VVoolluummee 77 NNuummbbeerr 1155 FFoouurrtthh QQuuaarrtteerr,, 22001166 NNeeww WWoorrlldd OOrrddeerr aanndd UU..SS... SSeeccuurriittyy DDDeessiiggnnss iinn SSoouutthh AAssiiaa DDrr.. AAhhmmaadd EEjjaazz BBBeeyyoonndd GGrreeeedd oorr GGrriieevvaanncceee TTThhheeeooorrryyy ––– WWWhhaatt EExxppllaaiinnss CCiivviill WWaarr?? MMMoohhaammmmaadd ZZaahhiidduull IIssllaamm KKhhaaannn AAAbbuu SSaayyyyaaff GGrroouupp’’ss PPeerrssiissstteennccee:: AA CChhrroonnoollooggiiccaall AAnnaallyyssiiss ooff CCCrrriiimmmeee---TTTeeerrrrrrooorrr NNeexxuuss iinn tthhee PPhhiilliippppiinneess aannnddd ttthhheee IIIsssiiisss CCoonnnneeccttiioonn iinn SSoouutthheeaasstt AAsssiiiaaa DDrr.. RRoommmmeell CC.. BBaannllaaooii AAAcchhiieevviinngg SSuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyyy tthhhhrrrroooouuuugggggghhhhhh SSttrraatteeggiiccaallllyy MMaannaagggggiiiinnnnngggg DDDDeeevvveeeeelllllooooopppmmmmeennttt MMooddeell ffoorr BBaanngggggggglllllaaaaaaaddddddeesshhh SShhoowwkkaatt AArraa KKKKKhhhhhhhhaaannnaaamm Volume 7 Number 15 Fourth Quarter, 2016 Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS) House No.: 425, Road No.: 07, DOHS, Baridhara Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh Telephone: 8419516-17 Fax: 880-2-8411309 E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.bipss.org.bd Copyright Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS) No part of this publication may be reproduced or stored, in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, or otherwise, without permission of the Editor of the Journal. ISSN 1994-2052 Subscription Rates (including air mail charge) Single Copy: Tk. 500.00/ US$ 40.00 Annual: Tk. 2000.00/ US$ 160.00 Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS) Produced and Printed by S.A Printers Limited, 1/1 Sheikh Shaheb Bazar, Azimpur, Dhaka-1205, Bangladesh Peace and Security Review Vol. 7, No. 15, Fourth Quarter, 2016, p.iii Contents Editor’s Note v New World Order and U.S. Security Designs in South Asia Dr. Ahmad Ejaz 1 Beyond Greed or Grievance Theory – What Explains Civil War? Mohammad Zahidul Islam Khan 26 Abu Sayyaf Group’s Persistence: A Chronological Analysis of Crime- Terror Nexus in the Philippines and the Isis Connection in Southeast Asia Dr. Rommel C. Banlaoi 50 Achieving Sustainability through Strategically Managing Development Model for Bangladesh Showkat Ara Khanam 73 Peace and Security Review Vol. 7, No. 15, Fourth Quarter, 2016, p.v Editor’s Note The latest edition of Peace and Security Reviewcomes at a time of emergence as we begin to witness significant changes developing across the globe. Power and perceptions are being reconfigured to accommodate new international dynamics of cooperation, with the potential of establishing countries such as India as key players within the global arena. The proliferation in terrorist activities are being fuelled by the formation of transnational networks which are continuing to engage in new methods of propaganda to state their claim as significant resilient threats. As crime and terrorism becomes heavily influenced by political drivers, we see, concurrently, the emergence of a global platform for justice and peace. A rise in intra-state conflicts and civil wars are destabilising more traditional notions of nation-state sovereignty, as we see patterns of internal-external influence arising motivated by vulnerabilities and opportunities. All these influences are coming into play as Bangladesh progresses to strategically reassess its national development model, dealing with industrial and agricultural stresses which could potentially hinder its direction for sustainability. The first article titled‘New World Order and U.S. Security Designs in South Asia’, authored by Dr. Ahmad Ejaz, discusses the significant changes within the transformation of the global political and strategic scene. Ejaz examines how the world is entering a new era in which the United States has emerged as a unilateral supreme power. The article investigates the international security threat within the Asia-Pacific region where the swelling Chinese military power has been expatiating new threats to the American interests in this area. Overall, the article confirms the belief of US experts in India’s leading role in establishing a constructive impact on South Asia. In the article ‘Beyond Greed or Grievance Theory-What Explains Civil War?’, Mohammad Zahidul Islam Khan deliberates over the greed or grievance theory – a pioneering quantitative research project which explained the Byzantine complexities of the risks and processes of civil war onset. Also known as one of the most digested model of the theory, it examines global data on civil war against three empirical proxies for greed and four for grievance; claiming that the material motivation (i.e. greed) holds more explanatory power than ideational motivation (i.e. grievance, in the context of civil war onset. The vi Peace and Security Review Vol. 7, No. 15, Fourth Quarter, 2016 author examines the claim and tries to compare and contrast it with other relevant theories of civil war. He principally argues that the primacy of economic motivation in civil war does not imply the notion of greed and grievance to be placed alongside; instead, both greed and grievance remain inherently adjoined in civil war and reflects a symbioticrelationship. The paper substantiates the arguments by highlighting the increasing trend of internationalized civil conflicts where various external actors, in exploiting the regional conflict complex and the opportunity structures, can contribute to triggering and/or prolonging civil wars. The paper also highlights the issues of power and wealth distribution in society and how it contends with the model account for group inequalities in economic, political, cultural and social dimensions. In incorporating both greed and grievance, the model is better poised to explain the incidence of civil war onset. In the article ‘Abu Sayyaf Group’s Persistence a Chronological Analysis of Crime-Terror Nexus in the Philippines and the ISIS Connection in Southeast Asia’, Dr. Rommel C. Banlaoi steered into a sequential analysis of the persistence of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) as a non-state armed group as itmorphed into a violent group engaged in both crime and terrorism.Previously linked with Al Qaeda, the ASG had pledged allegiance to Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which provides this home-grown armed group from the Southern Philippines a fresh outlook through which to justify its violent acts. The author also discusses several ideas in the crime-terror nexus where he explains the key interests of terrorist groups onto politics and lofty ideological or religious goals.The paper tries to distinguish the line between crime and terrorism, tackling the increasing blurred linear distinction and its further comprehensive counter measure against the ASG. In the article ‘Achieving Sustainability through Strategically Managing Development Model for Bangladesh’ Showkat Ara Khanam provides a roadmap for achieving sustainability through strategically managing Bangladesh’s development model, which is laid on the twin pillars of our development model in agriculture and industrialization. The paper concludes that without dual interaction between agriculture and industrialization, based on mutuality, Bangladesh’s development will be unsuccessful and dysfunctional. Maintaining the strategies and principles of sustainability through strategically managing Bangladesh’s development model holds tremendous contribution to the discourse on sustainability within the country. BIPSS will continue to publish content which is responsive, engaging and highly analytical of current situations both in Bangladesh and worldwide. Acting as the sole contributor for writing on national peace and security issues, we hope to maintain an international dialogue which helps to foster collaboration and the sharing of knowledge and attributions. Peace and Security Review Vol. 7, No. 15, Fourth Quarter, 2016, p.1-25 New World Order and U.S. Security Designs in South Asia Dr. Ahmad Ejaz* Abstract The beginning of 1990s witnessed the significant changes in form of transformation of global political and strategic scene. The events transformed the world were the momentous retreat of Soviet Union from Afghanistan in conjunction with the disintegration of Soviet Union, end of the Cold War, and a rapid change of a political and economic system in Eastern Europe. Thus the world entered a new era in which the United States emerged as a unilateral supreme power and unfolded am new agenda to build international political, economic and strategic environment of its own choice. The term, ‘New World Order’ was initially used by President George Herbert Walker Bush (1989-1993) in a speech which he made in February 1990, hailing the collapse of the ‘iron curtain.’1The foremost feature of the U.S.-sponsored new international agenda was to secure the political and strategic dominance of the United States in the post-Cold War world, preventing the emergence of a rival power that could challenge the unipolar world system. The future course of action was decided to be executed through regional power centres which were assumed to play significant role bothon the political as well as economic fronts of the emerging international scenario.In the post- Cold War world, the balance of power has been transferred from the Atlantic Ocean to Pacific Ocean. The significance of the Asia- Pacific region for the U.S. has been owing to China, which survives the communist base with its huge area and size of population and booming economy and strong military structure that the United States considers as the main rising threat to its *Dr. Ahmad Ejazhas a Ph.D. on ‘Kashmir Issue & U.S. Department of Political Science, Security Concerns in South Asia 1990-2002’ from the Department of Political Science,University of the Punjab, Lahore, along with a M.A. in History from Department of History,University of the Punjab, Lahore. Currently he is the Assistant Professor, since November 2011, to date at Pakistan Study Centre, University ofthe Punjab, Lahore. He was the Senior Research Fellow, from July 2010 to November 2011, at Pakistan Study Centre,University of the Punjab, Lahore. He was also the Research Assistant, from November 1988 to July 2010, at Pakistan Study Centre,University of the Punjab, Lahore.Dr. Ahmed Ejaz also has an extensive Teaching Experience and several achievements. He has worked with U.S. Security Policy towards South Asia and has various publications on subject including Books, Policy Papers, Monographs andResearch Articles, published in Research Journal of national and International repute. 2 Peace and Security Review Vol. 7, No. 15, Fourth Quarter, 2016 national security and other challenges includes nuclear proliferation and religious extremism. Given the U.S. post- Cold War agenda in Asia-Pacific, the Americans redefined U.S. interests in South Asia, reversing the options of past and setting new trends in diplomacy. They recommended an India-centric policy, underlining India as a largest secular democracy and dominant power in the region that could play an important role to secure the U.S. interests in the area. This article traces strings of New World Order and U.S. security agenda in Asia- Pacific and its impression on its security policy in South Asia. The New World Order It was only after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 that the idea of building a New World Order became a recurrent theme in President Bush’s public oratory. After assembling successfully the coalition against the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, he said in a speech on August 30, 1990: “I look at the countries that are chipping away in here now, I think we do have a chance at a New World Order.”2 In his speech to the Congress on September 11, 1990, President Bush also referred to this newly coined term of New World Order. He said: A New World Order, a new era, freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we have known.3 President Bush further defined the future world: “A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle, a world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice, a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”4Later on, at the beginning of the Gulf crisis in January 1991, President Bush characterized his vision of a new international order by “peaceful settlement of disputes, solidarity against aggression, reduced and controlled arsenals and just treatment of all peoples.”5In practical terms, the Gulf War demonstrated the sole military supremacy of the United States. According to one estimate, President Bush referred to the New World Order at least 42 times in his speeches during the Gulf crisis from January to March 1991.6 Similarly the senior members of the Bush administration, including Secretary of State James Baker, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering, had used the phrase- New World Order -on various occasions, speaking about the American policy in the post- Gulf War era.7 Dr. Ahmad Ejaz New World Order and U.S. Security Designs in South Asia 3 The foremost feature of the U.S.-sponsored new international agenda was to secure the political and strategic dominance of the United States in the post- Cold War world, preventing the emergence of a rival power that could challenge the unipolar world system. A U.S. Defense Department planning document of March 1992 interpreted the U.S. strategy: “to prevent the reemergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union, or elsewhere, to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”8 The document spelled out the measures the United States required to take to maintain its dominance: 1. The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. 2. In the non-defense areas, the U.S. must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging the U.S. leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. 3. The U.S. must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.9 The statements and comments of President Bush and other senior U.S. administration officials revealed in broader terms, a number of consistent themes, which formed the crux of the idea of New World Order. The guiding principles of the U.S. future global agenda were: 1. New leadership role for the United States. President Bush explained that America had a “disproportionate responsibility to lead” in the new emerging world. 2. Promotion of peace and stability through the collective security system, emphasizing the multinational cooperation against an aggression. In his speech in Alabama on April 13, 1991, President Bush said that the New World Order “refers to new ways of working with other nations to deter aggression, to achieve prosperity and above all, to achieve peace.” 3. Control of the weapons of mass destruction by concluding and verifying new arms control agreements and non-proliferation