the death of bin Laden, but was also emerged stronger in the period of Arab revolts. Now, in the military sector, it seems to be heading towards the end, but ideologically has not gone. The reasons are many for this development and the ways of dealing with the phenomenon should be carefully considered. Perhaps these ways will be the issue of another article.

"Atomic" Islam: the evolution of Pakistan's nuclear program

                             Wikipedia

The acquisition of nuclear weapons since the beginning of their existence has been a prime objective that many countries have sought to achieve. The glamour they offer in combination with the geopolitical upgrading of their owner convinced many leaders to acquire or construct them.

During the Cold War, the US nuclear monopoly ceased when the USSR constructed its own atomic bomb. However, the development of nuclear programs "escaped" from these two countries and in the above period other states developed their own remarkable nuclear weapons programs. One of them was Pakistan.

The beginning: 1956- 1972

Pakistan, with the onset of the Cold War and its independence, engaged in conflict with India for a series of border disputes with the most prominent the control over Kashmir. India launched its own nuclear program as well. This development alarmed Pakistan, that decided to implement a similar program of its own. In 1956, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) was founded to head the program. Its leader was Nazir Ahmed. Nuclear power was originally intended to be used to meet the country's energy needs and not to build weapons.

Pakistan, in the midst of the Washington-Moscow confrontation, was an ideal ally for the first because of the India-USSR approach. It was a counterweight. It is not accidental that in 1962 the US delivered the first research reactor to the Pakistani authorities. The first practical step had taken place. The new director of PAEC, Ishrat Usmani, was ambitious and insightful, so he decided to step up the Pakistani program. He devoted his efforts to educate the next generation of scientists. In 1965, he founded the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology to develop research, and many scientists left for training abroad.

The Indian-Pakistani war of 1965, coupled with Pakistan's defeat and its international isolation, shook Islamabad and persuaded the Pakistani leadership that the acquisition of nuclear weapons might have been imperative to act as deterrents by offsetting India's power. At the same time, information from Pakistani scientists reported that the Indian side continued to develop its nuclear program. Pakistan could not be in worse position in all sectors than its competitor.

In 1971, a new Indo-Pakistani war broke out. Pakistan's leader was one of the nuclear program supporters and a nationalist politician, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He was the one who, in 1965, following the successful development of the Indian program, said that since Christians, Jews and Hindus have a bomb, why not Muslims have one. The new conflict ended with a crushing defeat of Pakistan. Not only was it defeated on the battlefields but also it lost much of its territory, which became independent- the country of Bangladesh. The shock was huge. The weakness of Pakistan had proved once again. The Pakistani leadership had been isolated diplomatically and militarily. Although the country was financially desperate, nuclear weapons needed to upgrade its status. Scientists' reports confirmed that nuclear weapons could be built. In 1972, the government agreed to build such weapons systems and launched the "Project-706" that aimed at the acquisition of a uranium bomb. Chairman of PAEC was Munir Ahmad Khan.

The peak 1974- 1998

In 1974, the Pakistani authorities suffered a new shock. India tested its own nuclear weapons. This action also shook the international community. The power balance was completely disrupted and it was more than a vital need for Pakistan to build nuclear weapons. The threat had now been transformed into existential. The Bhutto’s government maintained its temper and moved on two axes. The first concerned efforts to avoid a nuclear arms race in South Asia between India and Pakistan. The second concerned the acceleration of the acquisition of nuclear bomb procedures.

Since 1975, the Pakistani government began inviting scientists to work on the nuclear program. One of those who responded to the call was the metallurgist A.Q. Khan. It would be the “father” of the Pakistani atomic bomb. He was working for the URENCO Company in the Netherlands, dealing with nuclear materials. Returning to his country, he brought centrifugal generator designs as well as other information that would contribute to the completion of the program. Still, he set up a network to purchase construction departments in order to avoid restrictions on nuclear material traffic that had been imposed since India's nuclear testing. Suppliers included, among others, North Korea, Iran and China that helped Pakistan because of its confrontation with India.

In 1977, a political change took place in the country. The Bhutto’s government was overthrown by Zia ul-Haq and in 1979 Bhutto was hanged. So his influence on the nuclear program was over. The new leader continued developing the program. Also, the army undertook supervision and guidance of it. However, the initiatives were of limited scale due to the international pressure that had been imposed on Islamabad.

The development that would change the environment was the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan in 1979. Suddenly, Pakistan was a bastion for Washington to halt communism in central and southern Asia. So, the government of Ronald Reagan allowed the Asian country to continue its program. In the early 1980s, Pakistan had the necessary uranium reserves to build nuclear weapons. However, in 1985, American stance changed again. Sanctions were foreseen if the country proceeded to produce enriched uranium and build a bomb. The Pakistani government was not in a panic. Not only did it conduct some preliminary tests, but also approached North Korea and gained know-how to develop missile technology.

At the beginning of the 1990s, Pakistan was preparing fiercely to carry out nuclear testing. The Cold War had ended, but another one was alive with India. The Pakistani geological service after surveys concluded that the province that was suitable for conducting the nuclear tests was Baluchistan. There were isolated areas that were offered for nuclear testing. At the same time, Pakistani engineers had also developed missiles called Ghauri who could carry nuclear warheads. In the end of the decade, everything was ready. Nuclear competition in the region had worried the international community, especially the Americans. Calls were made to stop the programs, but in vain. In mid-May 1998 the Indians made new nuclear tests causing anxiety to Pakistani people. The pressure on the Nawaz Sharif’s government was intense. Such a challenge could not be left unanswered. The country had nuclear weapons and that should have been perceived by the global and especially the Indian community. Despite the international pressure, the Sharif government mandated nuclear weapons testing. At the end of May, testing operations Chagai-I and II demonstrated globally that Pakistan was also officially a nuclear power. The answer to New Delhi was given. However, the reactions were intense both by its partners and by the IMF that imposed sanctions on it along with other states. Countries such as Turkey and Iran on the other side hailed this success. In the year that the tests were carried out, the country also acquired a plutonium processing plant, a proof of the development of the program.

The Pakistani nuclear program during the 21th century

The advent of the 21st century was supposed to be optimistic for Pakistan. It was now part of the nuclear powers club and it had acquired the know-how to further develop nuclear technology. Moreover, it was not seriously affected by the sanctions. After 11 September 2001, when Pakistan entered the War on Terror campaign, American and international confidence was restored. Additionally, it also adopted a nuclear doctrine. This is evidenced by the words of Prime Minister Pervez Musharraf that nuclear weapons target India and will only be used when the country faces an existential threat. It is clear that it is a doctrine of "second strike". It aims to prevent.

The development of other types of weapon systems also allowed the Pakistani Armed Forces the military capability of conducting a nuclear warfare. Airborne and floating military means can carry nuclear weapons and the development of ballistic missiles of all kinds that can carry nuclear warheads make the Asian state a particularly fierce opponent. At the same time, they increase its deterrent power. It is possible to argue that the Pakistani leadership can withstand a nuclear war. Nowadays, the army not only ensures the progress of research in the natural and technological sciences, but it is also able to avoid a conventional military equipment race. Still, relations with its main ally, the US, have not been disturbed by the nuclear program. Already, new research centers and laboratories are being built.

Geography plays an important role at studying the Pakistani nuclear program. Its role concerns the areas the main activities are taking place. The headquarters of the project is in Punjab Province. This province includes the capital (Islamabad) and Lahore and is on the border with India. It was not chosen at random. On the one hand, it is close to the country's administrative center, the capital, so it is closely controlled by the authorities. On the other hand, it is far from the Afghan border that it provides security against the threat of the Taliban (see below). In addition, in this area there are the richest and hence the most uranium mines. Plutonium and heavy water plants also exist there. As far as the reactors and the main research centers are concerned, they are mostly based in Islamabad. An exception is a research center based in Karachi. The test fields are located in the Baluchistan province in the Ras Koh Mountains and the Kharan Desert. The fact that they are isolated in inaccessible areas ensures a free field of testing and eliminates the humanitarian risk of a possible accident.

The advent of the new millennium was not only accompanied by optimism about Pakistan's nuclear future. Security issues arose. In Afghanistan, but also in some areas of Pakistan, the Taliban had and still have some influence and control. When their leadership collaborated with Al-Qaeda, fears were born that the secrets of the nuclear program could have leaked or, even worse, nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the jihadists. In addition, the leadership of the terrorist organization said it intended to capture Pakistani nuclear weapons. Also, concerns were expressed about the faith of Pakistani scientists in the work of the government. It was not excluded that there might be Al-Qaeda sympathizers among the country's scientific community and that Osama bin Laden’s agents could acquire crucial information for the program. Another concern was the case of abducting Pakistani scientists from the Islamist organization in order to study its possibility of constructing nuclear weapons. The Pakistani governments perceived and perceive the above risks and, for those reasons, they took and continue taking a series of measures. They transferred the main facilities of the program to Punjab province and put thousands of army and counter-intelligence men to guard weapons and facilities and oversee the area. At the same time, a new system for checking the personality of the scientists who are going to be placed in the program was introduced in order not to appoint persons friendly to terrorist organizations. Finally, Pakistani governments are also taking care to hide some of the program's data.

Concerns are also expressed for another reason. This concerns the relationship between Pakistan and the international conventions and committees. Pakistan has not ratified some nuclear arms non-proliferation agreements on the grounds that the Indian nuclear program does not allow it. At the same time, IAEA has no right of access to and control of the plutonium reactor, with the result that many Islamabad's plans are not known.

What the attitude of the governments? The Pakistani governments have shown with their stance that they do not have an aggressive purpose. As has been understood, Pakistan has developed its nuclear program for self-protection. Its doctrine is defensive. In 1999, the Sharrif government signed the Lahore Agreement with the Indian government, whose provisions were concerning the establishment of confidence-building measures. However, due to the 1999 crisis and the fall of Sharrif by Musharraf, the deal was set in the calves. However, the new government that adopted an official doctrine was not aggressive. In the Indian-Pakistani crisis of 2001, the two countries remained calm and the same happened during the February 2019 crisis.

Pakistani ballistic missiles which can carry nuclear heads at display (Wikimedia. Commons)

In conclusion

Pakistan is nowadays the only Muslim state that has acquired nuclear weapons and is a nuclear power. It has about 150 nuclear heads, although the exact numbers are not fully known. Its program began to meet the Pakistani energy needs, then evolved into a process of acquiring weapons for self-protection and prestige against the clearly superior in all sectors India. Now, its program is one of the fastest growing nuclear programs.

The development of the nuclear program was not easy. The obstacles were many and the process was slow. But the persistence of the governments coupled with the high level of foresight and the organization of some important people and their patriotism made the Asian nation a nuclear power and upgraded its geopolitical value. Now, it can continue to upgrade its nuclear program.

Regarding the risk of a nuclear war, there isn’t any danger, as neither Islamabad nor New Delhi want to get there. As far as safety is concerned, there is no risk since all the necessary measures are taken.

Proposed Sources

1)NTI, Pakistan, April 2016, access: 04 February 2019, https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/pakistan/ . In this site there is the interactive map that shows the nuclear facilities of Pakistan.

2)Federation of American Scientists, Pakistan nuclear weapons,  11 December 2002, access:05 March 2019, https://fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

3)Atomic Heritage Foundation, Pakistani nuclear program, 23 August 2018, access: 06 March 2019,  https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/pakistani-nuclear-program

4)The National Interest, Kylie Mizokami, Forget North Korea: Pakistan's nuclear weapons program is truly terrifying, 26 December 2019, access: 04 March 2019,  https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-north-korea-pakistans-nuclear-weapons-program-truly-terrifying-45632

5) CIA- Directorate of Intelligence, Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program: personnel and organization, September 1999, access: 07 March 2019,  https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000252646.pdf

6) Federation of American Scientists, Hans M. Kristensen, Robert S. Norris,  Status of world nuclear forces,  (update: November 2018), access: 10 March 2019, https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/