Re: [A-List] Geostrategic imperatives

At 07/11/2001 08:49, Michael Keaney wrote:

 > the post-Cold War era, far
>from ushering in a "new world order", threatened global anarchy instead.

Pakistan appears to be on the verge of collapse. If there is an 
anti-Musharraf coup by pro-Taleban elements within the Pakistani 
intelligence service and armed forces, how wide will popular support be for 
such a coup? According to media reports, the Americans are preparing to 
insert large troop formations to secure Pakistan's stockpile of nuclear 
warheads (estimated at 30-60 weapons). Any American intervention is bound 
to meet stiff resistance from the Pakistan army, for whom the nuclear 
'crown jewels' are not merely military assets but iconic symbols of 
national power and sovereignty.

If Pakistan erupts in civil war and revolution,effectively  there will soon 
be a revolutionary-military bloc comprising Pakistan and Afghanistan, 
nuclear-armed and able to defend itself. This Islamic revolutionary bloc 
will confront Russia and its proxies to the north, Iran to the west and 
India to the south, in addition to whatever armed formations the Western 
powers are able to introduce.

Pakistan's nuclear warheads were built with Chinese technical help. Will 
China sit on its hands and allow its main ally in the region be overwhelmed 
by its traditional enemies?

In the event of a pro-Taleban revolutionary regime emerging in Pakistan, 
what will happen to Pakistan's close neighbours in the Gulf States and 
above all Saudi Arabia? What effect will the shockwaves have in 
Israel/Palestine? What will the Sharon government's response be to the 
appearance of a nuclear-capable Taleban-backed Pakistan?

History appears to have reached a bifurcation of roads. The only certain 
thing is that the pre-September 11 world-system has vanished. Even if by 
some fate of political legerdemain the Bush regime manages to hang on  in 
South Asia and restabilise its strategic positions there, without recourse 
to general war--in other words, even if the Bush regime shows enough acumen 
to avoid the abyss (likely, given the record?)--there will be a big shake 
up and massive losers--and winners.

It is hard to see any kind of outcome which is satisfactory to US interests 
or favourable to the US version of 'world civilisation'.

The consequences in Russia must also be monumental, if it turns out that at 
the very moment Putin has thrown his lot in with the West, the entire basis 
of US global hegemony unravels, turning south and central Asia into a 
boiling cauldron which no-one can put the lid back on. If Putin's great 
gamble fails, there will be a seismic change in Russia too.


Mark Jones