Pakistan Army says defence budget for 2022-23 decreases from 2.8per cent of the GDP to 2.2 per cent
India’s GDP ($2.95 trillion) for 2021 is while Pakistan’s is $347.743 billion. With Gross Domestic Product in trillions, India’s the volume of defence outlay becomes much greater than Pakistan’s. India’s GDP is behind that of the US ($22.9 trillion), China ($16.9 trillion), Japan ($5.1 trillion), Germany ($4.2 trillion), and the UK ($3.1 trillion) but ahead of France’s 2.94 trillion (International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2021).
India showcases its defence expenditure on web sites, but, Pakistan mentions thm in one line in the demands for grants. The legislators apathetic to knowing the details. The defence officials, including the defence secretary has in the past expressed keen desire to show any detail to legislators.
The parliamentarians lack the ability to scrutinise the budget. Budgetary analysis is a technical task which could be done only by qualified people in ministries. Lt Gen Attiqur Rehman in Our Defence Cause says: “In a democracy, the defence services belong to the people through their representatives in parliament. Thus, the people have the right to know what is going on, how their money is being spent, and how the defence services are being managed and administered. In fact, they have a right to know everything, except details of the actual war plans.”
Pakistan’s defence demands undergo a rigorous scrutiny by relevant parliamentary committees and audit bodies. Legislators and MoD babus are properly briefed about need for provisions. Whenever demanded, the details of the defence budget for the current, as well as for the coming, financial year were placed before the parliament. Even the expenditure on Zarb-e-Azb appeared more than once in media.
Most legislators lack acumen to analyse numerical rigmarole. So they themselves do not wish to be bothered with the job being done by competent professionals in various ministries and parliamentary committees.
Pakistan should separate expenditure of forces to defend China Pakistan Economic Corridor and key installations including parliament from normal demands for defence grants.
A bitter lesson of history is that only such states survived as were able to strike a balance between constraints of security and welfare. Garrison or warrior states vanished as if they never existed.
A common feature of all strong states had been that they had strong military and civil institutions, de jure capability to defend their territory and policies that favoured the citizenry rather than dominant classes — feudal lords, industrial robber barons and others.
No standard definition of India’s defence budget
Take military pensions. They are clubbed under provisions of “civil ministries”, or separately. Many provisions of quasi-military nature are excluded from the defence outlay. Examples of such provisions are border and strategic roads, public sector undertakings mentioned under the Defence ministry separately. The provisions in MoD have capital outlays. They are not classified under military expenditure of the three services. The The nuclear research (bomb making) expenditure is not treated as a military expense.
After a tiff with China, considerable money was spent on infrastructure in Ladakh, and Arunachal Pradesh. This expenditure is of military nature. Presenting the Union Budget 2022-23 in Parliament on February 1st, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced, among many others, an increase in allocations for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) by 9.8 percent to INR 5.25 trillion (USD 70.6 billion). The near double-digit rise in the defence allocation comes amidst India’s ongoing military stand-off with China in eastern Ladakh, which is yet to be diffused at the time of writing this article.
India has a vast array of para military forces like the Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force. They are as good as the “regulars”. Expenditure on them is of military nature. The para-military forces spare the “regulars” for other duties.
At us prodding, India revised its maritime strategy in 2015 to “Ensuring Secure Seas”. The previous strategy was “Freedom to Use the Seas. To implement the new strategy, India built the
India took up the development of the Sittwe Port in Myanmar as part of the Kaladan multi-modal transit transport project for building a multi-modal sea, river and road transport corridor for shipment of cargo from the eastern ports of India to Myanmar through Sittwe. India upgraded its existing listening post in northern Madagascar. India has obtained access to the US naval base in Diego Garcia, and to the French naval bases in Mayotte and Reunion islands, besides the Australian naval base in Cocos (Keeling. Robert Kaplan, in his book, Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and Future of American Power, argues that the geopolitics of the twenty-first century will hinge on the Indian Ocean. Waters of the Indian Ocean reach 28 countries which together account for 35 percent of the world’s population and 19 per cent of the world’s Gross Domestic Product. Sixty per cent of the world’s oil shipments from the Gulf countries to China, Japan and other Asian countries pass through these waters which host 23 of the world’s busiest ports.
India is emerging as the US proxy against rising China, which is determined to surpass the USA in GDP by 2027. India is opposed to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Besides, it uses its aid, trade and border contiguity to obstruct Chinese influence in Bhutan, Nepal, and Bangladesh.
At India’s bidding, those countries toe the Indian line in SAARC and other international forums like G-20. In 2005, Washington expressed its intention to help India become a major world power in the 21st century (according to K. Alan Kronsstadt, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 13 February 2007). It was later re-affirmed by Ambassador David Mulford in a US Embassy press in 2005. The USA’s resolve later translated into modification of domestic laws to facilitate export of sensitive military technology to India. The Nuclear Supplier Group also relaxed its controls to begin exports to India’s civilian nuclear reactor (enabling India to divert resources to military use).
Raj Mohan, Shyam Saran and several others point out that India follows Kautliya’s mandala (concentric, asymptotic and intersecting circles, inter-relationships) doctrine in foreign policy. It is akin to Henry Kissinger’s `spheres of influence’. According to this doctrine ‘all neighbouring countries are actual or potential enemies’. However, short-run policy should be based on common volatile, dynamic, mercurial interests, like the intersection of two sets.
Former Indian foreign secretary, Shyam Saran in his book How India Sees the World says, ‘Kautliyan [Chanakyan] template would say the options for India are sandhi, conciliation; asana, neutrality; and yana, victory through war. One could add dana, buying allegiance through gifts; and bheda, sowing discord. The option of yana, of course would be the last in today’s world’ (p. 64, ibid.). It appears that Kautliya’s and Saran’s last-advised option is India’s first option, with regard to China and Pakistan, nowadays.
Raj Mohan elucidates India’s ambition, in terms of Kauliya’s mandala (inter-relationships), to emerge as South Asian hegemon in following words:
‘India’s grand strategy divides the world into three concentric circles. In the first, which encompasses the immediate neighbourhood, India has sought primacy and a veto over actions of outside powers. In the second who encompasses the so-called extended neighbourhood, stretching across Asia and the Indian Ocean littoral, India has sought to balance of other powers and prevent them from undercutting its interests. In the third, which includes the entire global stage, India has tried to take its place as one of the great power, a key player in international peace and security. (C. Raja Mohan, India and the Balance of Power, Foreign Affairs July-August 2006).
Henry Kissinger views Indian ambitions in the following words: ‘Just as the early American leaders developed in the Monroe Doctrine concept for America’s special role in the Western Hemisphere, so India has established in practice a special positioning of the Indian Ocean region between the East Indies and the horn of Africa. Like Britain with respect to Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, India strives to prevent the emergence of a dominant power in this vast portion of the globe. Just as early American leaders did not seek approval of the countries of the Western Hemisphere with respect to the Monroe Doctrine, so Indian in the region of its special strategic interests conducts its policy on the basis of its own definition of a South Asian order’ (World Order, New York, Penguin Press, 2014).
ZbigniewBrzeszinsky takes note of India’s ambition to rival China thus: ‘Indian strategies speak openly of greater India exercising a dominant position in an area ranging from Iran to Thailand. India is also position itself to control the Indian Ocean militarily, its naval and air power programs point clearly in that direction as do politically guided efforts to establish for Indi strong positions, with geostrategic implications in adjoining Bangladesh and Burma (Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power).
With tacit US support, India is getting tougher with China. There was a 73-day standoff on the Doklam Plateau near the Nathula Pass on the Sikkim border last year. Being at a disadvantage vis-à-vis India, China was compelled to resolve the stand-off through negotiations. China later developed high-altitude “electromagnetic catapult” rockets for its artillery units to liquidate the Indian advantage there, as also in Tibet Autonomous Region. China intends to mount a magnetically-propelled high-velocity rail-gun on its 055-class under-construction missile destroyer 055.
The Indian navy wants a 200-ship strong fleet by 2027. The Navy wants to procure six new conventional submarines and 111 Naval Utility Helicopters to replace the vintage fleet of Chetaks. The IAF wants to procure 114 new fighters besides the 36 Rafales ordered in 2015, still in process
Social cost of military spending: Back in 1996-97, British Labour Party Defence Study Group tried to highlight defence burden on public exchequer. In that report, they drew comparisons between the defence and social costs. For instance, £ 7,000 million cost of the Tornado multi-role combat aircraft project was more than the total cost of Britain’s health and personal social services projects for 1976-77. £ 16 million price of the Frigate Ambuscade could provide a new 50S-bed hospital in Bangor. The submarine Superb was more expensive than building 4,000 new homes.
Colossal expenditure on conventional weapons by a nuclear power is not understood. Nuclear deterrence does not mean matching bomb for bomb. India should carry out a similar cost-benefit study of its military expenditure.
Social cost of military expenditure: Miserable lifestyle
During COVID 19 surge people dumped the dead bodies of their kith and kin in rivers. They could not afford to buy costly wood to arrange a decent cremation.
Nearly half of India’s 1.2 billion people have no toilet at home. Yet more people own a mobile phone, according to the latest census data. Only 46.9 percent of the 246.6 million households have lavatories while 49.8% defecate in the open.
Most Indians don’t use toilet paper and consider it cleaner to use other materials to wipe their bottom, such as newspapers, leaves and sand.Modi’s Clean India (Swach Bharat) remained a tall claim as most toilets disintegrated due to disuse or substandard quality. According to the health ministry’s 2012 Survey, of the 97.3 million toilets `built’, the ministry’s 2012 survey suggests that at least 27.64 million toilets are defunct.
According to India’s census of household amenities and assets, the majority of Indians have a miserable lifestyle. The survey indicated that the Indian government’s priorities for ameliorating lot of the common man were wrong. For instance, the government keeps fuming and fretting about the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) subsidy. But, only about 18 percent of fortunate families use LPG as fuel in their everyday life. Majority of the surveyed families used dung cakes, or firewood to cook. Only six per cent of the families have a car, with or without the LPG facility.
The survey further indicated: (a) Majority of the people are shelter-less and without any public-health cover. About six people live in one house. There are 179 million residential houses. Interestingly, `house’ means one room for about 40 per cent of Indian families. As such, about 40 percent of married people do not enjoy the luxury of an independent sleeping room. (b) Most `houses’, so called, are without toilets. (c) Only half the population (52%) lives in `houses’ with walls and roofs. The rest live shelter-less in the open air. (d) Only 56 per cent of the `houses’ are blessed with electricity. Even in the prosperous Punjab, four lakh households are without electricity. The survey negated the common impression that 100% households in Punjab had electricity. Not a single state provides electricity to 100 per cent of its households. The situation in Bihar is the most miserable. There, only 10 per cent of Bihar state’s 14 million households get electricity, and the 90 per cent remain without it.
The survey found that only 38% families have water. The tapped water supply, besides being erratic, is generally unhygienic. Water is supplied for only a few hours, four hours at the most. About 62 per cent of the families, that is 118 million households; do not have access to drinking water at home. In rural areas, about five million families still fetch drinking water from nearby ponds, tanks, rivers and springs.
One starling finding of the Survey was that the development expenditures were oriented towards the rich (urban areas). This trend has perpetuated the rural urban divide. The urban-rural divide is most pronounced when it comes to electricity supply. About 88 per cent families in urban areas vis-à-vis 44 per cent in rural areas have access to electricity. Almost half of the rural `houses’ are still lit with kerosene.
Urban areas are better in fuel consumption also. Over 22 million Indian families (12 per cent households) still cook under the sky. But, 76 percent of urban households have separate kitchens in their homes. Whether or not there is a kitchen, firewood is still the most widely used fuel with over 52.5 per cent Indians depending on it.
Surprisingly, even 23 per cent urban families use firewood for cooking. About 10 per cent rural households use crop residue as fuel. Besides, cow- dung cake as fuel is used by 9.8 per cent (The meager use of biogas, even in villages, reflects failure of the Indian government to promote biogas in villages).
About 23% urban families have phones as compared to only 4% rural families. Cars are, practically, an anathema for the rural population. As for urban families, only six per cent of the overall households surveyed have a car. But, 13% of the Delhi-resident families have cars (highest average among the cities).
Majority of the Indians live in a Sahara of subhuman conditions. There are oases of affluence, unnoticed and un-taxed by the government’s policy makers. For instance, 11 per cent of Delhi’s 3.3 million houses are vacant. Gujarat has 14 per cent houses vacant.
For about a third of even urban Indian families, a house does not include a kitchen, a bathroom, and a toilet. And, in many cases, no power and water supply(Indian express dated February 9, 2004 .Figuring India Shining India?)
Take a look at these figures and feel not-so-good”) published the following pathetic profile of true India: “260 million people below poverty line,60 million of under four-year-olds are moderately or severely malnourished, 87 % women are anaemic,60 % children are anaemic,25 million are without shelter,171 million have no access to safe drinking water, 290 million adults are illiterate, 53 % of below five-year-olds are underweight, 4.4 doctors per 10,000 people (Source: Planning Commission)”.
Way out: Peace with neighbours: Pakistan’s founder Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah cherished the desire for lasting Indo-Pak peace even before creation of Pakistan. During his last days, The Quaid was perturbed at the Cold War rivalry emerging between the USA and the USSR.
The Quaid keenly desired that the subcontinent and all of South Asia should remain aloof from the rivalry. Therefore, he proposed a joint defence pact with India. Had India accepted his idea, the two countries would not have been at daggers drawn after independence.
Before his final flight (Aug 7, 1947) from Delhi to Pakistan, he sent a message to the Indian government, “the past must be buried and let us start as two independent sovereign states of Hindustan and Pakistan, I wish Hindustan prosperity and peace.” Vallabhbhai Patel replied from Delhi “the poison has been removed from the body of India. As for the Muslims, they have their roots, their sacred places and their centres here. I do not know what they can possibly do in Pakistan. It will not be long before they return to us.”
Even Nehru, an ostensibly liberal leader, regarded the creation of Pakistan as a blunder. His rant against Pakistan reaches a crescendo in his remarks: “I shall not have that carbuncle on my back.” (D. H. Bhutani, The Future of Pakistan, page 14). Will India stop its worldwide defence purchases to open a new chapter in relations with Pakistan?
India’s rising defence outlays ratchet up Pak defence allocations. Let India lower her expenditure first! It should be a leader to compel Pakistan to follow suit. It must shun hegemonic designs.
Any analysis of India’s military expenditure should be based on actual Demands for Grants coupled with Explanatory Memoranda. The allocations concealed under civil ministries outlays should be ferreted out and added to military allocations. The successive increases are revised and then actual budget estimates should be taken into account.
The colossal increase in big brother’s military budget is untenable in light of its teeming millions living below the poverty line.
U.S & UK Announce Aim to Create New Anti-Russia Military Alliance
Mr. Amjed Jaaved has been contributing free-lance for over five decades. His contributions stand published in the leading dailies at home and abroad (Nepal. Bangladesh, et. al.). He is author of seven e-books including Terrorism, Jihad, Nukes and other Issues in Focus (ISBN: 9781301505944). He holds degrees in economics, business administration, and law.
Lithuania to lose confidence for German troops in near future
U.S & UK Announce Aim to Create New Anti-Russia Military Alliance
Where is ASEAN amidst the rise of protectionism?
US national policy regarding the nuclear threat in the Russo-Ukrainian war
Because of their unexpected difficulties in getting Ukraine and Finland into their existing anti-Russia military alliance, NATO; both the U.S. and the UK Governments are now trying to create a new anti-Russian military alliance consisting of only themselves plus nations that border on Russia, so that U.S. & UK nuclear missiles can become posted onto Russia’s border a mere five-minutes-flying-time away from their blitz-nuclear-annihilating Moscow — too short a time for Russia to be able to launch its retaliatory weapons. The goal is to conquer Russia in such a fast manner that Russia won’t be able to retaliate to a sudden U.S. and UK nuclear attack. Ever since at least 2006, the goal has been to do this (it’s called “Nuclear Primacy” — the ability for the U.S. to win a nuclear war against Russia). However, obtaining this result from NATO is turning out to be too slow, if it will be able to be achieved, at all. And, therefore, the U.S. and UK Governments have designed an alternative method, which might be quicker.
So far as is yet publicly known, this plan originated not in Washington but in London; however, the “Special Relationship” that exists between those two Governments is so intimate so that a proposal of this type would almost certainly have been worked out carefully between those two Governments before anything became publicly known about it. Furthermore, the core military nature of this alliance has been carefully hidden in the publicly available verbiage regarding it, so that it is publicly known as being an alternative to the EU, not to NATO — the military alliance, which it clearly is, and has been motivated as being.
On May 26th, Federico Fubini, of the Milan newspaper Corriere della Sera, headlined “Boris Johnson’s secret plan to divide Ukraine from Russia and the EU: the European Commonwealth” (“Il piano segreto di Boris Johnson per dividere l’Ucraina da Russia e Ue: il Commonwealth europeo”), and he reported that ever since Johnson’s surprise visit to Kiev on April 9th, Johnson has been hoping to create an “alternative to the European Union” but which would really be more of an alternative to NATO, and it wouldn’t allow in any countries that aren’t rabidly hostile toward Russia (such as Turkey or Hungary) any power to veto its actions (actions such as to station U.S and/or UK troops and missiles in Ukraine or Finland on or near Russia’s border and close especially to Moscow — Russia’s central command).
Johnson’s plan is that if, when the European Summit convenes on June 23rd, Zelensky turns out to be dissatisfied with the assurances that he will be receiving from the EU regarding Ukraine’s becoming an EU member (which would be a necessary prelude to NATO membership), then “Zelensky would take Boris Johnson’s alternative offer more seriously.”
On June 15th, Russia’s RT News bannered “US backs idea of another military bloc: Washington would support a possible security alliance between the UK, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States, the US envoy to NATO says”, and reported that: “The US Permanent Representative to NATO, Julianne Smith, said on Tuesday that Washington would ‘want to support’ the idea of a new security alliance, which could reportedly include Ukraine, the UK, Poland, the Baltic States, and possibly Turkey.” Turkey is part of this plan because its two straits, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, control access to and exit from the Black Sea — Russia’s main coast-line — and thus U.S. Navy access to possibly decimating Russia’s navy in Crimea, which would be an important part of conquering Russia. If Turkey won’t join this new alliance, then the U.S. Government will presumably attempt another coup to replace Turkey’s government.
These would be the U.S. and UK “Plan b” in case NATO turns out to be insufficiently united to terminate Russia’s independence.
The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) entitles Pakistan’s military diplomacy as “more action, fewer words”. Defence Diplomacy, usually termed as Military Diplomacy has been in vogue for quite some time now. In today’s modern world, this has become even more crucial when you have to achieve national objectives like economy, diplomacy and security. These three strands have become interchangeable today because economy, diplomacy and security all depend on each other to achieve “soft power” goals of the state. The role of militaries then extends beyond the conventional hard power domain and puts them in supplementing national efforts as well to achieve national policy objectives. While considering the state of Pakistan and its geopolitical importance, Military diplomacy formula has played a pivotal role in fortifying our relations with foreign countries. The combined and bilateral military exercises with many countries such as US, Russia, China, Turkiye, Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries have paved the way for achievement of economic, military and diplomatic objectives of the country, with an overall improvement in the bilateral relations. The Army leadership’s visits to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, China and many other countries have supplemented the achievement of prime national objectives.
The recent visit of senior military officials headed by Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, Chief of Army Staff and delegation containing officers from all three services, as part of the Pakistan China Joint Military Cooperation Committee (PCJMCC) is a testimony to the military diplomacy of the current leadership. According to the statement issued by the military’s media wing on the visit “Pakistan and China reaffirmed their strategic partnership in challenging times and agreed to continue regular exchange of perspectives on issues of mutual interest. Both sides also vowed to enhance their training, technology and counterterrorism cooperation at tri service level.” This is all due to the Military to Military Cooperation that spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry Geng Shuang said in an official statement “General Bajwa is an extraordinary leader of Pakistan Army. He is old friend of Chinese government and the Chinese army. He made positive contributions for further development of China-Pakistan relations.” Military diplomacy with China took a new leap when General Bajwa after assuming command, visited China on an official invitation from Chinese President Xi Jinping. It is to be remembered that the 94th anniversary of the founding of Chinese Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) was commemorated at GHQ which was also an unprecedented event. However, the relations with China were being perceived to be turning a bit cold in the past government’s tenure because of the slow progress of work on CPEC Projects but this high level military delegation has also paved the way for a futuristic strategic partnership with China. In the evolving security milieu, the Pakistan-China strategic soft power partnership has become increasingly important for regional peace and stability and the big credit in building this soft power influence goes to General Bajwa’s doctrine of Military diplomacy.
Defense diplomacy in Pakistan has predominantly complimented the state institutions in achieving national objectives by providing economic anchorage. The war against terrorism in Pakistan and the overall improvement of the internal security paradigm are success stories that have created a safe environment for foreign investment. Undoubtedly, a safe environment gives investors’ confidence and boosts the tourism industry. With the development of very low cost and highly needed dams through the Frontier Works Organization (FWO), providing security to the Chamalang Coals mines, raising special wings to protect CPEC routes and developing CPEC road infrastructure, it gave the government the coveted economic leverage. The construction work on CPEC may also be accredited to military diplomacy. FWO developed the Kartarpur Corridor connecting Gurdwara Darbar Sahib in Pakistan and Gurudwara Dera Baba Nanak in India and continued to be the main organization for the construction of Gurdwara Darbar Sahib. This led to better relationships with the Sikh community, improving image of Pakistan as a safe place for other religions, and also promoting the religious tourism in the process.
Despite all security efforts to create a stable peaceful environment in Pakistan, it seemed that international cricket would never resume in the country. Inviting military teams from Australia, England and Sri Lanka to play cricket, thus changed international perception and provided confidence to the international teams. This soft prong of Proactive Defence diplomacy paved the way for the return of international cricket in the country. Pakistan’s military diplomacy has been acknowledged closer to home as well. Peace in Afghanistan is always relevant to the stability inside Pakistan. The role of Pakistan’s military in aiding the Afghan Peace Process has been widely recognized by the Western dignitaries. Zalmay Khalilzaad, US Special peace envoy to Afghanistan, gave his acknowledgments to Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff.
Defence diplomacy in Pakistan is thus more relevant than ever as these soft power tactics by the Pakistani military are contributing much in the national discourse.
Abstract: The nature of warfare has evolved continuously and in contemporary era the role of irregular wars along the spectrum of warfare has enhanced rapidly amid great power competition. This research paper tries to highlight the new concept of gray zone tactics, its application tools and implications on international system. How this dimension would manipulate the relations between state actors and impact the strategic lexicon. The research paper highlights that why is it necessary for statesmen to differentiate between the thin line of war and peace and assesses how is it impacting the relations among the competing powers.
In the contemporary era the spectrum of conflict has evolved over the years. Lines between war and peace have become the new arena of battlefield for various major actors in at the international level. This new irregular form of warfare has engaged states and non-states actors into a low intensity conflict which comprises using a mixture of elements including political, diplomatic, economic, military and non-conventional along with information and cyber warfare to pursue their objectives. The increasing turmoil caused by increasing ingression, physical intervention, economic and diplomatic coercion by major powers such as US, Russia with use of regular forces and proxies in Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Northern Africa along with the support of regional actors respectively .
In South East Asia the South China Sea region is becoming the focal point of power competition and friction between status quo and revisionist powers and has seen increase in political, economic and military tensions . The staging of coup attempts with support of rogue elements and use of economic sanctions and military in Latin American region for establishing spheres of influence . Thus, these emerging low intensity conflicts and hostilities using elements of national power ranging from political, economic, military and non-military elements is increasingly shifting the principles of warfare and diplomacy at international level among the major stakeholders contesting for power . This has brought the international system into a dilemma as it struggles to counter the emerging threats due to lack of norms and doctrines effecting their strategic calculations.
The change in modes of warfare is not new but as the methods for conducting war has evolved over the time. Thus, these changes call upon formulation of new doctrines and strategies to be adopted for better understanding and countering the emerging challenges. The changing nature of warfare strategies are based on engaging the enemy with an indirect approach which is above the line of normal diplomatic practices and below the threshold of an all-out war . This scenario has been described by various scholars as a Gray Zone Conflict in the strategic studies lexicon which is in broad manner means the activities which are conducted beyond the steady state deterrence in an attempt to obtain security objectives without resorting to direct use of sizeable force in conventional manner. Clausewitz has described this notion of change in warfare as a chameleon which in connotative manner reflects the constant flux and change in the warfare spectrum at strategic, doctrinal, operational and tactical levels. Although this approach is not new and existing strategic terms such as indirect, low intensity, irregular guerrilla warfare, and hybrid warfare already exists.
The emergence of new terms call upon need for comprehending, understanding and formulating strategies and doctrines within the strategic community to counter the emerging threats ranging from change in spectrum of conflict. The blending of regular and irregular warfare during Napoleonic wars during from 1812’s when Russian militias embedded with regular Russian army to fight against French. In 1813 Prussian militia filled out Prussian regular units positions which were raised by Carl Von Clausewitz. In 1776 during US Civil War, George Washington raised and commanded regular troops and irregular militias from 13 British colonies and formed Continental Army to fight against the Great Britain.
War is considered to be a political activity in international relations. The legitimacy for any act of aggression and war is actually carried out according to the national interests of a state which are dictated by a political objectives. As level of analysis states that nations pursue their national interest (either offensive or defensive in nature) under the political objectives by using its elements of national power including diplomatic, economic, military and information devised under the grand strategy . The grand strategy is the outcome of the coherent strategic culture of a nation state which impacts the thought process of decision making bodies. Strategy which is often defined in terms of warfare but is not confided to spectrum of war alone and is equally valid and viable in peace time also.
Strategy in international relations is defined as the implementation of political objectives with the use of military power by state actors which may include forms of deterrence, coercion to use of physical force, military alliances and reassurance, protraction and attrition, cyber and information warfare campaign. The use of military power in order to wage war calls upon carrying out campaigns which is the operational part for implementing strategy. Operational campaigns calls upon conducting various tactical actions in time and space inflicting damage to enemy’s decisions, will and material capabilities in order to wage war. Tactics at the tactical level impacts on how the military forces engage and directly fights with the enemy .
Another major factor which regulates and accounts the interaction between two or more actors in international relations during war and peace is the spectrum of conflict or warfare. The spectrum of conflict/warfare measures the scale and means which are adopted and used by various rational actors and concludes whether they are proportional or not in use of force during their interactions. The spectrum of conflict at higher end would undertake the aspects of conventional and regular use of military force, including the use of nuclear deterrence or the use of chemical or biological warfare in theater conventional level or all-out war . The non-conventional or irregular war in low intensity conflicts irregular warfare, hybrid and gray zone conflicts using of proxies and terrorism, attacks carried out via in cyber and space domain, along with the manipulation through psychological operations and information warfare in the lower half of the spectrum.
The evolving nature of warfare makes it difficult for the strategists to understand and differentiate the challenges at hand and formulate policies accordingly. For this purpose defining the emerging concepts is necessary and crucial. Defining the Gray Zone Conflict as the state which lies in between the murky borderline of war and peace is not sufficient and would call for further explanation. The Gray Zone Conflict is defined as an alternative approaches adopted by states to obtain their interest by using and exploiting tactics which lie in between the state craft and open warfare with potential to substantially escalate hostilities and violence. Various statesmen, national security practitioners, military leaders and diplomats including academicians have used a variety of terms to define the threats that have emerged from military conflicts which are below the threshold of conventional warfare. The Gray Zone Conflicts partially are defined as, “Use of irregular warfare techniques with a mix of soft and sharp power tactics, hybrid warfare, political warfare, strategic competition and active measures including intelligence assessments and geospatial awareness.”
The concept also includes unique combinations of intimidation, coercion, influence and aggression to create effective resistance and manipulating risk perceptions in one’s own favor for obtaining regional advantages. The definition furthers highlights the major aspect that an actor indulging in Gray Zone Conflict is to avoid crossing the threshold of outright conflict while moving gradually towards acquiring objectives described under national interest instead of seeking conclusive outcome as in limited time. Another definition for the Gray Zone approach includes the tools used for information warfare, manipulation of the integrity of the institutions and distortion of political environments of the targeted states. Thus, the concept of evolving new warfare dynamics includes the subversive activities in the realm of politics, economics, diplomacy and sub-conventional warfare gradually without crossing the threshold of total war.
The Gray Zone Conflicts could also be defined by identifying following elements.
The Gray Zone Conflict consists of set of observable activities that are threatening the state craft but is short of direct military engagement between major actors. While, it is difficult to define accurate, precise and universal parameters we can say none the less that the gray zone techniques primarily seek to avoid direct conflict, any war engagement and escalatory tripwires. The actors that engage in using Gray Zone tactics seek to acquire the stated objectives gradually and slowly. The actors try to potentially accrue those objectives which were previously acquired through regular military expeditions. In this Gray Zone Conflicts the actors might also engage in violence by adopting the use of non-state actors, proxies and other means of distortion and obfuscation while remaining below the threshold of rivals escalatory limits.
The actors in international affairs use the Gray Zone Tactics in pursuit of their security objectives which might be obscured and vague. The link between he tactics employed and the security aims and objectives may be veiled by the actors. These security objectives may include the economic, diplomatic military and information objectives. Information and economic tactics could be used to manipulate the will and economic standing of the enemy.
Multi-Dimensional Toolkit for Gray Zone Tactics
The means adopted by the actors engaged in Gray Zone Tactics to curtail enemy’s capabilities while engaging below the threshold of the regular war not by traditional legal and functional categories. The use of concealed security intentions without implementing full spectrum state power. The role of non-state and quasi-state entities use is crucial in Gray Zone conflicts while exhibiting hybrid capabilities including coercive force and economic strategies with ambiguous legal connections of the state.
The use and inclusion of disinformation and information operations for bolstering the narratives of state using them simultaneously and in synch for fomenting social and political instability in the adversary states.
Public and Private Sector Domains
The boundaries between public and private sector domains are blurred in the Gray Zone conflicts as the actors actively use state and private enterprises as cover up activities. The private entities are used for the reason that they can evade the legal, bureaucratic and governmental checks and balances and state authorities. Private companies could also be used to undermine political processes and hold citizens at direct risks.
The Gray Zone Techniques could also be defined as the series of efforts that are used to advance an actors security objectives at the expense of the rivals using means that are associated beyond those within the arsenal of routine statecraft and below the means of direct military conflict. Thus, by engaging in the gray zone conflict the actors avoid crossing a threshold that results in direct engagement of war.
The use of these tactics could also be accessed by the analyzing the following toolkits:
Information and Disinformation Information Operations
Use of print, electronic and cyber media domains to manipulate and distort the information or spread disinformation to create confusion and perish the enemy’s will to resist by spreading propaganda and sowing doubt.
The use of coercive instruments which can illicit or licit tools to affect and manipulate the decision making and political composition process within a state to reach for a desired outcome.
The use of coercive economic and financial tools, use of sanctions, illicit financing, effect the exchange rate, balance of trade of an adversary to achieve desired objective.
Use of cyber domain to wage attacks in cyber domain by hacking, using viruses, trojan attacks, attack critical infrastructure, carry out disruption in communication, distortion of information and manipulation of political processes using malicious malware in cyber domain.
Outer Space has become a competing zone for major power actors and they are in constant friction to maintain their dominance and hegemony by disrupting the competitors position of advantage by interfering in space-enabled services, equipment, communication and satellites data uplink procedures.
Use of non-state, quasi state elements to wage or obtain military objective or control a certain territory to influence or achieve specific political outcomes.
Provocation by State Controlled Proxies
The use of paramilitary elements in conjunction with private entities while aiding and financing them to achieve certain interests through informal use of force. This also includes sabotage activities, clandestine intelligence operations and use of private military contractors which operate outside the realm of normal state control and authority.
Before we move forward with realizing the ground realities and implementation of gray zone tactics by discussing the geospatial events we have to define and differentiate another over-rated terminology used in contemporary era to define the emerging nature of irregular warfare, i.e. Hybrid Warfare. The Hybrid warfare is the neologism which was described by Frank Hoffman as a, “Nature of warfare that infuses and incorporates a range of various different modes of warfare including a mix of conventional warfare tactics with irregular warfare and indiscriminate use of violence and coercion, terrorist acts and criminal disorder.” Hoffman basically defined his findings in his article Conflict in 21st Century after studying and analyzing the ongoing US War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq post 9/11and also the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in 2006, in which he compared the battlefield challenges faced by western forces while fighting against non-state actors.
Another reference for defining the terminology of Hybrid Warfare is credited to Russian Chief of General Staff of Russian Army Valery Gerasimov who in his article wrote that the rules of warfare have changed highlighting the role of non-military means as essential for achieving political and strategic goals and non-military means have surpassed and exceeded in effectiveness over the power of force of weapons. He propagated the use of political, economic, diplomatic and. Valery summarized his findings from analyzing the civil wars ensued after the Arab Spring and highlighted following major factors essential for waging a hybrid warfare.
The nature of military operations is based upon groupings of line-units.
The nature of warfare is highly maneuverable and non-contact combat operations are carried out by line-units based upon inter-branch groupings.
Engaging Critical Infrastructure of the Enemy
Weaken the military-economic base of a state by engaging its critical infrastructure in a short period of time rendering the enemy in a compromised position.
The use of high-precision weaponry at large scale with the use of special operations forces aided with autonomous weapon systems and inclusion of civil and military component in combat operations.
Simultaneous use of all spheres of warfare
The simultaneous use of all kinetic and non-kinetic assets including line units autonomous weapon systems, in physical environment and information spheres in asymmetric and indirect operations.
The command and control of all the assets must be in a unified manner controlled by information domain.
Contours of Grey Zone Conflicts and Great Power Competition
The new modes of unconventional warfare using irregular tactics to obtain strategic goals while remaining below the threshold of war is also evident from the 2015 US National Military Strategy which highlighted that due to emerging great power competition implies that the security and defence strategies of US are heavily relying upon unconventional and irregular warfare strategies based upon counter insurgency and terror operations, foreign internal defence and stability operations with consideration of containing the influence of major states in the American area of interest which indicate shift from the global war on terror strategy post 9/11. US indicated emerging rival powers Russian and China, while rogue state elements such as Iran and North Korea as major threats apart from other groups of non-state actors. This point was further highlighted in the 2017 National Security Strategy which indicated that US considered political, economic and military competition from major threat powers as a major to its security.
The US had over the years tried to engage and contain the potential adversaries without directly engaging them into direct conflict. Thus, these new areas of conflicts are identified as Gray Zone Conflicts which require use of unconventional and irregular warfare strategies, information space and cyber domain for accomplishing the strategic goals. These strategic priorities amid the great power competition are recognized by the changing character of war. The change is driven by the change in technological advancements in computing, artificial intelligence, robotics, big data analysis, autonomous systems, biotechnology and directed energy weapon systems. Thus, these tectonic shifts in technology has impacted the ways and means of conduct of warfare and by declaring certain issues as Gray Zone Conflict has enhanced the role of US to intervene, manipulate and exploit a certain conflict according to its own interests without directly engaging into any conflict.
Gray Zone Conflicts although a new term in the strategic lexicon has now been gaining ground in the international relations domain with pace. State actors in the international system have realized the role and importance of manipulating the thin line between war and peace and how to tread on this line while maintaining diplomatic courtesy and remaining under the threshold of a conventional war. As Clausewitz has rightly mentioned that the nature of war is like a chameleon, following the new trends in the warfare spectrum in light of gray zone tactics toolkit help us observe these shifts in the nature of warfare and new emerging trends much more vividly. The major powers have been exercising these policy options using various tools for gray zone tactics especially using cyber and space domain along with state controlled proxies and conducting such acts with impunity and relaxation. The major reason for this is that there are no international norms and frameworks that control the actions of state actors and private entities in this domain of irregular warfare spectrum as states tend to exploit the bounded thresholds between state craft and total war.
Moreover, as the trends for direct conflict engagements and conventional wars have decreased the major powers have increasingly adopted the irregular warfare norms and gray zone conflicts in particular to further their veiled interests while, tip toeing over the escalatory tripwires and treading the thin line between war and peace. As major powers are adopting to this new architecture of threat spectrum the role of international institutions and platforms have increased than ever before to maintain a viable lifeline providing communication channels and help erode mistrust and uncertainty among major competing powers. Unfortunately, there is a likelihood of an event when a state actor accidently might not be able to maintain the brinkmanship by misreading the actions of the opponent and result into a devastating and utter chaos.
Pakistan Army says defence budget for 2022-23 decreases from 2.8per cent of the GDP to 2.2 per cent India’s GDP...
The proposed EU-GCC Strategic Partnership which was announced in Brussels on 18 May was a year in the making. It...
On June 21–23, Vienna will host a historic event in the field of nuclear disarmament – the First Meeting of...
Nine NATO member states held talks in Romania on Friday ahead of a key NATO summit later this month. The...
Because of their unexpected difficulties in getting Ukraine and Finland into their existing anti-Russia military alliance, NATO; both the U.S....
Candlestick charts are often used as part of a technical analysis strategy. They are popular with forex market traders because...
Reports monitored from the U.S. Department of State, Deutsche Welle and Rádio Moçambique have shown that the United States would...
Who is cutting ties with whom? Russia and the Bologna education system
Prospect of Global Economy: “Stagflation” or “Recession”?
China-Pakistan defense partnership strengthened further
Pillars of Economic: Entrepreneurs, Digitization, SME & Exports
Africa’s Economy and the New Global Order
Indonesia’s National Interests on Four Bilateral Agreements with Switzerland
Artificial Intelligence: A Double-Edged Sword
President Jokowi makes bamboo bicycles a forum for diplomacy with the Australian PM