Who is confronting for the Nile?: the water policy in eastern Africa

The Nile is known to be a "gift" for the countries it is going through. A lot of people gather on its banks, crops grow and it is the main source of water for every use.

But the policies of some of the countries that it goes through make it a "curse". In particular, when it comes to states in a geographical area which is threatened by water scarcity, power games tend to cause friction. This situation characterizes the relationship between Egypt and Ethiopia in eastern Africa, while neighboring states are involved.

Overview of The Nile. As it is obvious, it's a large river and it is of vital importance for the world. (Credits: Marwa Saleh- Pixabay).

The goals of Ethiopia

In 2011, the government of Meles Zenawi announced the construction of a large dam at the Ethiopian-Sudan border. Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) would be built in Benishangul-Gumuz Province, which is supplied by the Nile. The construction contract was ratified at the Italian construction company Salini Costruttori. Its cost is $4-5 billion. It would be the seventh largest dam in the world. It was primarily aimed at generating hydroelectricity that would be enough for Ethiopia to supply all its provinces with electricity and to export energy. Secondarily, the water areas that would be created would contribute to the growth of crops. Ethiopia would therefore provide large sums of energy to support its development, while it would be turned into a regional energy hub. Construction works commenced this year.

The project was planned to be constructed relatively late given its size, the geographical area in which it would be built and the relocation of numerous people who were in the region. However, despite the difficulties, both the Hailemariam Desalegn (2012-2018) and Abiy Ahmed Ali (2018-) governments remain firm in implementing the decision for the construction. There were reactions, but they did not discourage the Ethiopian leaderships.

The Egyptian attitude

The announcement of the construction of the GERD took place at a critical moment in Egypt. In April 2011, the North African country was rocked by the "Arab Spring" and the Mubarak regime had collapsed. The political vacuum was temporarily covered by a government coming from the Armed Forces, but instability and insecurity within the country did not allow it to deal with the matter closely. The restoration of order and the preservation of secularism were the main targets of the new government.

The Morsi's government was intensively involved in this issue. At the beginning of June 2013, on the eve of the overthrow of the Egyptian president, Egyptian politicians made clear that due to the security issues caused by the construction of the dam, Egypt was thinking of supporting Ethiopian insurgents to sabotage it! Such statements became public and caused reactions from Addis Ababa. The Egyptian government had publicly apologized, but at the same time, Morsi did not rule out any possibility of a reaction in case the security of the country's waters was threatened. Eventually, with bilateral actions, the crisis was spilled without any unexpected events.

The new government of Abdel Sisi also dealt with the issue and held a strong stance. Initially, it tried to stop the construction of the dam. If that were not successful, then Egypt would be forced to defend its historical interests. Indeed, there was information about the possible use of bases in Eritrea by the Egyptian Air Force to press the Ethiopian government to stop the construction works. The stay of military jets near the dam would be hung like a barrier over Ethiopia. These moves prompted reactions, but the situation was not reached a point of conflict. However, Cairo, seeing that dynamic policies do not have a serious impact and that the construction has not been completed due to economic reasons is now holding a softer stance.

Sudan

Another "player" involved in the spiral of geopolitics of waters is Sudan. Given that the Nile passes through the country and offers opportunities for jobs and survival, the construction of the dam on the border with Ethiopia is concerned with it. Of course, the government of the newly overturned Omar al-Bashir did not appear to hold a dynamic stance after 2011. Although it was a close associate of Egypt, Khartoum's attitude was not arrogant and was in favor of cooperation. It did not worry as much as Egypt. The political upheaval in the African country nowadays has turned the concern towards that issue, but the next leadership will be forced to take a decision for the Sudanese policy concerning the dam and the relationship with Egypt.

The Nile basin. You can see the White and the Blue Nile and their course. This map proves the value of that river. (Source: Wikimedia. Commons) 

The issue

But why does such a construction project cause so many reactions and controversies? The answer is simple and complex at the same time. Initially, it is necessary to make a concise description of the geography of the Nile's course. The Nile may have been connected primarily with Egypt - and not unfairly but its sources originate from central and eastern Africa. More specifically, the sources in the central part of the "black" continent are located on Lake Victoria in Uganda. From there, the river flows to the north, entering South Sudan and reaching Khartoum in Sudan. The part of the river passing through the two Sudanic states is called the White Nile.

The other part from which the largest river in the world flows is the Ethiopian lake named Tana, in the east of the country. The Blue Nile, as it is called, flows to Khartoum, where it joins the White Nile. From the Sudanese capital, the African river continues its course through Egypt and flows into the Mediterranean Sea. It is a vital waterway for both east Africa and the rest of the world. Hundreds of millions of people live on its banks, while states have income from activities next to it. Consequently, any control or exploitation of its waters makes some countries vulnerable. Egypt is not an exception. It is strongly dependent on the river for its survival.

The problem, therefore, with the GERD lies in the fact that it is constructed at the beginning of the estuary of the river. Due to the nature of the construction of the dam, it is expected that the volume of its water will be reduced by 25%, which, although it seems small, irreparably affects the Egyptian economy and society. Egypt "lives" by the Nile, secures the largest quantities of drinking water from it, millions of Egyptians survive on its banks and its history with the river is interwoven. Still, it does not have a comprehensive and effective internal water management strategy. Therefore, this problem becomes dangerous and fairly it can be considered a security issue for the country. It is no accident that Sisi in 2017 said "no one can touch Egypt's water". The water for Africa is a precious good and in the case of the Nile and Egypt, this is very obvious.

The Ethiopian government, however, has a modest attitude. It is willing to discuss with Egypt, while it says that it does not intend to hurt the Egyptians. Its goal is to help raise the standard of living of Ethiopians. But the completion of the construction is delaying, which makes it difficult for the Abiy government to achieve the national targets.

Strangely, Sudan keeps a conciliatory and moderate attitude. Regardless of the fall of Bashir, as long as he was in power, he did not cause tension. His attitude is weird because he was not only an ally of Egypt but also because Sudan is losing arable land. Due to the process of desertification, fertile land is being destroyed and if the flow of Nile's waters is reduced, the situation will become worse. Therefore, whoever takes over the authority in Khartoum will have to solve this security issue.

It is obvious, therefore, that environmental reasons cause the Egypt-Ethiopian conflict. At the same time, there is a competition of power and influence. In particular, Egypt never hid its desire for sovereignty in Africa. Until recently, it was regarded as one of the most powerful countries of the "black" continent. It also intends to become a regional energy hub. With Sisi in power, the willing of national greatness becomes more perceptible. It is no coincidence that he strengthens its country's participation in energy regional blocs, while being president of the African Union, he has traveled to many African countries to prepare the environment for Egyptian investors to enter. Already, he is successful. Still, Egypt has the greatest benefits of exploiting the Nile.

At this juncture, the Egyptian leadership feels that it loses influence and will continue to lose. The upgrading of Ethiopia's position as demonstrated above and the acquisition of a large share of the river's exploitation affect the interests of Egypt. Ethiopia is turning into a "rival awe" for Cairo, and this is something the Egyptian elite cannot accept. Ultimately, geopolitical interests are ubiquitous.

In conclusion

In conclusion, the situation on the Cairo-Khartoum-Addis Ababa axis is characterized by periods of tension and periods of recession and resilience. This is because it has not yet been clarified the frame regarding the exploitation of Nile waters and because power games do not allow it. In addition, the crisis also illustrates the tragic situation in which the environment is. Last but not least, the fact that third countries are also involved makes the confrontation even more complicated to get solved.

Of course, this does not mean that the problem should not be tackled effectively. There are ways to prevent the crisis from exacerbating. Political will is required as well as multilateral cooperation. There are institutions that offer a negotiating framework, and it is good to use them. Also, the United Nations, the European Union and the African Union can intervene to create a base for a debate. Anyway, the ultimate goal is not innocent people who survive because of the river to be harmed from geopolitical games. It is up to the governments to work together to ensure a better future for their peoples.

Supporting Sources

 Azza Radwan Sedky, Ahram Online, Egypt’s leadership in Africa, 18 April 2019, http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/4/330255/Opinion/Egypt%E2%80%99s-leadership-in-Africa.aspx (access: 19 April  2019)

Barfi Barak, The Washington Institute, Breaking the stalemate in the Egypt- Ethiopia Dam dispute, 28 August 2018,  https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/breaking-the-stalemate-in-the-egypt-ethiopia-dam-dispute (access: 19 April 2019).

Hussein Hassen, Al- Jazeera, Egypt and Ethiopia spar over the Nile, 06 February 2014,   http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/egypt-disputes-ethiopiarenaissancedam.html   (access: 2o April 2019).

  

Baconi Tarek, European Council on Foreign Relations, The end is Nile: international cooperation on Egypt’s water crisis, 25 July 2018,  https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_end_is_nile_international_cooperation_on_egypts_water_crisis    (access: 20 April 2019). 

Wikipedia

New Article

Hello! A new article of the politics concerning The Nile is coming. Stay tuned! 

The violent environmental changes and the humanity: from the Sea Peoples to the modern environmental migrants

The world in flames. Credit: Darwin Laganzon- Pixabay

One of the concepts that is often mentioned in recent years is that of environmental security. Its violation causes many problems. Of course, this fact does not seem to worry and concern the strong leaders of the Earth. It worries and affects the rest of the people globally, though.

Migration and refugee flows have increased. Wars and poverty are some of the reasons. Another important reason associated with those mentioned above is the alteration of the natural environment. The deterioration affects people's lives and urges them to wars; it causes the deterioration of their economic situation; it pushes them to travel to other places and provokes famines. Of course, because of the above, the states are also affected, while the security system - regional and global - is being destroyed.

History can only be the main source of interpreting what is happening now and what will happen in the future. The Late Bronze Age (1200-900 BC) can be considered as the starting point for this article. At that era there were some disruptions that were mainly due to environmental factors. An extended period of drought, volcanic eruptions in various parts of the world and violent changes in the temperature of the environment led to famine and to the deterioration in the living conditions of peoples near the Mediterranean. At the same time, they accelerated the decline of the state system of the era by weakening the palatial centers in the Aegean Sea and the Middle East. The combination of these events was to be disastrous.

From Late Bronze Age to Late Antiquity

Indeed, during the period mentioned, a mass movement of peoples took place. The pursuit of finding a suitable living environment  resulted in the appearance of the Sea Peoples, a mixture of people from different places. Lycians, Danaoi, Achaeans, Philistines, Sardinians, Sicilians and others carried out an extensive raid campaign with disastrous results. Major cities in Asia Minor (Troy, Miletus, Hattusa), Cyprus (Kition, Eknomi), and the Middle East widely (Byblos, Askalon, Qadesh, Aleppo, Ugarit) were destroyed, while many areas were deserted. The movement of the Sea Peoples was disrupted in Egypt. The country under Ramses III had experienced difficulties because of the general environmental change, but it had retained its structures. It was natural, therefore, to be the last target of the invaders, given that they had ravaged the surrounding area. The pharaoh was prepared for war and in 1178 BC the Battle of the Nile Delta between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians took place. The latter achieved a great victory by halting the assault and saving their country. Egypt did not have the fate of other Near East powers that were exhausted.

These movements and battles were of historic importance. Most of the Late Bronze Age system collapsed. From 1000 to 800 BC, the eastern Mediterranean region is going through a period of "darkness" until it reappears as an important "workshop" of human history. It is a fact, however, that the collapse of the environmental security system along with other factors contributed to damaging the security system of various state entities, to exterminating a multitude of people and changing the  history.

Environmental factors would contribute with others to the fall of another powerful empire, Rome. In the 2nd century AD, the Roman Empire numbered tens of millions of population and occupied a vast area for the time. However, this strength would also be one of the reasons for it to fall. The environmental factor is evident in the phenomenon of deforestation. Throughout the Roman territory, a massive gathering of timber began. The reasons were shipbuilding, housing construction due to urbanization and the acquisition of heat sources. Physically, the soil became drier, its quality was deteriorated, the crops could not thrive and some species of animals disappeared. In the middle of the 3rd century AD, a large part of the empire was affected by long-term drought and even the Nile did not manage to irrigate the required land in order the required food to be produced. If in the above context we add the economic crisis, various illnesses that plagued the population and political controversies, the first negative signs were visible to the Romans.

Within this frame, various peoples in Rome's near territories began to move within the boundaries of the empire. This was the beginning of the Immigration Period. The protagonists were the German peoples who were forced to migrate south due to their overcrowding and the difficult environmental conditions that occurred in the form of heavy cold. This immigration evolved into a series of raids and wars that led to the general decay of the Roman imperial system, in the break-up of the Western Roman Empire and the occupation of Rome by Odoacer and his men in 476 AD.

However, the Eastern Roman Empire would also experience the negative consequences of a breach of environmental security. In the middle of the 6th century AD, due to a volcanic eruption somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, climatic conditions changed violently. The climate was cooled sharply and food production was reduced irreparably. Also, one year there was no summer because of the cold. In Northern Europe, as a result, the living conditions became intolerable. Thus, new migratory flows began to descend to the south. This time, the protagonists were the Slavs. The descent of the Slavs and their confrontation would be a major issue for many Byzantine emperors and would cause turbulence in the Byzantine lands. Furthermore, it transformed the ethnic map of the Balkans. Still, another peoples who moved to the Italian peninsula were the Lombards who established their presence there. Once again, changes in the natural environment together with other causes contributed to the reformulation of the historical map.

The fate of the Mediterranean world in the Late Bronze Age and that of Rome in Late Antiquity are proofs of how environmental change has a share of violent historical changes. So big a migration accompanied by disasters and conflicts has not taken place since then. As a consequence, changes in the natural environment have resulted in humanitarian crises, but not to the extent of the two above-mentioned historical examples. However, human existence is interwoven with the natural environment in which it lives. That is why in the history, natural phenomena always influence the human lives.

A map that depicts the migration of the peoples outside the roman territory. The Western and Eastern Roman Empire faced several problems due to, among others, the deterioration of the environmental conditions. The flows of "ancient" migrants were mostly violent and led to the collapse of Rome. It is obvious that the direction of the flows is from the north to the south. (source: Commons.Wikimedia).

The new frame 

The need to protect the environment and to cultivate environmental consciousness was more severe in the first post-Cold War period. The discovery of the ozone hole and the fall of the USSR that shifted the debate from the hard core of security to new forms of it (environmental, energy, social, economic etc) were two of the most important factors for the entry of ecology into public debate. From the dawn of the 21st century AD another concept has been introduced, which is indicative of the crisis underlying our natural environment. This concept refers to the person who is forced to leave his place of residence not because of a war but because of sudden changes in the natural environment that cause natural disasters. The term environmental migrant is mentioned to this person. Of course, this term is new and questionable, but it clearly reflects a new challenge for humanity and sounds the alarm of the negative consequences of the irrational destruction of the Nature.

The figures are relentless. In 2009, 17 million people left their homes worldwide due to natural disasters. In 2010, this figure climbed to 42 million. In 2008, the number of displaced persons amounted to 32 million. In 2009, most displaced people were identified in India, followed by China and the Philippines. Natural disasters have forced people to flee their homes in Indonesia. The characteristic feature is that environmental migrants mostly live within their own countries and do not move to other states. The phenomenon was observed in an upsurge in Asia. In 2010, Asia again held the scepter on the number of displaced people. The first country was China and was followed by Pakistan. Movements have also occurred in Latin America due to earthquakes in Chile and Haiti and the catastrophic floods in Colombia. Although the movements of peoples remained within states, they were challenged those due to the need to aid the victims.

The melting of the ice in the South and North Pole will have tremendous consequences for many countries and their citizens. Parts and cities of several countries will be covered by water and the life of their residents will be in danger. Worth mentioning are countries like Nigeria, Bangladesh, Netherlands, Belgium, Indonesia. (Source: Pixabay, Credits: cocoparisienne).

At the same time, the destruction of the environment and the conflicts that this provokes began to appear in Nigeria. Because multinational energy companies exploit the African country's mineral wealth and the federal government is indifferent, living conditions in some parts of the Nigerian countryside are becoming intolerable for human needs. Western multinational companies do not take care of the protection of natural resources, resulting in soil and water infection. This forces many locals to arm themselves and commit looting and kidnappings. They ask for ransoms and with this money they buy food and other goods. Still, due to desertification, rural tribes in the central part of the country struggle with each other for the possession of fertile land. Finally, it is not unlikely that the Islamic Boko Haram organization in the north recruits fighters from tribes that face a survival problem as a consequence of environmental pollution. The result? The government is sending military forces to neutralize the enemy armed forces at the same time as ethnic-racial conflicts are taking place. Thus, a small-scale civil war is being carried out, which in the period 2015-2017 almost caused the collapse of the state with the victories of Nigerian Islamic militants. Ultimately, the state was not collapsed but it paid a hefty price to human lives and material disasters. Despite the current recession, Nigeria is a typical example of a country that any massive change in the environmental conditions will affect its survival.

In conclusion

The world is now in a critical situation in terms of maintaining the natural environment. Global warming, ozone hole growth, desertification, soil erosion, aquifer contamination, water retention and the unlimited human intervention in nature for all kinds of work are issues of human and environmental security. They are good reasons to cause global upheavals with massive people's movements and outbursts of local conflicts. One can assert, without exaggerating, that humanity, if the above problems are not addressed, is in danger of a rapid decline in its size or even in danger of its extinction. Of course, the number of environmental migrants will be increased.

Climate change since ancient times has affected people's lives. History teaches, and the lesson we receive is that sudden changes in the natural environment cause problems and turbulence in many parts of the world. The point of focus is the human who, in his/her endeavor to survive, resorts to all kinds of actions. The two major historical catastrophes prove this claim. It is worthwhile mentioning that environmental conditions do not work on their own, but they support the big changes. Nowadays, states are experiencing great challenges at a global level. The environment is at risk and the current conjuncture begins to resemble the two historical examples mentioned. Gradual consolidation of the concepts of environmental migrant and environmental security demonstrate that the environment is also endangered by humanity. It is up to us to deal successfully with this critical situation, since there is still room for action that did not exist in ancient times.

Proposed Sources

Chukwuma Muanya, Guardian Nigeria, 21 September 2017, How climate change, conflicts could wipe out humans by 2100,  https://guardian.ng/features/science/how-climate-change-conflicts-could-wipe-out-humans-by-2100/  access: 26 March 2019.

The other source from which I found the numbers of environmental migrants due to a problem is not presented. However, I can assure you that they are from an official source.

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/