Asia's quiet superpower: Pakistan army’s teetering balance between Saudi Arabia and Iran

Kamal Alam

With a Pakistani general leading a Saudi-led terror fighting force, Islamabad has the chance once again to be the region’s final guarantor

Photo: In January 2016, then Pakistan's army chief General Raheel Sharif (R) meets with Deputy Crown Prince and Saudi Minister of Defence Mohammed bin Salman in Rawalpindi, Pakistan (AFP)

When one thinks of the Pakistan Army, one does not instinctively think of a force that is relevant to conflicts in the Middle East. Yet increasingly – and without actually being involved in any operations - it is the most influential military in the region. 

Who will lead the Islamic NATO, a new Saudi-led, terrorist-fighting military alliance? None other than Pakistan’s General Raheel Sharif

It has trained more Arab armies than any other country and has been present both in a combat role in the Arab-Israeli wars in 1967 and 1973 and also provided mentorship as the Gulf countries' armies were founded.

This is mostly thanks to the legacy of the British Indian Army, which was one-third Muslim, and which the British relied on to pacify the hostility of Arab Muslims when it marched through Jerusalem, Damascus and Baghdad. After India’s partition in 1947, these troops became the founders of the Pakistan military and thus began a long relationship that exists to this day.

The British Indian Army enter Baghdad in 1917 with Lt Gen Federick Stanley Maude (Wikicommons)

After the fall of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army, and Iran’s rising influence across the Middle East, the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, have looked to Pakistan as the final guarantor.

When the current Pakistan Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Bajwa recently stated that Pakistan views Saudi Arabia’s protection as its own, it was seen as an indirect warning to Iran and the terrorist groups threatening Saudi Arabia.

And who will lead the "Islamic NATO", a new Saudi-led, terrorist-fighting military alliance? None other than Pakistan’s General Raheel Sharif.

Surprise announcements

Though it was rumoured for a good year before his retirement, when Defence Minister Khwaja Asif confirmed Sharif’s appointment to the "Muslim NATO" a few weeks ago, it came as a surprise to the Pakistani parliament in much the same way as the announcement two years ago that Pakistan was to participate in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

There was a furore in the GCC when, after the surprise announcement, the Pakistani military eventually refused the role in Yemen in 2015. The UAE even cancelled visa waivers for Pakistani military officials, a process that had existed for decades, while leading Kuwait and Saudi state-owned media attacked Pakistan and how it had back-stabbed its "brothers" in the Gulf.

In June 2014, Pakistan army soldiers gather before the start of a military operation against the Taliban in the main town of Miranshah in North Waziristan (AFP)

Pakistan itself was split down the middle over Yemen. The majority of the military was apparently in favour of the army’s participation. However, given Operation Zarb e Azb, in which the army was targeting cross-border violence and domestic terrorist groups on the Afghan border in North Waziristan, the military was overstretched fighting its own war on terror.

Ultimately, Pakistan did not take part in Yemen with troops on the ground, but did provide border support to guard Saudi sovereignty and offer advice during the air campaign.

However, two years down the line, with Pakistan military’s operations winding down in the northwest of its country, there is increased stability within the army and, tactically speaking, troops are now available. So the question of a more active role for Pakistan in Yemen may arise again. 

One of the main reasons Saudi Arabia is going back to Pakistan for help, despite its previous refusal in Yemen, is that Pakistan and General Raheel Sharif himself warned that ground operations in Yemen were futile given the terrain, and proximity to the sea making impractical the use of the hammer and anvil tactic - and they were proven right.

While Pakistan will definitely not put troops in Yemen (Sharif has made that clear), the army can help by mediating conflict resolution mechanisms it used with success in Waziristan and Swat Valley. 

The obvious choice

General Raheel Sharif is an obvious choice for the Muslim NATO role given his tremendous popularity in the Arab world - particularly in Saudi.

For decades, the Saudis and other Gulf royals have treated the Pakistan Army and its chief as special guests

As army chief, he has made six official visits to Saudi Arabia, brought the Qataris into Pakistan’s military orbit and put the Egyptian-Pakistan relationship back on track by becoming the first Pakistani in his position to visit Cairo in over two decades. In 2014, Sharif was the only non-head of state present at the GCC military exercise, Abdullah’s Shield.

There are also close historic ties between Saudi and Pakistan that make Sharif an easy choice. For decades, the Saudis and other Gulf royals have treated the Pakistan Army and its chief as special guests; there has been talk of Pakistan providing a nuclear umbrella against Iran, and a potential hammer if one were needed to protect the GCC.

Indeed in Bahrain, Iran and several international organisations accused Pakistan of supporting the suppression of protestors at the behest of the Saudis.

When the Saudi embassy was attacked by a mob in Tehran last year after the execution of a prominent Shia cleric, Sharif undertook a three-day diplomatic initiative that led him first to Saudi and then to Iran to mediate between the two countries and calm fears of an escalation given already fraught relations over the Syrian and Yemen conflicts.

An Iranian protester holds a sign bearing the name of Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr during a protest against his execution by Saudi authorities on 3 January 2016, outside the Saudi embassy in Tehran (AFP)

There were also unconfirmed reports bordering on fake news that Pakistan had threatened to nuke Iran if it dared to attack Saudi Arabia.  

At this moment, there are 158 Saudi military cadets in the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul, Abbottabad, a record of any overseas force in any military academy in the world. There is also another historic first for the Pakistan Army: it has become the first Muslim country to have a permanent instructor at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. The instructor, Major Uqbah Malik, is a platoon commander with several Arab cadets under his command along with British cadets. 

For the last two years, the chief guests at the Pakistan Air Force’s Academy in Risalpur have been the head of the Iraqi and Saudi defence forces. There were a dozen Iraqi cadets last year and more this year.

Similarly in Damascus, Pakistan sent one of its top air force generals as ambassador to smooth tensions and act as a back-door mediator between Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Sharif’s successor, current army chief Qamar Bajwa’s first official overseas trip was a recent three-day visit to Saudi Arabia. It was no coincidence that Sharif was also in Saudi at the same time performing his Umrah, the lesser pilgrimage at the invitation of the Saudi king. There were also many videos shared over social media of Raheel Sharif being mobbed as a hero as Saudi Special Forces guarded him.

Iran-Saudi mediator?

Along with its vast military resources, deployed over the last decades to fight on behalf of various Arab states and its role as the largest trainer of Arab armies, Pakistan’s role as a peace maker between several warring capitals has been crucial.

In fact, the UN Centre of Excellence on COIN and peacekeeping is in Islamabad, where the Pakistan army trains other armies from around the world on how to do conflict resolution in war time.

Sharif has made it clear he will only carry on in his current job if Iran is included in the military alliance so it does not just become a Sunni alliance

Could Pakistan play such a role in mediating between Saudi and Iran?

Since the Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979, Pakistan has drifted away from Tehran and has been seen as too close to the Saudis to be an honest peace broker between Riyadh and Tehran.

Two decades ago, Pakistan’s army played a leading role in mediating an end to the Iraq-Iran war, something the late Iranian president Rafsanjani specifically appreciated.

While for some, Sharif’s appointment has been seen as a message to Iran that Pakistan is abandoning its neutral role between the two countries, it would seem that an opportunity has again presented the Pakistan military to take a lead. Sharif has made it clear he will only carry on in his role as head of the military alliance if Iran is included so it does not just become a Sunni front.

Then Pakistan Army Chief of Staff General Raheel Sharif arrives for a visit in Sri Lanka in June 2015 (AFP)

Notably, the Pakistan army is the only non-sectarian army in the Muslim world - it has had Shia Hazara chief of staffs, Sunnis and several Christian generals. Given this, Pakistan is well-positioned to balance Iran and Saudi Arabia’s tensions.

There are potential opportunities and problems for Pakistan here. If it is not careful and is seen as being too close to Saudi, it could further exacerbate its fragile domestic sectarian balance and make trouble for Pakistan domestically.

But if the new alliance holds, Pakistan stands to benefit greatly, especially with the Turkish support of the country.

- Kamal Alam is a Visiting Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He specialises in contemporary military history of the Arab world and Pakistan, he is a Fellow for Syrian Affairs at The Institute for Statecraft, and is a visiting lecturer at several military staff colleges across the Middle East, Pakistan and the UK.

The Forgotten Revolution of Bahrain

BY FRAZ ASH'HAB SYED

February 17 marked the 7 anniversary of “Bloody Thursday” in Bahrain, the day when hundreds got massacred brutally by none other than their own government. Unlike the other uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, the popular anti-government protests failed to grasp the attention of the “free world”. Unlike Syria, where the western forces and their allies in Middle East are facing the tough time in toppling the government, the situation in Bahrain is quite opposite. The agenda here is to prevent those elements who are trying hard to knock over the regime or, maybe, are mere protesting for gaining larger political freedom. Perhaps, those campaigners in Bahrain are not “moderate rebels” and perhaps their right to exercise their political power is a mere conspiracy by one of “the axis of evil”.

Historically the part of Persian Empire, Bahrain has been the hub of Shia population mainly under Safavid Rule. The Persian gulf island finally made its way to be ruled by a Sunni Arab Tribe of Al-Khalifa in 19th century with the help of Britain and became its protectorate. This steered towards the course of exploitation of the majority by the hands of a minority. Consisting roughly 75% of the total population, shia community, still, faces torture, persecution and day to day detainment by the elite minority Sunni Al-Khalifa family. But depicting it a religious rift isn’t enough to comprehend the issue extensively.

For most western analysts, Middle East is either the depiction of Shia-Sunni centuries old rivalry or the ground for Iran-Saudi proxies. Adhering to this notion, not only the indigenous uprisings have been crushed brutally but an excuse has also been lodged for intervention on humanitarian grounds or to restrict the rogue state from interfering.

Driven mainly because of the economic deprivation, discriminatory treatment of Shia population and the resistance against implementing the tool of identity politics, Bahraini protests are diminished from the headlines. The prevalent factor is, obviously, the foreign hand, those for whom the sustainability of Al-Khalifa is deemed necessary. Having lost control over Iraq and Syria and bound miserably in the Yemen Crisis, the overthrown of Al-Khalifa Regime would be the last nightmare for Saudi Arabia before being devoured in its own upheaval in the Eastern Province of Al-Awamiyah, the major center of oil reserves and home to Shia majority.

The change of government in Bahrain by the Shia-led protests would definitely be going to benefit Iran and would further enhance its influence in the region. Iran is seemed as the last hurdle in the way of Saudi Arabia from dominating the region. Saudi influence is a tantamount for the greater US role in Middle East. Bahrain, who provides the naval and air base to US, is an important center for America, geostrategically, in conducting its strikes in Iraq and keep an eye on Iran.

The resentments among the indigenous population only grew larger after the government’s decision to invite Saudi Troops. Having developed itself into the fundamentalist Sunni State, being accused to financing extremism throughout the globe and illustrious in both rhetoric and practical for propagating anti-Shia sentiments, the presence of Saudi Troops along with the already existing 5th Fleet of U.S navy only intensified the crisis. Regime’s attempt to balance the proportions of population by giving nationality to various Sunnis from other states, especially from Pakistan, also ensured the discriminatory attitude towards the 75% Shia population. All such acts only portray the growing concerns within the Al-Khalifa Regime over the raising stature of Iran in the region which has, so far, no link with the Bahraini Uprising.The issue must be taken in the comparison of Syrian Crisis. Since the wave of Arab Spring devoured most of the Arab monarchies and dictatorships, Assad and Al-Khalifa family remain the last two which have somehow sustained the predicament. But unlike Syria, Bahraini politics emphasis at the completely different and unique scenario. Unlike Syria, there are no armed militias and groups that would wage war against the government. The accusation of Iran’s role in the Persian gulf island also have been ruled out in WikiLeaks. Being paranoid out of the fear of Iran isn’t the maneuver to quell the legitimate demands of the locals. Not only that, unlike Syria, where government’s structure is heavily dependent upon Sunnis mainly due to the marginal representation of Alawites in Syrian Population, there is no such example of pluralism in Bahrain. In fact, the largest Shia opposition group, Al-Wefaq, and its spiritual leader, Sheikh Essa Qassem, have been banned from taking part in any political activity.

The issue of Bahrain is 40 years older than the Arab Spring. It all started with the withdrawal of British Troops from Persian Gulf in 1971 and subsequent suppressing of majority by the minority i.e. Al-Khalifa Family. The series of reforms were ensured, mainly in 2001, but they bore no fruit. Today the scenario became more complex as the youth is involved in the protests, seeking more opportunities and freedom in their day to day life. Though dwindled in the violence of Syria and Yemen yet Bahrain signifies the major transformation of Middle East from monarchy to complete representation of the people. This is exactly what led to Al-Wefaq, the largest opposition party, for not accepting the negotiation unless being granted the fair proportion of representation in major ministries. However, the fearful nature of Al-Khalifa regime hampers any process of success as most Shias are viewed as “Iranian Affiliated”. This is because of the 360 change from accepting some concession to absolute grant of power.

Al-Khalifa Regime, who is accused of playing the sectarian card in the country, cannot expect the indigenous Shia population to remain loyal to the regime who is conducting a massacre with the help of Saudi Troops. Signaling green light to KSA for sending its army exaggerated the notion within Bahrain’s Shia population to incline towards Iran. While the spiritual leader, Sheikh Essa Qassem, still under house arrest with, of course, deteriorating health, the situation may get worsen for the ruling elite. Even if adhering to the West notion of Bahrain’s tilt towards Najaf instead of Qom, the decree of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani regarding popular mobilization in Iraq may spark the spirit of revolt among the youths of Bahrain as well. If such thing happens, not only the regime will be overthrown but U.S dream of containing Iran would meet the catastrophic end as it occurred in the case of Iraq and Syria. At the end, not only the regime ought to deliver while shedding the sectarian card but world powers who feel humanitarian for self-injected Syrian Crisis, must also find the way to manage the issue in favor of the majority, however, it seems unlikely.

 Bahrain Uprising

FRAZ ASH'HAB SYED

Fraz Ash'hab Syed is a freelancer and a scholar of International Relations. His main focus is on Politics of South Asia, Politics of Middle East, Foreign Policy of Iran and Foreign Policy of US in Middle East.

Yemen War: Trial Time for Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia is fast approaching trial time on its illegal war on Yemen, as the international humanitarian community will soon have to respond against them. This includes the United Nations and the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

While the United Nations and the international civil society insist they want a peaceful resolution to the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century, Riyadh dismisses the idea of diplomacy in the assessment, saying they wouldn’t be willing to bargain away their stated goal, which is regime change in Sana’a.

However, since many people are dying and the country is facing famine, there is no time in which the Saudis and their allies can threaten Yemen any further. Simply put, Yemen is dying and time is almost here. There is an increasing rate of civilian casualties. According to the UN aid agencies, the upsurge in fighting is of particular concern. Civilians are under fire, as Saudi-led forces carry out airstrikes and indiscriminate bombing, without taking care to spare the civilian population, much less respecting the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution.

This is while any intentional, direct attack against civilians or civilian objects is considered a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law and the UN Charter. The warmongers refuse to take any feasible precautions to avoid, or in any event, minimise, the impact of violence on civilians. And that’s when it’s safe to conclude that the UN and the International Criminal Court in the Hague will have to step in to stop the protracted conflict and hold to account those who want this crisis to continue apace – one way or another:

– It is true that in the wake of unlawful US-backed, Saudi-led bombing, some Western governments have decided to suspend the sale of weapons worth tens of billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia. It is a recognition, a long time in coming, that the Saudi-led coalition’s military campaign in Yemen have devastated the country, killed thousands of civilians and brought it to the brink of famine. However, unlawful airstrikes still continue, which means the decision by some Western governments to suspend arms sales has sent no message to the Saudis. US President Donald Trump, in his first trip to Riyadh for instance, sent an alternative, deeply troublesome message. He sold American weapons to the Saudis worth $110 billion – nearly as much as President Obama authorized during his eight years in office.

– The deals include Raytheon bombs, Lockheed Martin missile defense systems and BAE combat vehicles, and some of the weapons whose sales had been suspended. Thanks to these weapons, the scars of unlawful airstrikes can be found across Yemen, where the Saudi-led coalition has carried out scores of attacks that hit homes, schools, markets, and hospitals since March 2015, when it began its military campaign against the Ansarullah resistance movement and forces loyal to the former President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

– Human Rights Watch has documented numerous unlawful coalition attacks over the last three years, many war crimes. In many of these cases, including the attacks on funeral halls and markets, the organization’s investigators were able to identify the US weapons that were used. These are the very same weapons that continue to drive Yemen, already the poorest nation in the Middle East, toward humanitarian catastrophe.

– Both the Saudi-led coalition and their American allies have blocked or restricted critical relief supplies from reaching civilians. Seven million people face starvation and cholera ravages parts of the country. The UN should be urging the Saudis to shift course by abiding by the laws of war and holding those responsible for past abuses to account.

– Without Washington’s much-needed support and consent this war can never continue. By going to Riyadh to sell the Saudis weapons worth over $110 billion, President Donald Trump effectively told them to continue as before and not to worry about any international backlash at the UN – the flow of US weapons would not stop. This makes the US government complicit in Saudi war crimes. Continued US arms sales to a country that has repeatedly violated the laws of war expose US officials to legal liability for aiding and abetting Saudi war crimes.

It is against this backdrop and others that the UN and The Hague should step in, introducing a resolution intended to end the US-backed, Saudi-led war on Yemen. The resolution should end US arms transfers to Saudi Arabia, as requiring the White House to certify that the Saudi-led coalition is taking all feasible precautions to minimize civilian casualties is not going to mean anything at all – let alone end the human suffering there.

The UN and the International Criminal Court in The Hague are in the know that the people of Yemen can take no more and that they need to react fast. Innocent people are suffering from unlawful airstrikes because the US supports the Saudi-led coalition and because US weapons have been used against civilian populations. This is an international legal problem the UN and the ICC should be paying more attention to. If they won’t try to curtail the ongoing Us-backed war crimes by Saudi Arabia and the rest of the coalition, no other world body would ever step in to make clear – by using its own power to end the war – that the lives of Yemeni civilian can no longer be disregarded.

Three Decades Ago: US Fueled “Most Repressive Regime in the World”

31 years ago today, an article published by The Daily Iowan, “US Imperialism and the Shah,” lamented United States-sponsored terrorism against the Iranian people, which was nearing the breaking point. The author, a second-year law student who later became an attorney named Robin B. Potter, who at the time, was a member of the US-based Revolutionary Student Brigade (RSB), explained how the relentlessly brutal dictator, the Shah, acting as a puppet for US government interests, allowed the US economy to reap the harvests of Iran’s oil, while the people of Iran suffered under a torturous, totalitarian leader. Subjected to constant scrutiny, individuals and groups who opposed the Shah’s tyrannical rule drew the attention of the Shah’s secret police, known as SAVAK. They were used to torture political opponents and dissidents while imprisoning more than 100,000 Iranian citizens.

Iranian students attending college in the US in 1977 – the group named “Daneshjouian Irani”- in a letter to the editor carried by The Daily Iowan, wrote, “The CIA created the SAVAK in Iran in 1956 and over the last 25 years has created and controlled the most repressive regime in the world.”

At the same time that the SAVAK wreaked havoc on the free-thinking Iranian population, corporate US business interests, with the CIA’s backing, maintained 30,000 “advisers” in Iran in 1977 and provided millions of dollars in military arms and hardware. I suspect that many young people today in the US have no idea what a jagged, violent and deceitful path US politicians chose to follow in order to either harness Iran’s financial revenues, or seek its total destruction. Most do not know that the US instructed Saddam Hussein, another US puppet, to invade and occupy Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which left 300,000 Iranian people dead, and they probably don’t know that the US Navy once blasted an Iranian airliner filled with hundreds of people out of the sky and then adamantly refused to accept guilt or accountability for the murderous act.

These are the events that shaped present-day relations between the United States and Iran today. Yes, Iran took many Americans hostage during the infamous “Hostage Crisis” in 1979, but it is also a fact that all were released alive. Still, the chagrin the Americans felt over that incident would be the reason for more unapologetic reprisals. Once US politicians lost the ability to profit from Iran, the country was immediately placed on America’s hit list.

Former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously revealed the truth when he said, “Lord knows what we’d do without Iranian oil.” Well Dwight, Americans would have had to live more humbly, they would have needed to drive economy cars like the rest of the world, instead of 6,000 pound beasts twenty feet long with engines often in excess of four liters. Americans would have had to listen to former US President Jimmy Carter when he told the nation on public television that they were living beyond their means; this even before credit card mania overtook Americans, causing them to all become like hamsters in a wheel, unable to get off, constantly worrying about paying off their growing debts.

In “US Imperialism and the Shah,” Potter wrote that the US government, “permits the SAVAK to spy openly on Iranian students and dissidents living in this country. Besides installing the ruthless dictator, the United States has assisted the Shah in building a complete intelligence network for the purpose of monitoring the Persian Gulf movements of foreign powers like the Soviet Union in the area, as well as to police his opposition.”

The same things gripping the state of the world in 2018, were well underway more than three decades ago. The article and attitude among progressive Americans at that time was that, “…the same investments, the same companies and moneybags who have their fingers in the Iranian economy and profit by the oppressive nature of its social system.”

Interestingly, at the time of the article, South Africa was still under full apartheid oppression and Black Africans were considered second-rate citizens as the Palestinians and African migrants are to the Israelis today. It’s as though they just keep trading positions instead of learning from mistakes. Greed, racial and religious superiority absolutely dominate the politics of the US and other oppressive regimes.

The article referenced here is republished on the Website, MohammadMossadegh.com. Mossadegh of course was Iran’s western educated democratically elected Prime Minister, who the US removed from power in a coup d’etat in 1953. Why? Because Mossadegh could read the writing on the wall and after many years of western governments and their corporate allies absolutely ripping Iran off over oil prices, he decided to nationalize oil and oust the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, today known as British Petroleum. This led the British to collaborate with the newly formed US CIA and overthrow Iran’s government, in order to install the Shah.

In fact The Economist reported 8 March, 1975, that the Shah was so oppressive, that he made an announcement about three principles that all Iranians must believe in: those were the monarchy, the constitution, and the Shah’s “white revolution.” He said those who accepted the principles he insisted upon, had to join the Shah’s new party. Those who refused to accept those tenets, the Shah said, should, “leave the country or go to jail.”

That is what the US government did to the Iranian people by forcibly removing their elected leader and installing the Shah. The US has been at odds with Iran since 1979 and while the US remains constantly engaged in unilateral overseas military engagements that claim many lives and brew endless controversy, Iran has not attacked a nation outside of its borders for hundreds of years.

Modi’s ‘de-hyphenated’ policy on Palestine contradicts India’s struggle against British colonialism

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s brief stopover in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of the West Bank has been hailed by parts of India’s media as “historic”. It is premised on what they tout as “the first ever Prime Ministerial visit to Palestine from India.”

Strangely, the media interest seems to be generated by a debate about whether Jawaharlal Nehru’s visit to the Gaza Strip in 1960 qualified him to be the first serving Indian PM to go to Palestine. At the time, Nehru met with Indian troops deployed by the UN as a buffer following the 1956 Suez War between Egypt and Anglo-French-Israeli colonisers.

Whether Modi or Nehru was the first is actually beside the point. While some media houses in India may have reason to indulge in these irrelevant technical issues, the real story seems to have evaded them.

The surreal parallel in both visits is military control. In the case of Nehru’s trip it was related to the battle for the control of Egypt’s all-important Suez Canal. As for Modi, his visit to Ramallah required special clearance from the Israeli occupation forces to permit a Jordanian helicopter to fly him to the West Bank.

What’s more, “sitting on the fence” is described euphemistically as “neutrality”. Both administrations – Nehru’s and Modi’s – are guilty of this. Nowhere has this been more pronounced than in Palestine.

Nehru’s UN aircraft was nearly blown out of Gaza’s skies when Israel’s menacing fighter jets flew dangerously close. Though he said that the threat posed by Israel was “unwarranted”, it appeared to have ended there.

It is important to note that in 1960 India’s recognition of Israel as a state was a decade old; its recognition of Palestine only came along in 1988, almost three decades later. Fast forward another 30 years, and we find Narendra Modi’s bizarre trip marred by Israeli checkpoints and military control, of which he and his security detail would undoubtedly have been aware. Under such siege-like conditions, protocol took a backseat for he had to rely on a helicopter from a third country to fly him into Palestine. Equally bizarre, but not unexpected, has been the Indian Prime Minister’s muted acceptance of the apartheid conditions imposed on Palestinians by the settler-colonial Israeli regime.

Though it may surprise some people that an anti-colonial power such as India, which struggled long and hard to rid itself of the British Empire, would embrace Israeli colonialism just two years after the Zionist state declared its independence, in keeping with India’s inglorious record of betrayal of Palestine’s just cause, Modi’s subservience to Israel confirms it. This is the substance of the debate which India’s media seems to have evaded; the hasty recognition of Israel while the massacres and ethnic cleansing which accompanied the birth of the state still shocked the world.

To extend the debate further, does the number of times that India has voted against Israel at the UN constitute the only form of solidarity for victims of colonialism? The answer clearly is no, but recent conduct by the Modi government tells a different story. Cosying up to Israel’s right-wing terrorists in the Benjamin Netanyahu government and compromising the arts in the way that Bollywood producers and stars were manipulated recently – willingly or not – reflects the obnoxious conduct of a regime which is itself deeply implicated in gross human rights violations in occupied Kashmir.

Which brings me to the final point which the Indian media failed to tackle; India has pariah status in common with Israel. While the histories of the two countries are vastly different and conflict with their current alliance, does it not matter that both are headed by warmongers whose political careers have been defined by hate, intolerance and bloodshed?

India’s birth came about by the defeat of British colonialism. Israel, on the other hand, credits its birth to the success of its colonial project.

To add to the confusion arising from the reason and nature of Modi’s visit to Ramallah, an Indian Foreign Ministry official, Bala Bhaskar, made an equally perplexing announcement: “This is a stand-alone visit. We have de-hyphenated our relations with Palestine and Israel and now we see them both as mutually independent and exclusive…”

“De-hyphenated”? This term is nothing more than an attempt to inject new adjectives into a narrative which leans towards the occupying power. Whether deliberate or not, it signals how blinded Modi’s India is. Palestinian ghettos – Bantustans in all but name – are a product of Israel’s fascist regime and to delink it from Zionism’s expansionist programme by using terms such as “de-hyphenated” is both cruel and dishonest.

It is quite disappointing that India, which boasts of a diverse and robust media, hasn’t displayed the aggressive journalism for which it is known. Being self-centred by focusing on and celebrating “friendship” with an apartheid regime – as many Indian media houses have done – is to confer legitimacy on Israeli crimes committed against the Palestinian people.

The expectation we have of India’s media is that it will dispense with irrelevant point-scoring about whether Nehru or Modi was the first Prime Minister to visit Palestine. Instead, the message ought to be that Modi’s biased policies in favour of Israel cannot be reconciled with India’s freedom struggle against British colonialism.

After the Saudi purge: The $106bn question hanging over the kingdom

MEE investigation raises doubts about how much money the Saudi state has seized. Numbers don't add up, sources tell MEE

Saudi Arabia says 381 citizens were arrested in purge, but most of their identifies remain unknown (MEE)

By 

Dania Akkad

, Nadine Dahan

As the Ritz-Carlton Riyadh's $650-per-night rooms return to paying guests, a Middle East Eye investigation raises questions over the extent to which Saudi Arabia has cracked down on corruption.

Apple and Amazon are charging in to invest in the kingdom and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) will set off on a "kingdom roadshow" to steel investor nerves in Western financial capitals in the coming weeks.

But MEE's investigation reveals that basic questions remain over the events that started on 4 November when a group of royals and businessmen was summonedto the five-star hotel for what they believed would be a late-night meeting with MbS.

Riyadh's Ritz-Carlton, where many of the high-profile detainees were held since the crackdown began in November (AFP)

Instead, they were arrested and held in the luxury hotel. Some senior royals werebeaten and tortured to reveal their bank account details and required hospital treatment.

After the majority of princes and tycoons were released, Saudi Arabia’s attorney general Sheikh Saud al-Mojeb said that more than $106bn had been seized from 381 Saudi citizens, according to a 30 January statement.

But MEE's investigation shows that very little is known about the majority of those who were locked up, what kind of assets they may have been forced to hand over and if - or how - the final figure tallies. 

A financial advisor in the Gulf with detailed knowledge of several of the detainee said: "The numbers don't gel."

MbS and his supporters say that the crackdown was a type of "shock therapy" neccessary to rein in decades of high-flying corruption that have left the kingdom with a $52bn deficit.

"It's messy, it's disruptive, it has short term negative implications, but long term, it's a very positive development," Ali Shihabi, director of the Washington, DC-based Arabia Foundation, told CNBC.

But the lack of transparency around the campaign suggests that the same players and practices used before the purge will carry on.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and director of the Brookings Intelligence project, said: "If it was a true corruption probe, then the government would have every interest in ensuring that everyone knew who was arrested and what the charges were.

"If those details are not available, it's because the Saudi government is trying to cover something up and that thing is that this wasn't about corruption at all. This is about raising money for a country that has a severe economic problem."

Who were the other 350 arrested?

The identities of around 30 of the Saudis arrested in the November campaign have been well-documented. The most prominent - and richest - is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who was released last month, saying in an interview while he was still in the Ritz that it had all been a "misunderstanding". 

'The majority of people? Nobody knows anything about them'

- Yahya Assiri, founder of Saudi human rights advocacy group Al-Qst 

Others arrested included prominent businessmen from a variety of sectors; royals including Prince Miteb bin Abdullah who was once a contender for the Saudi throne, and several former and current government officials.

One detainee - Ibrahim al-Assaf, a current minister of state and adviser to King Salman - retained his role and, after his release, led the Saudi delegation at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January.

MEE has identified 34 detainees. But if, according to al-Mojeb, 381 people were arrested, then who are the others?

Just weeks before the November purge, a group of more than 60 clerics, human rights activists, journalists and poets were detained. 

While the arrests garnered much less media attention, their identities are largely known to human rights organisations and have been compiled in a list by Al-Qst, a Saudi human rights organisation with an underground network of activists in the kingdom.

Not so those seized in November. MEE contacted four of the main human rights organisations which monitor Saudi Arabia - Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Alkarama Foundation and Al-Qst - to see if they could supply a list of the detainees. 

Only Al-Qst had a list - and that had only 30 people on it.

"The majority of people?" said Yahya Assiri, founder of Al-Qst. "Nobody knows anything about them."

How much of that $106bn is hard cash?

Days after the first arrests in November, Saudi officials said that they aimed to seize $800bn in cash and other assets. Ten days later, that figure halved to between $400-$300bn. Now it's $106bn. 

"What it shows is this wasn't very well planned and that's not a surprise," Riedel said.

One reason the estimate has dropped may be the difficulties Saudi officials have had in seizing assets outside of the kingdom. Some have been tied up in legal agreements that make change of ownership complicated or are in Swiss banks, where attempts to seize funds have been rebuffed, according to the Financial Times.

But even the $106bn figure raises questions. Dollar figures have only been reported for two settlements - those of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal ($6bn) and Prince Miteb bin Abdullah ($1bn) - accounting for $7bn. However, Bin Talal has disputed that amount and told Reuters in an interview last month that he didn't expect to hand over "anything at all".

In addition to the two princes, there are seven others who have reportedly settled:

• Bakr Bin Laden, chairman of the Saudi Binladin Group, who is said, along with family members, to have transferred some shares in Saudi Binladin to the state, but whose company continues to be privately run. However, a well-informed Saudi source on Monday told MEE that Bin Laden is still in state custody
• Waleed al-Ibrahim, chairman of Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC), who has been ordered to hand over a controlling stake in MBC valued at more than $2bn   
• Mohammad al-Tobaishi, former head of the Royal Court, handed overunspecified amount of cash and property
• Mohammed bin Hamoud Al Mazyad, former assistant minister of finance
• Saoud al-Daweesh, former CEO of Saudi Telecom
• Saleh Kamel, chairman and founder of Dallah Albaraka Group
• Prince Turki bin Khalid 

There were no reported details about what assets the other five offered, if any. The same Saudi source said on Monday that Amr Dabbagh, chairman and CEO of Al-Dabbagh Group, has also settled, but has not been released.

Saudi authorities have said they expect that $13.3bn of the $106bn to go towards the state's finances by the end of the year.

But the Gulf financial advisor familiar with the players, who requested anonymity because he continues to work in the region, said the numbers don't add up.

Aside from Bin Talal and Mohammed Al-Amoudi, a Saudi-Ethiopian businessman, he said, the other detainees "are all much smaller". If Bin Talal gave $6bn - and again, that's a figure he disputes - then how is it possible to get to $99bn from the rest?

"There are some people here worth a billion, maybe 100 million. Even if you do an average – there are 350 people. And each of them is basically worth $500mn – that’s $175bn. I don’t believe they’ve taken basically half of their wealth away from them," the advisor said.

One way to get to $100bn, he explained, is to factor in the value of property seized by the authorities - but that doesn't necessarily bring cash to coffers. 

"Who are you going to sell it to?" the advisor said. "It's a desert place so it would be very difficult."

The other explanation is that the government may have told companies to whom it owes money - like Saudi Binladin Group which is reportedly owed around $30bn - that it will not pay off its debts.

Again, money is saved - but that's different from having cash in the bank.

Why don’t we know more?

Julia Legner, the regional legal officer for the Gulf at the Alkarama Foundation, explained that those detained in November depend on those in power if they want to operate - and still need their support to continue doing so. This is in contrast to those arrested in September, who have spoken out against the state in the past

"If you are a businessman or a member of the royal family, you need a network. You can't just denounce them," she said. "There is a lot of money and existence at stake."

Both Assiri and Legner said that while the disappearances and arrests were standard fare for Saudi Arabia, the volume of arrests in November, paired with the lack of information about who was involved, is unprecedented.

"Everyone in Saudi Arabia – he thinks, am I in the queue?" Assiri said.

"The obvious assumption would be that anyone who went through this experience, once they were released, would go home and try to transfer all of their assets out of the kingdom to the US and the UK where they would be safe," he said. And there are other unanswered questions, said Riedel. What are the conditions, for example, that have been set on those who are released? In particular, are they free to move their assets around? 

And there is still the missing answer to the ultimate question: where is that $106bn now?

MEE contacted the Saudi Arabia embassies in London and the US for comment, but did not get a response.