A period of ambiguity is always observed when there is a change in the US administration. Firstly, the effectiveness of the current administration diminishes, creating a power vacuum. Secondly, the efficiency of the new administration needs time to build up. Thirdly, opportunists usually use this initial period to test the ability and bottom line of the new administration. Indeed, this period has historically been one when opportunists use to maximize their gains. A tragic example would be the 9/11 attack on US soil after George W Bush took over the office. With the impact of the financial tsunami still resonating and the uncertainty in Obama's foreign policy, political leaders need to be very cautious and act swiftly in any event to prevent the situation deteriorating further.
Historically, wars are an often used tool by political leaders to boost the domestic economy or to divert the attention of the people. Many recent articles have attempted to analyze the possibility of the current financial tsunami resorting to a full scale war. It is generally believed that the likelihood of such a war is very low under a highly integrated world nowadays. Unlike the old days, platforms have been created for political leaders to exchange views and hence to foster cooperation. Through collective action in insisting an open market regime and refusing trade protectionism, the financial tsunami could be better handled than the Great Depression which gradually led to the WWII. However, with the interest rate of US dollar approaching to near 0%, the value of US dollar has depreciated. This increased the competitiveness of the US export, at the expense of the interests of other countries. The impact of this is mixed. On the pros side, the US economy could be improved by this policy and in return the US could be the locomotive in the recovery of the world economy. On the cons side, this may trigger a chain reaction in currency depreciations, in order to maintain one's competitiveness at export. The dire consequence may be another trade war hindering economic recovery. Especially when there is a change in the US administration, one must be aware of any attempt to break the consensus caused by a weakening in the confidence on the new administration. In this case, China may step in, as a responsible stakeholder, to help maintaining the economic stability. This not only improves China's international image, it would also allow China to play a more prominent role in reshaping the world financial system.
Obama's suspected Islamic tie and Democrat affiliation have induced an uncertainty in the Middle-East policy under the new administration. Traditionally, Democrats had tended to adopt a liberalist approach in formulating the foreign policy, resolving international conflicts through diplomatic means and negotiations. Democrats are more sympathetic towards Palestinians. In addition, the series of speeches delivered by Obama after his election victory have indicated that he would take a more diplomatic approach to resolve the Middle-East crisis. All of these could be mis-interpreted by Islamic extremists. They may consider the change in US administration a window of opportunity to intensify their activities. Examples of these include the massive rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas after the expiry of the cease fire arrangement and the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India. If this is the case, one should not be surprised to see an increase in the terrorist activities in 2009. Conversely, Israel would be anxious by this ambiguity and toughen their actions towards any harassment, as seen in recent Israeli military action near the Gaza Strip. Israel would also try to maximize their interests until a clear picture emerges. Nevertheless, one must carefully monitor the situation to prevent it from developing to a larger scale war – a war purposefully raged to help easing the current financial tsunami.
After the 9/11 incident and the series of terrorist attacks in Spain and the UK, security measures in the Western countries have been strengthened, and it is not easy to break through them. With the intensifying US (and its allies’) military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the room for terrorists has shrunk, apart from the areas where US (and its allies) military is unreachable. With the increase in terrorist attacks in South Asia and South-East Asia, it would not be hard to guess that terrorist groups have shifted their attentions towards these places – places that are far from the US military access and places where security measures are loose. Some even believe that there are numerous terrorist training camps along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Another vulnerable area is the Central Asia. The population in Central Asia is predominantly Muslim. Islamic movements (Wahabbism) in this area dates back to mid-1980s under Soviet Union. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Muslims worldwide had responded to the calls of Jihad in expelling the Soviet invaders. These people arrived in Afghanistan and received military trainings and acquired knowledge of insurgency. After the collapse of the Soviet regime, the five former Soviet republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan) had proclaimed independence. Secularism was adopted by all five new states and guaranteed by the constitutions. At the same time, the Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan had returned, and they continued the Jihad against their secular governments to seek for an Islamic state ruled by fundamental Islam. Radical Islamic groups, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT), were formed. Sabotages have been occasionally carried out by these groups. In recently years, radical Islamic movement has intensified in Ferghana Valley – a shared border between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Among the three countries, Tajikistan has the weakest military forces and shares a long border with Afghanistan. Even worst, part of Tajikistan's south-east border almost overlaps with the Afghan-Pakistan border. Islamic militants often launch incursions from Tajikistan into Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
With all the above developments, one must prevent the formation of a terrorist corridor across Eurasia: from Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and West bank in the west, through Iraq and Iran to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east, then move up to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan in the North and down to India and Indonesia in the south. In that case, the most impacted country would be China.
One of China's western provinces, Xinjiang, shares a common border with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The majority group in Xinjiang is the Uighurs, who shares the same culture with the Central Asians. National separatism has been growing here in recent years and various separatist groups have been formed. Some members of the groups were the former Uyghur Mujaheddins. Moreover, some groups are believed to be tied with al-Qaeda, such as the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). Recently separatist activities have been stepping up, sometimes through violent means. Under the paramount goal of economic development, China would favor a stable internal and external environment. A Eurasian terrorist corridor would definitely be a nightmare to China.
Due to the internal conflict between the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims, the likelihood of such a corridor is still low. However, both Muslim groups have condemned the US's appeasement towards Israel's hooliganism over its Middle-East neighbors. This provides a common ground for cooperation between the Sunni and Shiite militants, for instance between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The international community should carefully formulate their Middle East policies, in particular the policy towards Iran and Israel, to prevent such a corridor from happening.
Historically, wars are an often used tool by political leaders to boost the domestic economy or to divert the attention of the people. Many recent articles have attempted to analyze the possibility of the current financial tsunami resorting to a full scale war. It is generally believed that the likelihood of such a war is very low under a highly integrated world nowadays. Unlike the old days, platforms have been created for political leaders to exchange views and hence to foster cooperation. Through collective action in insisting an open market regime and refusing trade protectionism, the financial tsunami could be better handled than the Great Depression which gradually led to the WWII. However, with the interest rate of US dollar approaching to near 0%, the value of US dollar has depreciated. This increased the competitiveness of the US export, at the expense of the interests of other countries. The impact of this is mixed. On the pros side, the US economy could be improved by this policy and in return the US could be the locomotive in the recovery of the world economy. On the cons side, this may trigger a chain reaction in currency depreciations, in order to maintain one's competitiveness at export. The dire consequence may be another trade war hindering economic recovery. Especially when there is a change in the US administration, one must be aware of any attempt to break the consensus caused by a weakening in the confidence on the new administration. In this case, China may step in, as a responsible stakeholder, to help maintaining the economic stability. This not only improves China's international image, it would also allow China to play a more prominent role in reshaping the world financial system.
Obama's suspected Islamic tie and Democrat affiliation have induced an uncertainty in the Middle-East policy under the new administration. Traditionally, Democrats had tended to adopt a liberalist approach in formulating the foreign policy, resolving international conflicts through diplomatic means and negotiations. Democrats are more sympathetic towards Palestinians. In addition, the series of speeches delivered by Obama after his election victory have indicated that he would take a more diplomatic approach to resolve the Middle-East crisis. All of these could be mis-interpreted by Islamic extremists. They may consider the change in US administration a window of opportunity to intensify their activities. Examples of these include the massive rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas after the expiry of the cease fire arrangement and the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India. If this is the case, one should not be surprised to see an increase in the terrorist activities in 2009. Conversely, Israel would be anxious by this ambiguity and toughen their actions towards any harassment, as seen in recent Israeli military action near the Gaza Strip. Israel would also try to maximize their interests until a clear picture emerges. Nevertheless, one must carefully monitor the situation to prevent it from developing to a larger scale war – a war purposefully raged to help easing the current financial tsunami.
After the 9/11 incident and the series of terrorist attacks in Spain and the UK, security measures in the Western countries have been strengthened, and it is not easy to break through them. With the intensifying US (and its allies’) military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the room for terrorists has shrunk, apart from the areas where US (and its allies) military is unreachable. With the increase in terrorist attacks in South Asia and South-East Asia, it would not be hard to guess that terrorist groups have shifted their attentions towards these places – places that are far from the US military access and places where security measures are loose. Some even believe that there are numerous terrorist training camps along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Another vulnerable area is the Central Asia. The population in Central Asia is predominantly Muslim. Islamic movements (Wahabbism) in this area dates back to mid-1980s under Soviet Union. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Muslims worldwide had responded to the calls of Jihad in expelling the Soviet invaders. These people arrived in Afghanistan and received military trainings and acquired knowledge of insurgency. After the collapse of the Soviet regime, the five former Soviet republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan) had proclaimed independence. Secularism was adopted by all five new states and guaranteed by the constitutions. At the same time, the Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan had returned, and they continued the Jihad against their secular governments to seek for an Islamic state ruled by fundamental Islam. Radical Islamic groups, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT), were formed. Sabotages have been occasionally carried out by these groups. In recently years, radical Islamic movement has intensified in Ferghana Valley – a shared border between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Among the three countries, Tajikistan has the weakest military forces and shares a long border with Afghanistan. Even worst, part of Tajikistan's south-east border almost overlaps with the Afghan-Pakistan border. Islamic militants often launch incursions from Tajikistan into Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
With all the above developments, one must prevent the formation of a terrorist corridor across Eurasia: from Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and West bank in the west, through Iraq and Iran to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east, then move up to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan in the North and down to India and Indonesia in the south. In that case, the most impacted country would be China.
One of China's western provinces, Xinjiang, shares a common border with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The majority group in Xinjiang is the Uighurs, who shares the same culture with the Central Asians. National separatism has been growing here in recent years and various separatist groups have been formed. Some members of the groups were the former Uyghur Mujaheddins. Moreover, some groups are believed to be tied with al-Qaeda, such as the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). Recently separatist activities have been stepping up, sometimes through violent means. Under the paramount goal of economic development, China would favor a stable internal and external environment. A Eurasian terrorist corridor would definitely be a nightmare to China.
Due to the internal conflict between the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims, the likelihood of such a corridor is still low. However, both Muslim groups have condemned the US's appeasement towards Israel's hooliganism over its Middle-East neighbors. This provides a common ground for cooperation between the Sunni and Shiite militants, for instance between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The international community should carefully formulate their Middle East policies, in particular the policy towards Iran and Israel, to prevent such a corridor from happening.
