CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Geopolitics is the study of international relation and conflicts from a geographical perspective. The geographical perspective suggests the location, distance and distribution of natural and human resources which have significant influence on international relation (Braden and Shelly, 2000). The study of geographical concept of place, location, distance, direction, diffusion and regions form very important questions. The basic fact which comes first in the study of geography is where is it meaning the location of particular place and its other geographical attributes. The location of any place describes its importance geographically, geo-strategically and resource wise.

DEFINITIONS
A myriad of definitions exist concerning the term geopolitics. The term has been surrounded by controversies right since the beginning, when the Swedish Professor Rudolf Kjellen (1864-1922) used this term in the early 20th century. Over the years, the term geopolitics has been used and manipulated by policymakers, academicians, administrators, politicians and diplomats to create a logic to serve his or her own political, socioeconomic and strategic agenda. Although geopolitics has been defined differently by different people, yet there exists a common ground. According to American Heritage Dictionary, simply geopolitics is the study of relationships between politics and geography, demography and economics, especially with respect to foreign policy of a nation (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000). From another viewpoint geopolitics is defined as, the abstract, geopolitics traditionally indicates the links and causal relationships between political power and

geographic space; in concrete terms it is often seen as a body of thought assaying specific strategic prescriptions based on the relative importance of land power and sea power in world history. The geopolitical tradition had some consistent concerns, like the geopolitical correlates of power in world politics, the identification of international core areas, and the relationships between naval and terrestrial capabilities (Osterud, 1988). When Rudolf Kjellen coined the term geopolitics, he was inspired by Retzels work of political geography as Bruno de Almeida Ferrari stated political geography deals with the study of existing relations between spatial facts and political process and therefore along with the spatial analysis of political phenomena. It concerns the spatial attributes of political process or can be seen as the study of existing relations between spatial facts and political process (Ferrari, 2005). On the other hand, geopolitics represents the study of geographic distribution of power among the states of international system focusing on the rivalries of the major power. Another version and definition of geopolitics hinges on the theoretical postulate that, the states foreign policies are set to determine her goals. Geopolitics and geopolitical analysis, constitutes the study of international politics seen from a spatial geocentric perspective. Political geography handles the intersection of geographical factors and politics, the intersection of political power and space, while geopolitics tries to provide a geographic interpretation and studies the geographical aspect of political phenomena. The theoretical aspects differ from each other in all well-known definition of geopolitics. But aspect of geographic interaction of political phenomena is wider and more comprehensive. According to Tuomi (1998) the theoretical geopolitics studies the relation between physical space and international politics, it develops a model for the spatial division of the world into cooperating and competing parts for historical, economic and

political reasons and analyzes how the participants interpret the political, economic and military consequences of this division. The geopolitics of a state or other territorially defined society means its pursuit of geographically dimensioned aims that are connected with its economic and political position security and culture. This definition covers almost all aspects of political decisions of any state or territorial space. The definition covers historical, economic and political factors interpreted in a political phenomenon. The cultural and security aspects are also included. In his definition, Toumi also gives a base to define a new geopolitical condition especially after the Cold War and the tragic events of September 11, 2001 . Many experts and academicians tried to define geopolitics in different manners. The study of geopolitics has undergone a major renaissance during the past decade. Addressing a gap in the Geopolitical Journal, this journal seeks to explore the theoretical implications of contemporary geopolitics and geopolitical change with particular reference to territorial problems and issues of state sovereignty. Multidisciplinary in its scope, Geopolitics includes all aspects of the social sciences with particular emphasis on political geography, international relations, the territorial aspects of political science and international law. The journal seeks to maintain a healthy balance between systemic and regional analysis. Geopolitics traditionally indicates the links and causal relationships between political power and geographic space; in concrete terms it is often seen as a body of thought assaying specific strategic prescriptions based on the relative importance of land power and sea power in world history. The geopolitical tradition had some consistent concerns, like the geopolitical correlates of power in world politics, the identification of international core areas, and the relationships between naval and terrestrial capabilities (Osterud, 1988).

Geopolitics is studying geopolitical systems. The geopolitical system , in the opinion of Valadimir Toncea, is the ensemble of relations between the interests of international political actors, interests focused to an area, space, geographical element or ways ( Toncea, 2006). Geopolitics as a branch of political geography is the study of reciprocal relations between geography, politics and power and also the interactions arising from combination of them with each other. According to this definition, geopolitics is a scientific discipline and has a basic science nature (Hafeznia, 2006). Houshofer (1942) described the field of geopolitics as to investigate the relationship of political events to significant part of the earths surface. Therefore, Geopolitics as a term is adopted by geographers to describe an area of geographic enquiry that considers space to be important in understanding the constitution of international relation. Geographical investigation can be carried out at various levels where its dimensions can be studied by adopting various approaches. People from different fields and subjects may adopt any of them, but three approaches are mainly adopted by geographers. The contemporary global geopolitical order is inclusive of three approaches viz. the power approach, the ideological approach, and the political economy approach.

Approches to study geopolitics The Power Approach

The power approach looks at the relationship between nations and examines their ability to influence or change the behaviour of each other. Since the middle of the twentieth century, this approach has experienced a dramatic shift of emphasis of power centre. The bipolarity

of the 1940s and 1950s with the domination of the erstwhile superpowers, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, is replaced by multi polarity of the post Cold War era. The development of newer and stronger nations and the growth of multipolarity is now experienced with the emergence of western Europe, Japan and China as significant economic and industrial powers. Thus, the geopolitical equilibrium was preserved by a hierarchy of powerful states developing at the expense of smaller and weaker nations. But, after the Cold War and the breakup of the USSR, the situation has changed. Now US is the sole super power able to influence and change the behaviour of other nations. The assumption of geo-politician that, some European countries and Japan are allies of the US and its military as well as economic supremacy, allows it to hold the opinion that US alone is able to take decisions directly and dictates allies as either with us or with the terrorists an example of power approach of geopolitics.

THE IDEOLOGICAL APPROACH

The ideological approach is used as a basis upon which the state can justify territorial action, domestically and globally. In the case of the US, it has expanded its frontiers like by gaining on a mission to civilize the wildness, thus gaining the territory that increased its geopolitical significance. Today, under the pretext of terrorism, the US is trying to justify her actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The USSR had also used ideological reasoning to vindicate military intervention whenever and where ever socialism was threatened from a source within its own boundaries or beyond. It is this ideological approach that led Cohen (1965) to formulate a hypothesis in his book, Geography and Politics in a Divided World, on shatter belt region, which is an extension of the work done by Fairgrieve (1941) who formulated the theory of Crush Zone. Here Cohen described a shatter belt as a large strategically located region that is occupied by a number of conflicting states and is caught

between the conflicting interests of adjoining great powers (Cohen, 1974). This region, thus, includes South East Asia and Middle East because of their natural oil reserves. Political and economic fate is of vital concern to the emerging powers. Today, Central Asia is a new example of shatter belt because of oil, gas and its geopolitical location. However, within these regions, there is a clash of culture and politics among various groups. Further this region is characterized by divers geographical, historical, cultural and political settings that make this area highly unsuitable and hence, provides the emerging powers with the ideological basis to justify territorial expansion. Thus, this region falls within the preview of the ideological approach of geopolitics.

The POLITICAL Economy Approach

The political economy approach assumes that, geopolitics cannot be understood without fully considering the global economy and who gets what, where and how? Wallerstein (1930) considered the link between the process of capital accumulation, resource competition and foreign policy in a study which thrusts the US the leading role and downgraded the USSR, since it had far limited economic capabilities. However, this approach relegates the importance of political and cultural process at a state level, though they have very influential role in determining the international relation. All the three approaches are incorporated in the works of Halford Mackinder, Haushofer, Cohen, Gray and other leading geopolitical thinkers.

History of Geopolitics
Whatever the definition one may adopt today is a result of a long tradition of development of political geography.

The history of geopolitics began with the development of Organic State Theory postulated by Friedrich Ratzel (1901). A distinguished and prolific geographer Ratzel was originally trained in biology, chemistry and other sciences. He was influenced by both Darwins discovery and social Darwinism. In his written work, especially his classic Politische Geographie (1896), he used similes and metaphors from biology in his analysis of political science and geography to comparing state with an organism. The state is a land and man is linked to state by land. Man is linked by the idea of state conforming to natural law with the development tied to the natural environment. State is just like a living organism, it expands and shrinks. State needs food in form of lebensraums (living space) and resources and they constantly compete for them. A state like organism must grow or die (Ratzel, 1896). Ratzel described following seven laws of the state growth 1. The space of state grows with the expansion of the population having the same

culture. 2. 3. 4. Territorial growth follows other aspects of development. A state grows by absorbing smaller units. The frontier is a peripheral organ of the state that reflects the strength and

growth of the state hence it is not permanent. 5. State, in the course of its growth, is contagious and increases in the process of

transmission. 6. The impetus for growth comes to primitive state from a more or highly

developed civilization. 7. The trend toward territorial growth is contagious and increases in the process

of transmission.

Out of the seven laws, the fourth and sixth laws became more famous because they inspired Hitler to take aggressive stand in his foreign policy towards east. Ratzel did not use the term geopolitics, but his Law of States Growth provides the fundamental base to geopolitical reasoning of that time. After Ratzel, Kjellen used the term geopolitics who was influenced by Ratzel. Rudolf Kjellen (1864-1922) was also a Professor of Political Science at Uppsala. Unlike Ratzel, Kjellen was not a careful scientist. Instead he took up Ratzels analogy and insisted flatly that the state is an organism. He even titled his most important book Staten Some Lifsform (State as an Organism, 1916). In this book, he described that there are five organs of any state. 1. Kartopolitik: Government structure 2. Demopolitik: Population structure 3. Sociopolitik: Social structure 4. Oekopolitik: Economic structure 5. Geopolitik: Physical structure This book, in which Kjellen coined the term Geopolitik, was translated into German in 1917 when Germany was losing the War. In this book, Kjellen defined geopolitik as the theory of states as geographic organism or phenomenon in space, i.e., as land territory, area or most specifically as country or the strategies of political organisms in space (Kjellen,1917). After the War, this book drew the attention of German political scientists, geographers and nationalists and they used this book for rebuilding Germany into a world power. This book was subsequently used by Italy and Japan also.

Thus, Ratzel and Kjellen can be described as the fathers of the concept of geopolitics because they drew the outline of geopolitics but still geopolitics was neither famous and nor in practice among the statecraft by the intellectuals of that time. However , it drew attention of many geographers, political scientist, policy makers and diplomats. One of them was Mackinder, a famous political geographer of twentieth century. It was Mackinder who made geopolitics a centre of statecraft and international politics. Theory of Heartland given by Mackinder impacted international relation profoundly until the end of the Cold War. In Germany Karl Haushofer began lecturing at University of Munich in 1919 and created a rationalization for Nazi territorial expansion policies. The American professor Nicholas Spykman (1938) presented Rim Land Theory in order to contradict the Heartland Theory. This concept became part of the US policy of containment of the USSR and communism. Meanwhile some of the scholars started focusing on the world next power instead of their country or state in order to have a more realistic view of geopolitical or international political behavior. They formed a global view of geopolitical affair and recommended it to be followed by their governments. Alfred T. Mahan was also one of them. He was an admiral in the US navy and produced about 200 books. He argued that in history, naval forces became victorious in comparison to infantry. Thus, geopolitical traditions are very old which can be divided into five geopolitical orders: 1. The British geopolitical order

2. The imperialist geopolitical order / geopolitical order of inter-imperial rivalry 3. The Cold War geopolitical order or Cold War geopolitics 4. The new geopolitical order 5. The geopolitics after 9/11

Most of the authors and theorists of geopolitics identify only three of above orders and dont consider British Geopolitical Order as a organised geopolitical order. They initiate with the writings of Ratzel, Kjellen and Mackinder and divide the historical development of geopolitical thinking into three major categories. Since, geopolitical changes due to 9/11 are recent phenomena; therefore, they do not find full mention in the writing and views of most geopolitical thinkers of the present time. However, this event has significantly changed the foreign policies of all the countries of the world; therefore, it has been studied separately. But one cannot deny the importance of British or Pre-Mackinder geopolitical order as a separate geopolitical order, although, the term geopolitics was not coined that time, yet the phenomenon had very much started with the British colonial rule. After Britains policy of global political economy, other European nations indulged in rivalries with the Britain and among themselves also. This is called imperialist geopolitical order, which began with the organic state theory and ended after World War II in 1948. The Cold War between the US and the USSR started just after WWII and was dragged until 1989 when USSR recalled his forces from Afghanistan and broke-up into 15 separate nations. After the collapse of the USSR, the era of new geopolitics began in which US emerged as a dictator in global issues. The sudden change in the wake of 9/11 provided the US new opportunities to resettle his global policies especially in Central Asia which is geo-strategically very important. The main agenda of the US policy in Central Asia has been to exploit its natural resources, geopolitically to achieve its security dimension and strategically to maintain a status quo in the region by drawing a balance between Russia, China and India.

The British Geopolitical Order

It was in Britain that the phenomenon of a global geopolitical order was started with the beginning of the industrial revolution. With the passage of time clashes and rivalries started, Britain lost its position as a single global leader and began a new geopolitical order which is called Imperial Geopolitical Order or Imperialist Geopolitics. Industrial revolution began in 1750 in Britain. As this revolution was started in Britain, therefore, the advantages of it went to Britain single handedly. The first phase of industrial revolution (17501850) which was characterized, mostly by innovation came in Britain. It was during this period that Britain became the first industrial country from an agriculturebased economy. Britain was followed by France, Belgium and Germany. The process began in third or fourth decade of nineteenth century and in Russia in the seventh decade. Because Britain transformed itself into an industrial country, for exporting its production and getting raw material, it had to establish its market outside Britain and Europe. Therefore, Britain used hard policy to maintain his industrial progress by the use of force and diplomacy. To achieve this end in India, Africa, China and South East Asia, Britain established its colonies. Since, there was no serious challenge from any other power between 1815 and 1875, Britain enjoyed its supremacy. The period of rivalries started after 1875 when industrialization became a fast-developing phenomenon also in other European countries and they also began to establish their business outside Europe. Britain not only experienced an industrial revolution earlier than the rest of Europe but traded and invested into other continents on a much larger scale also. Due to the technological innovation and organizational efficiency in early nineteenth century British industry produced goods for export and capital for investment.

Under the British patronage, market was effectively globalized as production for the market replaced self sufficient economy. The British national economy became the base of the world economy. The globalization of British economy in nineteenth century increased the spatial scope of the world economy. The recycling of capital returned from overseas investment made London the finance capital of world. Britain did everything to maintain and restore the status quo of British supremacy. British imperialism, mixed forces of trade, investment, diplomacy, military intervention and ideology, represented the new kind of state-expedited growth of international economic transactions. There is a problem in overstating the achievements of free trade during the period between 1825 and 1875. There were multilateral agreements governing international trade before WWII. Until 1840, Britain itself remained largely protectionist and derived a considerable share of government revenues from custom duties. The era of free trade started in early 1860s when Britain and France signed the CobdenChevalier Commercial Treaty. In 1838, a commercial treaty was also signed to allow British ships to sail through the Bosporus. In the Black Sea, Turkey abolished internal duties on trade within the Ottoman Empire and was granted the status of the most favored nation. Contemporary British military diplomacy opened many countries of the world for international trade. The Treaty of Nanking (1842) led to recognition of British diplomatic relations with China. After the treaty, China opened five of its ports to British traders for opium trade and granted the status of most favored nation to Britain. During 1870s, Britain began to lose its pivotal position within Europe and had to sacrifice its industrial strength for free trade. In both respects, the rise of political economy of Germany and marvellous economic growth of United States were most significant

developments. In particular, the newly united Germany was not willing to accept political subsidiary to Britain either in Europe or outside. Until the nineteenth century a new concept of statehood based on creation of nation state came increasingly to the fore. These new states emerged on lingual , ethnic and religious bases. The identity of state territorial sovereignty became fused with the fate of the nation.

The Imperialist Geopolitical Order

After the decline of British global supremacy and the rise of Germany, USA, Russia followed by Japan, Italy and France, the new period of inter imperial rivalries began in Europe. Britain was the classic superpower on the globe but later Germany and France started challenging Britains supremacy in Africa, Asia and even in Europe. The most historically and geographically fated imperialist rivalry of the period was that of British and German in central Europe, a rivalry that was at the crux of two murderous worldwide Wars that claimed the lives of millions of people in twentieth century. USA was a regional power before eighteenth century but after James Monroe (1823) and Theodore Roosevelt (1905) US changed the situation and began the practice like a big power. In 1823 Monroe declared European power should not extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere. In 1905, Roosevelt became the president of USA and with him sea power imperialism, anti colonial commercial expansionism and civilizational racism also gained ground. He argued that America was a masterful race which should speak softly but carry a big stick. Roosevelt corollary sought to give notice that the American hemisphere was the special preserve of the United States.

In 1883, Berlin Conference was held in which British and other European powers divided Africa for themselves. It was a clear sign of Britains willingness to continue with power sharing with others. When European powers were involved in China for expansion, Russia was also trying to expand its influence in Asia, specially towards Afghanistan and China. In South Asia, struggle started between Britain and Russia. Russia penetrated successfully in China especially in Manchuria and Korean peninsula . Russia and China also signed a secret treaty on June 3, 1896. Later on Russian expansion alarmed Japan and other European powers especially Britain. To limit the influence of Russia in China and Korea, Japan and Britain signed a treaty in 1902. Up to the first decade of twentieth century, new battlefields were ready for global powers Africa and Asia. European powers, Russia, Japan and USA were struggling with each other. While the power struggle was on amongst these nations, some academicians and politicians provided logical base for their expansion and involvement in other continents and regions of the world. Kjellen, Mackinder, Haushofer and Hitler were the founders of ideological geopolitics who provided the intellectuals base for legitimization for state action and intervention in Europe. Retzel, Kjellen, Hausfoher and Hitler, in Europe; Roosevelt and Mahan, in America, made geopolitics as a form of power-knowledge. This power/knowledge approach was born in an era of inter imperialist rivalry between 1870 and 1945. The period of imperialist rivalry between 1870- 1945 is also characterized by the inception and development of power-knowledge approach which consequently originated the development of ideological geopolitics as propagated by Kjellen, Mackinder, Haushofer and Hitler. In America Roosevelt popularized geopolitics as a form of powerknowledge, the same work was done by Mahan in Asia, Russia and Japan. Thus, the

geopolitical struggle of this power was taken beyond the boundaries of Europe. One of the main characteristics of the ideological geopolitics was proper intellectual base for the legitimization of states extra- territorial intervention and control of territories in different parts of the world. The beginning of this intellectual pursuit of power- knowledge can be traced with the publishing of Friedrich Retzels books The Laws of the Spatial Growth of States (1895) and Political Geography (1896), and Kjellens work The State as an Organism (1916). But real geopolitical saga started with historic work of Sir Halford J. Mackinder in 1904 when he presented a paper at Royal Geographical Society in London entitled The Geographical Pivot of History. This was a true milestone in geopolitical debate of that period. In his paper, Mackinder reasoned that the Eurasian territory consisting of Eastern Europe and Central Asia would become the source of a great power that would dominate Far East, Southern Asia and Africa, what he called World Island. He presumed that this area contained a substantial resource base capable of sustaining the world power significantly. Thus, he formulated this famous hypothesis: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland. Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island. Who rules the World Island commands the world (Fig. 2.1). Mackinder was the first geopolitical intellectual who presented global vision for the first time. In his theory he divided the world into three parts: Pivot Area Inner or marginal crescent, and Land of outer or insular crescent

PIVOT

AREAIn

this theory, pivot area was Russian state. According to Mackinder, Russia

has pivotal position on the World Island and after the railways development from Siberia to Eurasia, Russia will be in position to control Heartland and at last will control the World Island. Geopolitical World after Mackinder

Figure -2.1 Source:http://www.tortaharn.net/contents/images/stories//heartland_theory.gif

INNER OR MARGINAL CRESCENTIt is outside the pivot area. In great inner crescent located are Germany, Austria, Turkey, India and China; and in the outer crescent are Britain, South Africa, Australia, United States, Canada and Japan. He reasoned that in the present condition of the balance of power the pivot states, Russia is not equivalent to peripheral state and there is room for equipoise in France . But soon after the railway development in Russia, Russia played an important role in balancing the globe. He wrote The Russian railway has a clear run of 6,000 miles from Wirballen in the west to Vladivostok in the east. The Russian Army in Manchuria is a significant evidence

of mobile land power as the British army in South Africa was of sea power. The transSiberian railway is still a single precarious line of communications. The space within the Russian empire and Mongolia are so vast and there potentialities in population wheat, cotton, fuel and metals so incalculably great, that it is inevitable that a vast economic world, more or less apart, will there develop inaccessibility to oceanic commerce. Mackinders theory is important in the history of geopolitics for three reasons: (1) for its birds eye global view, (2) for its division of globe into vast swaths of territory and (3) for its sweeping story of geographic condition influencing on the course of history and politics. Mackinder gave high importance to Pivot Area and declared that who will control this area will control world island in this pivot, North Russia, Central Asia, Siberia and some parts of East Europe was included. His assumption was that there are three epochs of history which he named after the explorer Columbus. Each epoch is defined by dominant dreams remember his stage metaphor and Mobility of Power. With the era of geographical exploration and discovery at an end, Mackinder suggested that history is now entering the post-Columbian epoch, an epoch of closed space where an event in one part of the globe will have triple effect across the globe. More significantly from a British imperial point of view, trans continental railways are now transmuting the condition of land power and now here can they have such effect as in the closed Heartland of Eurasia. This is alarming to British Empire because it threatens to change the balance of power between land power and sea power (Mackinder 1904). He also stated The over stating of the balance of power in favor of the pivot state resulting in its expansion over the marginal land of Eurasia, would permit the use of vast continental resources for fleet building and the empire of the world would then be in sight (Mackinder, 1904).

Some intellectuals criticized the Mackinders future vision because he neglected the importance of organization in the development of power. He missed revolutionary implications of air power for the twentieth century. He also marginalized the emergence of USA which he strangely describes as an Eastern power and overestimated the strategic significance of the vast space of the Russian Heartland. During the Mackinders time United States emerged as a significant player on the worlds stage. Just after it emerged, US also tried to expand her empire. After the defeat of Spanish empire in 1893, US colonised Philippines and became the overlord of Cuba. American expansion was motivated in part by the sea power doctrine of acquiring overseas naval bases. The US also acquired the Hawaiian island and Guam. Mahan (1890) and other prominent imperialist thinkers justified such expansion. Mahan argued in an institutionally self-serving way that the path of national greatness lay in commercial and naval powers. Sea power imperialism masculinity, anti-colonial commercial expansionism and civilizational racism came together when Roosevelt became president in 1901. Roosevelt was a white supremacist who believed that there is natural hierarchy of white Anglo Saxons at the top and a whole series of inferior races like Chinese, Latin American and Negroes. Roosevelt practiced very aggressive form of geopolitics. He declared that American hemisphere was the special preserve for USA. According to Roosevelt, US had right to exercise as international police. Chronic wrongdoing or an importance which results in general loosening of the ties of civilized society may in America as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nations, and in the western hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the

Monroe doctrine may force the United States however, reluctantly in flagrant case of such wrongdoing or importance to the exercise of an international police (Roosevelt, 1905). Roosevelt also sought to formalize his geopolitical thinking to Monroe doctrine and declared that European power should not extend their system to any portion of American hemisphere. He asserted In asserting the Monroe doctrine, in taking such steps as we have taken in regard to Cuba, Venezuela and Panama and in endeavoring to circumscribe the threat of War in far east, and to secure the open door in China, we have acted in our own interest as well as in the interest of humanity at large ( Roosevelt, 1905). Thus, Roosevelt drew the line of influence of USA on the globe. In Europe, Germany was emerging as a big power and threatening Britains hegemony. Situation became worse after Germanys defeat in the World War I and Versailles treaty pact in which allied nations imposed very shameful conditions on Germany. But Hitler annulled all pacts and conditions and raised a big military power. Haushofer a former military commander turned geographer, after retirement from the German army gave a new dimension to Hitlers engagement in Europe and elsewhere. As per many other Germans like Hitler and Hess he also felt that Versailles treaty had emasculated Germany into a natural world power with a large advanced population that was reduced to living on narrow territorial area. Consequently they all worked in their different ways to overthrow the treaty of Versailles and make Germany the world power again. Haushofer started the journal Zeitschrift fur Geopolitics ( The Journal of Geopolitics) in 1924. Haushofer was impressed by social Darwinist ideas of his intellectual hero Retzel and admirer of geopolitical master work of the Mackinder. In his journal Haushfer wanted to overthrow Versailles and expand German boundaries. In a book he outlined the Retzalian organic theory of the state and used it to politicize against the treaty of Versailles.

Germany must emerge out of the narrowness of the present living space into the freedom of the world. We must approach this task well equipped in knowledge and training. We must familiarize ourselves with the important spaces of settlement and migration on earth. We must study the problem of boundaries, as one of the most important problems of geopolitics. We ought to devote particular attention to national self-determination, population pressure, living space and changes in rural and urban settlement and we must clearly follow all shifts and transfers of power throughout the world (Dorpalen, 1942 ). Haushofer advocated that German politicians must study geopolitics: a sound knowledge of geography and history is just as important above all, our future leaders must be schooled in geopolitical analysis. (Houshofer,1942). He discussed his ideas with Adolf Hitler. Hitler founded Nazi party for the purpose of raising Germany to the world power status. In his Mein Kemph he introduced the myth of race by projecting the Germans as Aryans, the superior race. Hitler did not want to return to the 1914 border of Germany. He described just like Haushofer for an Eastern Orientation. His program was to acquire necessary soil for our German people, In East Europe, therefore, his eastern policy was similar to that of Eastern Orientation of Haushofer. Hitler stated, Neither western nor eastern orientation must be the future goal of our foreign policy but an eastern policy in the sense of acquiring the necessary soil for our German people (Hitler 1942). Haushofer supported Hitler and Nazis. Although he never became the member of Nazi party, but he promoted their agenda by writing a book entitled National Socialist Throughout in World Politics where he described the ascent of Nazis to power and denounced Jews. Haushofer also helped to facilitate the GermanJapan cooperation that eventually resulted in anti-comintern pact of 1936. In 1936, NaziSoviet pact also reflected Haushofers geopolitical thinking.

After the fall of Berlin Haushofer tried to legitimise his geopolitical ideas and wrote Defense of German Geopolitics. He emphasized through his writings that what he has been doing and promoting all things were also being done by British and American geopoliticians. After WWII, new geopolitical equations were taking shape and a new geopolitical chessboard was ready for the new players. The U S and the USSR was ready to play a long game. The old imperial geopolitics gave way to newly emerging Cold war geopolitics.

The Cold War Geopolitics

Cold War began just after WWII on the question of rolling back of Soviet Union from Eastern Europe and division of Germany between the USSR and USA allies. After WWII only USA and USSR remained most powerful nations in the world. Former powers as Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan were either destroyed or became very weak in the War. USA emerged as the most powerful country as it was not directly affected by war while the USSR was affected directly and faced huge destruction. Although western experts accused the USSR for beginning Cold War by breaking the Yalta agreement of 1945. But this was not a one-sided phenomenon. It was largely a phenomenon which initiated by both sides. The USSR wanted to ensure his security in postWar situation from European side. Therefore, he made its position strong in Eastern Europe and penetrated her armies up to the Eastern Germany and divided Germany in two parts. The USSR also opposed any type of armament of western Germany which was proposed by USA and its allies to counter USSR and communist threat. The USSR was not taking any interest everywhere in Eastern Europe and especially in Germany. On the other side, USA and its Western European allies were not happy with the USSR and its policies about Eastern Europe. They blamed the USSR for breaking the Yalta agreement and not to

holding free and fair elections as well as installing communist regime as subservient to Moscow and keeping thousands of troops in Eastern Europe. They also took communism as an ideological threat. Therefore, they felt that communism is a danger for liberal, free market economy and their global military domination. Therefore, since 1946 when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill put that Soviet rang down iron curtain to cut off Eastern Europe up to 1989, when Berlin wall was removed, Cold War heated the world politics. From Truman Doctrine (1923) to Mikhail Gorbachevs New Political Thinking many theories were put forward which gave different dimensions to international relations and geopolitics. In 1947, communist guerrillas started War in Greece against monarchy. Communists were also trying to influence Turkey. At both places the USSR was clearly supporting the communists. Ironically, USA and allies took this situation very seriously and decided to oppose communists and supported anti-communist movements globally. To counter communism in Turkey and Greece, the US President Truman demanded from his senate to protect local regime of both Turkey and Greece. On March 12, 1947 he spoke before the US congress and declares his policy of countering communism. Thus Truman doctrine was the first significant public statement of an American president on Cold War geopolitics. Truman accused the USSR for breaking Yalta agreement. He also said The government of United States has made frequent measures against coercion and intimidation in violation of Yalta agreement ( Truman, 1947). Truman not only declared support to Turkey and Greece but also supported all anticommunist regimes in the world. He described It must be the policy of United States to support free people who are resisting attempt of subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. (Truman, 1947)

During the Turkey and the Greece crises, Truman declared his agenda in which he emphasized that world could not remain neutral. The world should engage with US or against US. He explained At the present moment in the world history, nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one. One way of life is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, and free election, guarantee of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion and freedom from political oppression. The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon
the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio-fixed election

and suppression of personal freedom (Truman, 1947). It was the policy declaration of US against the communist state and ideology. Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in the faithful hour, the effect will be far reaching to the west as well as to the east (Truman, 1947). Some statecraft intellectuals like George Kennan were critical of the crude and alarmist tone of Truman because it contained rational calculation of means and ends for United States. But George Kennan was cognizant of this danger, he wrote an essay The Source of Soviet Conduct based on Truman doctrine. Initially it was published in Foreign Affairs with pseudonym of Mr. X. This article became the intellectual foundation of the post-war American foreign policy of Containment of Soviet Union and Marxist ideology. In his article, Kennan explained the Soviet communism as an the ideology of maladjusted group of fanatics who seized power in 1917. He wrote The political personalities of Soviet power as we know them today is the product of the ideology and circumstances ideology inherited by present Soviet leaders and the movement in which they had there political origin (Kennan, 1947).

Kennan also argued that the Soviet leadership of that time was feeling perpetual insecurity to destroy all competing powers both inside and outside of the country. Kennan also debated that whole leadership of the USSR which was due to mistrust on the outside world. Whole training has taught them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of the outside world. Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear only master voice (Kennan, 1947). Kennan put forward every point to counter communism globally. Further he pointed out In the light of the above, it will be clearly seen that the Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the western world is some thing that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application to counter force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political point (Kennan, 1947). He also suggested to USA that policy of containment should be long term and based on patience.In these circumstances, it is clear that the main element of United States policy towards Soviet Union must be that of a long-term patience but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies (Kennan, 1947). Kennan rejected any partnership and friendship with erstwhile USSR. He cleared his convection as. It is clear that United State cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Soviet Union as a rival, not a partner in the political arena. (Kennan, 1947). Although containment policy was criticized by many intellectuals and blamed containment for it looked like an endless, insurmountable war with no clear goal. In spite of criticisms, impact of containment policy could be seen in USA policy towards Russia. Help of Greece and Turkey was the first steps of America in this direction. America wanted to help the whole of Europe for stability. There was no sign of stability and reconstruction in Italy and France. In these countries communists were in stronger position

and it was observing that communists will capture these governments sooner or later. To counter USSR and communist ideology in Europe, USA announced a big economic aid for Europe. This plan was announced by USA foreign secretary Marshall on June 15, 1947 in Harvard University. In his speech Marshall said Our policy is not against any state or any principle but it is against the hunger, poverty, desperation and instability. Its aim should be to establish stable economic system though for a short time. So that such political and social conditions may come in to force in which independent institutions may live. Our help should not be in parts, for disaster and emergency only. Whatever help our government renders it should be to remove the disease and not temporarily. America will render it help to states only which would be interested in their economic devotion. The states which produce only obstacles in our way should not hope for our help. In my opinion, European states should initiate in this regard. Our governments job should be only to provide friendly help. We are ready to help European states in making them chalk out plan of their development as far as possible. Thus, Marshall established four merits of help to other countries It was for all European states in general. It had no discrimination against communist countries. European governments had to initiate first to get the help in the plan. It was up to European countries to make plan successful. America not only shattered the victory dream of Russia by being committed to help to rebuild Europe but also to produce a strong pro-American bloc where Western Europe gained economic stability and blocked the expansion of communism and the American help, it got powerful friends also. The reaction of USSR on Americas plan of economic

development of Europe indicated that there were differences in Kremlin over that plan. At first Soviet Union attended European conference which held on June 27, 1947, led by USSR foreign minister Molotove for 2 days. Suddenly June 29, 1947, Moscow condemned the British and France proposal related to Marshall Plan. The main point of condemnation was Americas policies to bring the unity in European economies. The Soviet government feared that America would increase its political influence in Europe by that plan. Molotovs objection to the plan was based on the point that Americas economic plan had no sanction of any UN institutions. Therefore, he left the conference on July 2, and after one week Czheck delegation also returned back. Russian doubt about Marshall Plan which was not baseless also. As, it was recorded that Americas top capitalists were taking deep interest in that plan. Those officers of American administration who wanted to repeat the policy of 1919 had backing for these capitalists. So these capitalist wanted to invest their money in industries and Europe rebuilding. America also felt that the goal which could not be achieved through diplomacy , social or military action can be accomplish through the implementation of economic plans. In Europe also , the Marshall Plan was considered not only as an obstacle in the expansion of communism but also as a successful plan in making a powerful capitalist group which could challenge the communist regimes of Eastern Europe. The Soviet representative Vyshinsky said in UN As is now clear, the Marshall Plan constitutes in essence merely a variant of the Truman Doctrine adapted to the conditions of post-war Europe. In bringing forward this plan, the United States apparently confined to the cooperation of governments of the United Kingdom and France to confront the other European countries in need of relief with the necessity of renouncing their inalienable right to dispose of their economic resources and to plan their national economy in their own way. The United States also counted on making all these countries directly dependent on the interests of American

monopolies, which are striving to avert the approaching depression by an accelerated export of commodities and capital to Europe (vyshinsky, 1947). The biggest apprehensions of Soviet leaders were about the sitution in western Germany as consequences of Marshall Plan as the existing condition of Western and Eastern Europe could not be stable without the settlement of German problem. Vyshinsky also expressed his concern that American aid could be used for Germanys militarization. Therefore, the fast reaction of Soviet Union was quit natural. As the world was divided into two blocs, it was quite natural to observe the activities of each other with great suspicion and doubts. The outcome of American policy was that Soviet Union increased its control over Eastern European communist governments and where every policy was dictated by Moscow. One aspect of Marshall Plan was to counter the influence of the USSR in Europe and, another was to plan a military strategy to counter the USSR militarily. For this purpose Trumans foreign secretary Dean G. Acheson forwarded dialogue on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). On April 4, 1949 Western European countries and America signed a security treaty with the same name. To create security organization, US indicated that they were ready to counter communism in every dimension. It was mentioned in this treaty that if any of NATO country is attacked, it will be considered as attack on all NATO members, and its all members will defend it. After this treaty, cold war became more dangerous and fierce because both sides got involved in power politics and struggle. The USSR was more sensitive toward this treaty because it was a direct challenge and threat to USSR security also. Therefore, USSR focused on two things to make its position strong. Firstly, USSR supported communists in China for its capture and control on state. Secondly, it tested atomic bombs and started new arm build up against the NATO as well as it, also went to build up its own security system in Eastern Europe.

Besides Eastern Europe, Cold War was also extended in Asia. In 1953 Korea war began because of communist regime and U S support to anti-communism movement in Korea. In this War, USA fought directly in favour of anti-communism and USSR. Chinas new communist regime also supported socialist guerrillas. In this War, neither USA nor USSR won clearly. Consequently, Korea was divided into two parts: Democratic Republic of South Korea as a non-communist state, and North Korea as a communist ideological state. After Korean war, William Bullit (1947), a former US ambassador to Moscow, voiced the fear of monolithic communism emanating from its Russian power source and engulfing world via China and South East Asia, where situation of Vietnam was also alarming. Vietnam was a French colony and after WWII France was not able to control it and was losing the battle against communist freedom fighters. Therefore, in 1954, French Prime Minister Piere Mendas declared, to get France out of Vietnam War. Both sides met at Geneva and on July 21, 1954 they reached on an agreement to end the War. This agreement is considered as the defeat of a strong ally of Capitalist country and a NATO member. The United States was never happy with Geneva accord that got France out of Indo-China. So the western bloc felt to surrender to communism. US president Eisenhower used the phrase falling domain to signal his fear about the fall of other south-eastern countries like Laos and Cambodia to communist bloc. Ironically, USA interfered directly in Indo-China to fulfil his commitment to save world from communism. US thought that she will face situation batter in Vietnam. But after 20 years of bitter experience, it had to leave Vietnam in 1973. History repeated itself when US also signed a treaty in France to leave Vietnam. To counter communism, US also interfered in Laos and Cambodia but could not get desirable results.

After Vietnam War it seemed that communism was enjoying its victory in East Asia and successfully encountered USA in Eastern Europe. This dtente situation was accepted from both sides as both of them avoided direct conflicts against each other, although both the blocs helped against each other indirectly in revolts and wars. When USSR interfered in Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European countries militarily, USA condemned the action of USSR but was not involved directly. In the same way when USA involved directly in Korean and Indo-China Wars, USSR avoided direct confrontation. In 1979, USSR invaded Afghanistan following Brezhnev Doctrine to save communism in Afghanistan and make easy approach up to strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which most of world oil supply passes. This action of USSR was condemned harshly by West and Muslim world. USA president Jimmy Carter declared that, he learned more about the Soviet in one week than the all previous years. USA also began arms buildup and cancelled grain sale to the Soviet Union and pulled out American teams out of 1980s Moscow Olympic Games. After nearly one decade in 1989, USSR withdrew its troops from Afghanistan and paid very high price with a loss of more than 15,000 troops and thousands wounded. Gorbachev not only withdrew troops from Afghanistan but also introduced many political and economical reforms like Perestroika and Glasnost. In his new political thinking, Gorbachev called for disarmament, political and ideological freedom to all countries and make integrated efforts to solve the most diverse problems of the mankind. Gorbachev (1988) said the fundamental principal of the new political look is very simple, nuclear War cannot be a means of achieving political, economic or any other goal. Gorbachev also called for arm reduction to defusing tension between both blocks. He criticized heavy military industrial complexes, and pointed out this is what I think to begin with each job in the militaryindustrial complexes cost two or three times more than one in

civilian industry (Gorbachev, 1988). He invited USA to cooperate with USSR to work for global human welfare, he argued, the USSR and the USA could come up with large joint programs, pooling our resources and our scientific and intellectual potential in order to solve the most diverse problem for the benefit of humankind. He refused to intervene to save and support any communist regime against the will of the people of those countries. In the same manner, he urged USA not to interfere in internal matters of any other country. He announced the freedom of choice of every state. A nation may choose either capitalism or socialism. This is its sovereign right. Nations cannot and should not pattern their life either after United State or Soviet Union (Gorbachev, 1988).Yet Gorbachevs new thinking could not easily be demonized, especially when, he backed up his words of concrete military policy. Gorbachev was concerted on push for arm reduction and not arm control. His refusal to intervene to save the communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe demonstrates how his firm commitment of global reforms was. In historic autumn of 1989 exhibited the fall of Berlin wall marking the beginning of end of the Cold War at last. The compound geopolitical consequences of his radical new political thinking eventually provoked a counter reaction by communist hardliners within the Soviet militaryindustrial Complexes. In August 1991 communist hardliners attempted a failed military coup against Gorbachev which spiralled into the consequent and dissolution of the USSR and fulfilled the condition of the emergence of the New Geopolitical Order.

THE NEW GEOPOLITICAL ORDER

After Afghan War, the USSR not only lost the War but also its integration and status of superpower as well. In 1989, Russian Communist party also lost the election during the same year. This defeat in election not only swept away communism from Russia or Former

Soviet Union (FSU) but sparked the fire in all communist regimes. In Poland, communist movement was defeated by anti-communist labour movement. In Hungary, after the split, communist party was swept away by anti-communists in free election. Hot demonstrations of masses in Russia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania swept the power. Within one year all Eastern European communist regimes were swept away. Only Albania communist party struggled to maintain its status but that too was eradicated from power. This phenomenon was not limited up to Eastern Europe only but it was felt globally where ever communist were in power. Only Cubas Fidel Castros regime was remained an exception. The manner in which USSR collapsed was very surprising to the world because no body ever predicted that the Union would be dismantled in such a way. Even top intellectual and Cold War thinkers could not calculate this phenomenon. In 1988, the Committee on Present Danger geo-politician Colin S. Gray started his book The Geopolitics of Super Power with following conclusion: As far as into the future as can be claimed contemporarily relevant the Soviet Union is going to remain the source of danger narrowly to American national security more broadly (and quite literally) to the exercise of the values of Western civilization (Gray, 1988). After Grays conclusion within a year Berlin wall was removed by enthusiastic Germans, while the revolution of 1989 overthrew of the communist regime in Eastern Europe and started a chain reaction to dissolution of these regimes and ideologies. After the fall of commitment ideology and political system, many experts, ideologue and theorists came with their thoughts, ideologies and theories to define and to fulfil the Post-Cold War geopolitical vacuum and situation.

Fukuyama (1989) claimed that we are now witnessing the end of history as a struggle of ideas and principles What we may be witnessing is not just the end of a Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-Cold War history but the end of history as such, that is the end point of man kinds ideological evolution and the universalisation of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government (Fukuyama, 1989). The defeat and dissolution of USSR was not a simply defeat or dissolution of a state , but it was the defeat of whole communist ideology as well. After the defeat of communism, there was no ideological rival before capitalism. To this situation, Fukuyama argued that PostCold War is the scenario of end of history because he considered that communism was the last ideology to clash with capitalism in the history. Therefore, after the triumph of capitalism, there was no challenge before capitalism as US former foreign secretary Henry Kissinger argued in the Post-Cold War world, there is no overriding ideological challenge (Fukuyama, 1989). Although the claim of end of history was not new as it had already been declared many a times, Fukuyama accepted it that the notion of the end of history is not an original one. Before this Marx and Hegel also proclaimed the end of history. Marx believed that material forces would come to an end with the achievement of communist ideological goal. Hegel (1806) also declared end of history in 1806, as he saw in Napoleons defeat in the battle of Jenna, as the victory of the idea of French revolution. Fukuyama pointed out that reform movement in China and Russia as the victory of material over ideas and he recognized that ideological incentives could not replace material in a high productive modern economy. Fukuyama argued that there were two challenges before liberalism i.e., fascism and communism. Fascism was destroyed in WWII materially ideologically and consciously also but communism went for another 40 long years and ultimately was defeated by liberal market economy.

Fukuyama considered Japan as a winner of Cold War, because it emerged as a geoeconomic power by 1990. Many other experts also claimed that Japan would eventually overtake the US and become number one economy. Although Japan was not involved in the Cold War directly, but as far as the policies and economy of Japan are concerned it was a big ally of anti-communist Western bloc. Therefore, Fukuyamas declaration of Japan as a winner of Cold War is a symbolic one. Fukuyama also argued ambivalently that, the so-called end of history does not mean there will be no clash at any level. He forwarded that there will be clashes at the level of religion and nationalism, not at the level of ideas. He explained There would still be a high and perhaps rising level of ethnic and nationalistic violence since those are impulses are not completely played out in post historical world. This implies that terrorism and War of national liberation will continue to be an important item of national agenda. Fukuyama wrote that, common marketization and liberal economic interest would also be the agenda for clash and conflict between states, and the death of ideology means that there would be the growing common marketization and these would be a likelihood of long-scale conflict between the states. Some thinkers argued that, the end of Cold War not only reduced the ultimate range of idea but steadily reduced the importance of military power in world affairs. Methods of commerce have also displaced military power and the only logic of commerce is the growth in world affairs. During the Cold War geopolitical order, the fundamental base of alliances was the ideology of idea or military, but in new geopolitical order, it has been turned towards the economic base. So after geopolitical age now we are living in geo-economic era. Geo-economics has replaced the geopolitics as states are involved in geo-economic game, and they are not only guiding but also protecting there multinational ventures for playing their role in geo-economics. It mean that, states have been instrumentalized by

economic interest groups that seek to manipulate their activities on the international scene for their own purpose often by requiring adversarial geo-economic stance. The emergence of geo-economics does not mean that there was no existence of geoeconomics during Cold War geopolitical order. It is a reality that geo-economics has always been an important aspect of international affairs. The rivalry between West and Soviet Union was not only military or ideology based but was economic based also. Many a times economic disputes between US and Western Europe and Japan and US have also occurred. In the geo-economic era, there are less possibilities of military confrontation between states due to political and military causes but on commercial issues. Edward Luttwak (1990) explained this new geo-economics as while the methods of mercantilism could always be dominated by the methods of war in new geo-economic era and it would not only be the cause but also the instrument of conflict. If commercial quarrels do lead to political clashes as they are now much more likely to do with the winning of the imperatives of the geopolitics, those political clashes must be fought out with the weapons of commerce. The more of less disguised restriction of export, the funding of competitive technology project, the support of selected forms of education, the provision of competitive infrastructure, and more. Individual countries and different regional organizations or blocs are focusing more on their economic agenda in comparison to that of their defense. European Union, SAARC, and ASEAN are talking more about trade and commerce and working with patience to avoid any military struggle. During Cold War, some countries were isolated because of their low geo-strategic importance. But now these countries like Myanmar, Switzerland and Central Asian countries and many other are more geoeconomically active. The whole notion of geo-economics does not mean end of geopolitics also, but in refers to the end of Cold War geopolitics. In new geopolitical order a geo-economics or

globalization of the economy is to play a much powerful role. Geopolitics and geo-economics are also not opposite to each other. After dismantling of the USSR, US emerged as a sole and undisputed superpower. Saddams invasion of Kuwait provoked US to implement its New World Order Based on economic interests. American president Bush (senior) in 1991 addressed congress and asked immediate help for Kuwaitnot merely as a friend but to defend civilized values around the world. In the same speech, he argued ambivalently the real agenda of this War. He mentioned maintain our economic strength of home. America knew that if Iraq became successful to maintain its control over Kuwait petroleum resources for a long time, it would not be in favor of US petroleum supply from the Gulf. Bush explained, Vital economic interest is at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the worlds proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait control twice that. Because US economy is largely dependent on Gulf oil supply and if Saddam does not leave Kuwait, in future it would be more problematic. He reasoned our failure to do this thing has made us more dependent on foreign oil than ever before (Bush, 1991). America asked the world for unity against the Iraq aggression but the main motive was to go forward with the new agenda of establishing new world order Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective, a new world order, can emerge as new era. US president also rejected the world order of Cold War, Today the new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we have known (Bush, 1991). On one hand, US gave a threat to his enemies and , on another , he signalled other countries to ally with him , in future US would come with. Therefore, Iraq War became litmus test for Americas New World Order where USA position was that of a superior

and the sole world leader. Our ability to function effectively as a great power abroad depends on how we conduct ourselves at home. Our economy, our armed forces, our energy dependency, and our cohesion all determine whether we can help our friends and stand up to our foes (Bush, 1991). The support of different countries was not only against the Saddams aggression, but in fact it was for making a New World Order. At this moment, America come together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians and Africans independent of principle and the dream of a new world order (Bush,1991). It was a great success of American foreign policy that made every country against Iraq and used them for establishing New World Order. Before War, America requested worlds nations to fall in line with her , but after winning the War US did not appreciate the world community for victory. US leadership also used self-cantered terminology as our investment, our leadership and our planning American leadership was instrumental in making that possible ( Bush Sr. 1992). America tried to keep herself in the centre of globe for the so called peaceful and just world. The US also tried to justify aggressive policies as we also know why the hope of humanity turns to us ( Bush Sr.1992). America fought Gulf War to protect the economy and especially energy and strategic interest in the Gulf and projected itself as a judge and sole arbitrator in international affairs. Other motto of it was to capture the hydrocarbon resources of Iraq and send a the clear-cut massage to the world community especially Middle Eastern Countries not to compromise her energy interest. George Bush explained his real agenda behind the Gulf War Rather we seek an Iraq that uses its great resources not to destroy, not to serve the ambitions of a tyrant, but to build a better life to itself and its neighbors ( Bush Sr.1992). After the War, US attained a position to directly dictate other nations and describe her role in the future world as , they knew we must make sure that the control of the

worlds oil resources does not fall into their hand only to finance further aggression ( Bush Sr. 1992). By this War, America got an opportunity to established her supremacy and defuse the dtente position and initiate new defense/offence program. Thus, US challenged non allies both militarily and technologically . Bush said Looking forward, I have directed that the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program be refocused on providing protection from limited ballistic missile strikeswhere there resource. Let us pursue an SDI program that can deal with any future threat to the United States, to our forces overseas, and to our friends and allies (Bush Sr. 1992). In this new global order, America projected herself the most resourceful and able leader for unipolar world. George Bush defined his leadership agenda among the nations of the world only the United States of America has had both the moral standing and the means to back it up ( Bush Sr. 1992). Whatever the American president is claimed, appeared like to recast the entire globe on American model as proposed earlier by Winston Churchill in 1918 as well as Roosevelt and Truman after WWII. As after the WWII it appeared that now there would be no challenge before Western model sponsored by America, the same was mistaken after the Cold War also. But analysts argue that America which is seeking to be the sole superpower actually is not in a better position to execute her global agenda than it was during the Cold War. In that era Europe, many regional blocs and countries were supporting US against USSR, but after Cold War and dismantling of the USSR, these regional groups and countries including Europe became unwilling to follow US line blindly. They not only opted their own ways but also clashed with US on sharing the world resources and on different other issues like invasion of Iraq

and the war against terrorism. The United States is also facing economic competition of a kind which was never experienced during Cold War. Thus, many experts believed that US would not enjoy its status as a single super power for a long time. The rise of other power centres such as European Union, China and possibly India also is likely to pose challenge in the near future. The emergence of new and stable power centres may create the situation of back to the future. Back to the future means that the future structure of global order of international politics is following the course which it did in the past, before the emergence of ideological contest between East and West or before the emergence of bipolar system. In practice this back to the future will be a multipolar situation. To counter new challengers and competitors, America tried to maintain the balance of power in its favor. US also tried to preserve equilibrium in several regions in the world. In Europe, US-inspired NATO being expanded towards Eastern Europe and inviting former Soviet Republics to join hands. In Asia, India is being invited to counter Chinas threat. To execute and globalize this model, it was compulsory for U S to establish a new economy model and find out new rivals to justify its militaryindustrial complex. Features of this new strategy includes: To maintain Western economic model, US made more active strides towards WTO, War against Terrorism, and defining rogue states as new enemies equipped with WMD. To cantain the rogue states threat Pentagons efforts to justify military spending after Cold War. To protect huge defense establishment US military officials started projecting a new kind of enemy within days of the USSR collapse.

To declare Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea as rogue states and War against terror masters, Pentagon tried to produce new regional strategic concepts. For developing new strategic concepts, American defense department structured a team, governed by important defense officials. They formulated in particular a new regional strategy and identified an enemy in each region, Iraq, Iran, Syria in the Middle East, Libya in Africa and North Korea in Asia Pacific, which were powerful enough to justify the retention of a huge military establishment. By May 1990, Pentagon leaders reached on consensus to the adoption of military posture and in June 1990, Bush gave his approval to this new regional strategy. Invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein gave an opportunity to US to successfully test its new regional strategy. This War not only established new regional strategy but also gave the opportunities to legitimise US new global geopolitical order and successfully posed rogue states as a threat to the western world. however rogue states theory was not enough to protect Americas geopolitical and economical interests, because the so-called rogue states were not adequately powerful to justify huge militaryindustrial complexes. Another problem was that some traditional allies of US were not showing their interest in rogue states theory, not only showing less interest but were willing to cooperate with some of them. Russia and China were not supporting the US and were establishing their own geopolitical codes. To keep in mind , American intellectuals tried to promote different agenda which could take them beyond the rogue-states theory and create new polarization, globally in favor of the US. Thus, US Intellectuals threw the card of clash of civilizations. In the name of defending the West, some neo-conservatives, such as Huntington (1993), built the theory of Clash of Civilizations. In his theory Huntington casted the whole post-Cold War world

order as a cultural War between different civilizational groups. Huntington explained that in future there would be a great clash between West and the rest of the world and it would not be simple geographical clash but would be between different civilization groups. Huntington (1993) describes, Great division among humankind and the dominating source of conflicts will be culture. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflict of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilization will dominate the global politics (Huntington, 1993). Huntington identified eight existing civilizations worldwide: Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-orthodox, Latin American and African. Western civilization has two major variants: European and North American.Huntington argued that in future world order, nation states would be the most important actors in world affairs, but civilizational factors will dominate the decisions. According to Huntington, west is now at the apex of power in relation to other civilizations. Now Western military power is unrivalled. Western world is strongly united and clash among Western countries is unthinkable. West with Japan, controls all economic institutions globally. In United Nations, maximum issues are stalled by a directorate of West. Huntington concluded that in any clash of civilization between West and the rest of world, West would dominate. Only those will lead the world who would be economic superpowers. Western civilization with Japan is able to implement new world order only because they are economic superpowers. By dint of their economic stability, they are controlling world politically, economically and militarily. In post-Cold war geo-political order if India and China are in focus of the world that is only for their economic growth. Hence, that the West and Japan are on the top of the order both in term of economic growth and military. The China and India are however, threatening their position for the last

10 years. Presently China is maintaining its GDP growth rate at more than 9 percent and India at more than 7 percent, while the West is struggling to maintain its top position.

HYDROCARBON: THE TOOL OF NEW GEOPOLITICS

Economic growth depends on certain things and energy resources are one of them. Due to industrial development all over the world especially China, India and other developing nations, the demand of oil has been steadily increasing but the supply remained less comparative than the demand (Barkindo, 2006). Even some of the experts do not hesitate to say that now life depends on oil, it is difficult not to be fascinated even obsessed by oil and not only because our life is on it. So availability of hydrocarbons is drawing the limits to growth. In post-Cold War era, world consumption of oil has become a scale of geo-economic growth and its undisrupted supply is the guarantee of this growth (Schmitz and Kaim,2007). Oil is newsmaker not only in the present era but it has been, since the last 70 years, playing vital role in economic, political and military affairs. In both world wars, oil was also one of the many components which played a decisive role in the battle field . During WWI, Churchill as a first lord of admiralty decided to replace British Navys power demand from welsh coal to imported oil. Consequently, British Navy gained decisive advantage over German Navy (Engdahl, 2007). In the WWII, smooth oil supply to allied forces gave decisive lead over axis nations army comprising of the armies of Germany, Japan and Italy. Therefore, Hitler tried to capture Baku in Azerbaijan to fulfil his need for oil. Any time whenever oil supply was disrupted, the breath of world was stuck. Oil embargo of 1973 1974, the Iranian revolution in 19791980, gulf wars of 1991 and in 2003 and many problems in Africa, and attacks on oil establishments in Saudi Arabia are some of the examples as how the world is sensitive to take energy supply.

If oil supply is disrupted due to any reason it becomes the reason of increase in prices of other commodities. Since 2000, a sharp increase in oil price from $18/barrel to $ 70 per barrel in November 2001 shows the speed of price rise ( Hatzopoulos,2006). So the increase of $30/bl would have reduced global economic growth by almost 2 percent a year. These supply and demand problems continue increasing because some new economies with rapid growth are demanding more oil and gas for their industrial growth. Not only the economies of big industrial nations depend on hydrocarbon but most of the world energy demand is fulfilled from oil and gas and accounts for about 64 percent of the worlds total energy requirement, where oil accounts for about 41 percent and natural gas accounts for about 22 percent. As far as other sources of energy are concerned, coal fulfils about 24 percent of the requirement, nuclear energy 6 percent and renewable nonconventional energy resources 7 percent of world requirement. So both demand and consumption are increasing at a high rate. The demand has increased by about 95 percent during the last 30 years and is expected to further rise by 60 percent over the next 20 years. Up to 1970, USA and Europe were consuming more hydrocarbons as compared to the rest of the world. But after 1970, Asia took the cake dramatically. During 19701994, Asias energy demand increased by about 400 percent while oil demand increased by about 274 percent. The growth rate of worlds oil demand during this period was only about 63 percent. Presently, Asian oil demand is expected to increase from 30 million barrels per day (2005) to 130 million barrels per day by 2020. So the oil demand is increasing every day everywhere in the world and the hydrocarbon reserves are exhausting.. World oil estimated petroleum reserves are 2.3 trillion barrels if sands and shale oil are taken in account. Geographically Middle East share the biggest part in the world oil reserves with 56 per cent while North America share 16 percent, Africa share 9 percent

Central and South America share 8 percent, Eurasia 7 per cent, Oceania 3 percent and Europe contribute 1 per cent (EIA,2007). So the territorial segregation the between demand and supply produce a global geopolitical controversies. Since the demand is from every country i.e. developed, developing and under developing countries, but the supply is limited and concentrated at some places only. Therefore, every nation, every civilization or regional organization wants an easy approach and control over the hydrocarbon resources. Control not only on production but on supply lines as well. That is why every nation/ organization is playing own politics for the access and control over oil and gas resources. Diplomacy, wars, treaties, threats and every maneuver is being used by every country for the control of the hydrocarbons. Kuwaits invasion by Iraq and American first war against Iraq were motivated by oil interests (Philippe and Khatib,2003). Some experts named it as the first oil war because oil was in center of invasion of Kuwait and American War was to protect it. The Afghan War and second Iraq War was also the due to oil geopolitics. Russias blockage of gas supply to Ukraine and Eastern Europe; Irans nuclear crisis and Venezuelas rivalry with US are the new cases of energy geopolitics. They are using oil and gas as means of diplomacy and weapons against rival countries and organizations. Therefore, hydrocarbon have became most important element of new geopolitical order. The focus has been shifting towards producing regions. The new policies are taking shape to handle these production sites. In these production regions some were very traditional source and some are new and coming first time in the focus. Although these new region were not new the discoveries, however, for different reasons initially their production was not significant. In Americas, USA, Mexico and Venezuela are traditional producers since early twentieth century. USA is the biggest importer also; the production of Mexico has decreased significantly, though Venezuela is the fourth largest oil producer in the world, but

it cannot fulfil huge and genuine demand of whole hemisphere. Its long distance from new emerging Asian economies makes things further difficult. Only USA can be benefited from the Venezuelas location but anti-USA sentiment in Venezuelas political arena is the limitation ( Nance,2005). In the far East Asia, Indonesia was a net exporter of oil, but now Indonesia also has to import oil because of its decreasing production and increasing demand (BusinessWeek, 2005). Only Persian Gulf is contributing significantly to world economies and will hopefully do so in the future also. But anti-West sentiments and militant attacks on oil establishments have threatened the supply security. Sub-Sahara, Central Aafrica and West Africa with Nigeria can satiate only 12 percent of world oil appetite. Russia is also potential producer and can contribute to feed world energy demand, but it is playing its politics. Recent blockage of gas supply to Ukraine and Eastern Europe tells the story itself. In this scenario, only central Asia and Caspian region can make a difference in the new energy geopolitical arena. There are many contradictions to take the account of oil reserves, which are estimated between 20 to 200 billion barrels. Some exports from USA suggested astonishing facts that central Asia with Caspian basin reserves account for about 200 billion barrels. It means that this region could be a potential rival of the Gulf region. In 1990 the IEA suggest that the proven central Asian reserve with Caspian and Azerbaijan are nearly 40 billion barrels while possible reserves are between 70 and 150 billion barrels. In 1995, Azerbaijan was the largest producer of oil with a peak production of 1,83,000 barrels per day, Uzbekistan had second place with 1,62,000 barrel per day. At that time Kazakhstan was producing only 1,28,000 barrels per day. Wood Makenzie estimated

total production of oil from the region to be 8,00,000 barrels per day in 1995; and predicted an increase in the production to a level of 3.1 million barrels per day by 2020. In Central Asia, only Kazakhstan has significant proven and potential oil reserve. According to EIA reports, Kazakhstans proven oil reserves are 22 billion barrels and potential reserve are more than100 billions barrels. This proven amount of oil reserves is closest to other countries like Norway 22 billion barrels, Libya 23 billion barrels, United States 22 billons barrels, and Nigeria with 21 billions barrels. Natural gas as a clean fuel was regarded as a fuel of twenty-first century. Between 1980 and 2003 the share of natural gas in the world energy mix rose from 18 percent to 23 percent. The demand is increasing with the rate of 2.4 percent annually and up to 2020 the share of natural gas would be about 25 percent in world energy mix. Distribution of natural gas is more localised than oil; OPEC covers 50 percent of total world gas reserves, FSU shares 32 percent where OECD has 10 percent of total world gas reserves. Russia is already the largest supplier of gas to Europe; by 2030 it will meet out about 50 percent of European needs. In central Asia and Caspian region, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are principal gas producers and have a huge potential of gas reserve. In FSU about 46 percent of gas belongs to Central Asian countries. Energy is one side of the coin, strategically important location of Central Asia is flip side. In new geopolitical order, if any country or organization wants to remain as a single sole superpower, it has to counter and manage successfully Russia, China and India. Central Asias pivotal location can play crucial role. For US, the so-called depicted rogue states are also located in the vicinity of Central Asia.

If China wants to emerge as a superpower in the twenty-first century, it has to keep away US from Central Asia. Russia is also trying to maintain its position in world politics and if USA makes its presence felt in or around Central Asian Region (CAR), naturally it will affect Russias and Chinas position in the world politics and economy. However, the importance of Central Asia will not be like that as Mackinder described as a struggle between sea power and land-based power. The new situation would be just like a chessboard. The region has a unique geo-strategic position not only being geographically located in Central part of Asia but also in the heart of Eurasia as well as at the confluence of Islamic, Chinese, European and Russian heterogeneous civilizations. Analysts are also analyzing its importance due to its proximity with the Middle East. Central Asia as an extension of Middle East or Middle East as an extension of Central Asia will make things even more important geopolitically as well as geo-strategically; as there are many similarities between Middle East and Central Asia on political, cultural and religious grounds. Geography of the region is also not a barrier between them. The new US policy towards South Asia, included a chair of South Asia in state department. In February 2006, US state department announced the expansion of its bureau of South Asian affairs to include all five Central Asian countries and was named as the The Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs. According to state department all five Central Asian states have more natural ties with Afghanistan and rest of South Asia rather than Russia and Europe. All these combinations highlight the tremendous geo-strategic importance of the region. Another aspect is that it is not only USA who is trying to penetrate and control the region but Russia and China are also competing with each other for domination in the region. Therefore, it is its strategic location between Europe and the other part of Asia which makes this region more important than any other region of the world.

After balkanization of the USSR, a geopolitical vacuum was created in Central Asia which in effect had constituted a critical buffer zone between Russia, China and the Islamic World especially Middle East. So every powerful country is trying to fill this vacuum in order to dominate this buffer zone. The U S and its allies are in race since the beginning to fill this gap. Because, to counter China and Russia, Central Asia would a be key location. So involvements of all big powers equipped with nuclear weapons make the game both interesting and dangerous. After the Mackinders theory the importance of Central Asia as a Eurasian Heartland remained unchanged. Although the argument of logic has changed, but the logic is same. Who controls the Heartland will control Eurasia And who controls the Eurasia will control the World Island So it would simply not be the Heartland in the future geopolitical chessboard, it would be the Heart and Brain land.

AFGHAN WAR AND NEW GEOPOLITICAL ORDER

Though hydrocarbon resources are one of the most important components of new geopolitics but this is not the only factor for the domination of superpowers in Central Asia. What was also important to US and allies was globally growing political Islam. In Central Asian countries after their independence many Muslim political groups emerged rapidly to establish global Islamic Khilafat. Limiting Russia and China was already in American agenda. Therefore, all these factors oil interest, religious politics and anti Russia and China sentiments compounded at once in Central Asia. US was working with different angles and agenda. Expending NATO up to Eastern Europe and invitation to Russia to join NATO and make Central Asian countries a part of

partnership of peace program were the viable example of US Central Asian strategy. Despite many efforts, USA had no direct penetration of its military in CAR and without direct presence, it was a distant dream to achieve desirable results in the region. The other problem was the Russian influence over the region and, it was not possible for Russia to allow others in its backyard. Physically, there are four routs to enter in Central Asia i.e. through China, through Russia, through Iran and through Afghanistan. Penetrating through China, Iran and Russia were not available to United States. Afghanistan was the only hope. But Afghanistan was unstable and was engaged in civil war just after the withdrawal of USSR in 1989. Afghanistan was also important for US because, US did not want to take cooperation of Iran and Russia, rather wanted to avoid them. Afghanistan was also a land bride for CAC to reduce their dependency on Russia in order to reaches the Arabian sea. America played very important role in defeating USSR in Afghanistan, therefore, US became natural alternative in Afghanistan. On account of some unknown reasons, US did not take interest in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of USSR and Afghanistan was gripped by internal strife and civil war. During 19891994, Afghan used different options for achieving solidarity, but every option failed because of deep sectarian and ethnic division in Afghan society. Taliban first engaged in 1994 and captured Kandahar and then swept north of the country to capture Kabul in 1996. Who were Taliban and how they were ruling Afghanistan? This is a topic of different research and beyond the scope of the study. however they were ruling 9095 percent of Afghanistan in 2001. Taliban government was recognized by three countries only: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Pakistan was the proxy promoter and trainer of Taliban.

Only Northern Alliance under the leadership of Masood was struggling against Taliban in northern Afghanistan. Except Pakistan, neighbors did not like Taliban because of their orthodox version of Islam and their export policy of this type of Islam to their countries. Both Russia and China were worried because of Central Asian Islamic movements relations with Taliban. They thought if any central Asian state comes under the influence of Taliban-style Islam, it will have dominating effect in the whole region and, consequently, will affect both China and Russia. Iran, one of the most important neighbors, was also facing Taliban threat because of Sunni sect of Islam. Since Taliban were antagonistic to Shiite regime of Iran. US with a different position and policy had its eyes on central Asias and Caspian oil and gas reserves. As Central Asian states are landlocked and there was no direct access to sea for exporting oil in international market. Only Russian and Iranian pipeline network could be used to export oil and gas. Argentinean company Bridas was first Foreigner Company who took interest in Central Asian republic of Turkmenistan in 1991. Bridas proposed a gas pipeline network from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan. Despite Afghan civil War, Bridas chairmen met Talibans leaders and all Warlords and opposition leaders as well. Bridas started production in 1994 with a production of 16,800 barrels per day. Which was being exported through old Russian pipeline network. Bridas was awarded a new gas field at Yashlar with an estimated reserve of 27 trillion cubic fit of gas reserves. Therefore, Bridas wanted to construct an alternative pipeline to Pakistan via Afghanistan. On March 16, 1995 Pakistan and Turkmenistan signed a memorandum of understanding allowing Bridas to prepare a feasibility study to this proposed pipeline. Bridas purpose was to build a 875 mile long gas pipeline from Yashlar to Sui, where Pakistani gas reserves are located and a pipeline network was already existing. For pipeline

security, it also signed many agreements with Afghanistan Warlords such as Ismail Khan in Harat, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Masood in Kabul, Dostam in Mazar and with Taliban in Kandhar. Finely in February 1996, Bridas signed a 3-year agreement with then Afghanistan President Rabbani for the construction and operation of said pipeline. In the same year, Bridas invited one of the US oil major UNOCAL, having long and extensive experience in Asia especially in Pakistan. Bridas invited UNOCAL for cooperation and sharing its experience. But it played a totally different game and expressed its interest to construct another pipeline parallel to proposed pipeline. Turkmenistan government also wanted the involvement of UNOCAL to give an edge to its Central Asian politics. On October 21, 1995 Turkmenistan president unexpectedly signed an agreement with UNOCAL to build a pipeline from Daulatabad gas field of Turkmenistan to Pakistans Multan through Afghanistan. Central Asian Pipeline Project (CAOPP) envisaging a 1,050mile long oil pipeline to deliver one million barrels oil per day from Chardzhou of Turkmenistan to Pakistani Arabian Sea coast. The basic aim of this project was to approach entire CAR and Russian region and to allow Russian and Central Asian Energy producers to access the growing market of Asia. To exploit more Central Asian and Caspian hydrocarbon, reserves US oil majors formed a private foreign oil company group in Washington. In 1996, US ambassador to Pakistan Tom Simmons urged Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to give exclusive right of pipeline to UNOCAL, but Bhutto refused to give any such rights. In May 1996, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed that Turkmenistan should form a consortium to build the said pipeline. As the pipeline politics in whole region was taking place, Afghanistan was changing fast. In September 1996, Taliban militia captured Kabul from Northern Alliance. Taliban executed former president Najibullah. President Rabbani, defense minister and Ahmad Shah Masood had to flee and took shelter in Punjsheer Valley in Northern Afghanistan.

After the dismantling of the Rabbani government, pipeline project situation changed because all agreements and memoranda were signed with Rabbani government. And now Taliban were the new rulers of Afghanistan and construction of pipeline was not possible without Talibans support. Taliban were hardcore Islamists and had anti-West especially anti-US sentiments. They did not like Russia and Iran also. However, UNOCAL adopted pragmatic approach and expressed its support to Taliban and said that it will make pipeline project easier. UNOCAL arranged US visit of Taliban official and tried to win more acceptance for Taliban in US administration. Taliban also tried to make their rule legitimate through UNOCAL. The emergence of Taliban posed a challenge to Russia and Iran because, fundamentally and ideologically, they were anti-Iran and anti-Russia. They had contacts with Central Asian Islamic movements which could challenge Central Asian regional security system also. Therefore, to counter Taliban, Russia, CAS, Iran and later China supported Northern alliance. Russia and Iran opposed any pipeline project through Afghanistan because any new pipeline network naturally would devalue their pipeline system. On the other hand, US saw an opportunity in UNOCAL project to counter Russian hegemony on pipeline network and strengthen relation with CAS. Robin Raphel during her two trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan in April and August 1996, spoke in favor of UNOCAL projects. She said in a press conference on April 21, 1996, we have an American company which is interested in building a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan. (Rashid, 2001).When Taliban captured Kabul, then within hours, US state department announced that it would establish diplomatic relations, but they did not recognize Taliban regime because of domestic pressure. UNOCAL also used same tactics to secure the construction of pipeline segment of Afghanistan and tried to make consensus among all Warlords about pipeline security. The spokesperson of UNOCAL said,

it will give aid to Afghanistan warlords once they agree to form a council to supervise the project (Rashid, 2001). On the other side, Taliban also took this pipeline project as an opportunity to gain international recognition. In November 1997, Taliban delegation toured America to meet UNOCAL officials to discuss pipeline project. They also met state department official and asked for US recognition. Taliban signed an agreement to setup a tri-party commission with Pakistan and Turkmenistan to explore UNOCAL project. In October 1997, Cent Gas Pipeline Limited was established in Ashgabat, in that UNOCAL was owning 46.5 percent shares, Delta oil 15 percent, Turkmenistan national Gas Company 7 percent, Itochu oil 6.5 percent, Indonesia Petroleum [INPEX, Japan], 6.5 percent , Crescent Group Pakistan, 3.5 percent and Hyundai engineering took 5 percent of the shares of Cent gas project. Although UNOCAL and US government was supporting Taliban regime for many reasons, at home they were facing opposition from many human rights organizations specially feminist group for imposing hard form of Sharia in Afghanistan. Share holders of UNOCAL were also opposing this pipeline project. On August 7, 1998, terrorists attacked on two American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and killed more than 225 people. America accused Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization headed by Saudi-born living in Afghanistan Osama Bin Laden. America demanded Osama bin Laden from Taliban unconditionally. But Taliban refused American demand and asked about evidences; Taliban also offered an international investigation about Osamas involvement. But US refused to provide any type of evidence and UN investigation and demanded unconditional surrender. After 13 days of attacks on embassies, US launched cruise missiles attack on Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. This attack made the situation worse for pipeline project through Afghanistan. These attacks were also a future policy declaration of US government with Talibans Afghanistan regime. This new

situation forced to pull out UNOCAL its staff from Afghanistan and Pakistan and suspended the gas pipeline project via Afghanistan. UNOCAL also withdrew $2.9 billion pipeline project to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan to Turkey. This withdrawal was a shock for Turkmenistan pipeline freedom. In place of TurkmenistanPakistan pipeline, Clinton administration proposed a new pipeline from Azerbaijans Baku oil field to Turkeys Ceyhan via Georgias Tibilishi BTC. The governments of Pakistan and Turkmenistan are still hopeful that the said pipeline project will be carried out. After the UNOCAL withdrawal from pipeline, Bridas hopes came alive again. In January 1999, Turkmenistan foreign minister Shaikh Muradov visited Pakistan and tried to convince Pakistan about the possibility of pipeline. In March1999, Turkmenistan foreign minister met Taliban supreme leader Mullah Umer in Kandhar and discussed about the pipeline. Thus, in April 1999 Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan signed on an agreement to review pipeline. To strengthen relations with Turkmenistan, Taliban government also signed an agreement to buy gas and electricity from Turkmenistan. On the other side the US with the support of Russia and Iran presented a resolution in UN against the Taliban regime to impose economic Sanctions and the resolution 1267 was passed to impose economic sanctions against Afghanistan. So on one hand US was working with Russia and Iran, and on another hand US policy was to push the leaders to bring about rebellion inside Taliban. In spite of all these efforts US was not in position to defeat Taliban. Taliban were progressing and until 2001 Taliban had captured more than 90 percent of Afghanistan. Only Panjsher valley in north was the area remained in possession under the northern alliance. Taliban were also not co-operating with any body and were acting against world communitys voice and advice. In February 2001, Taliban ordered to close down UN office

in Kabul and in March Taliban provoked international outrage by blowing up the giant Buddha Statue of Bamyan. On one hand America was working with Russia and Iran to curb Taliban on the other hand it was making diplomatic efforts to pressurise Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden. Talks between Taliban and US resumed just after the Bush Jr. came to power US. A Taliban delegation toured Washington. During the negotiations US representatives told the Taliban, either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we will bury you under the carpets of bomb. It was clear indication of military action and launching War against Taliban regime if Taliban refused to toe down the American demands. Talks broken off in August 2001. After a final meeting between US envoy Christina Rocca and a Taliban representative in Islamabad when Taliban refused to accept any US demand of pipeline from Kazakhstan and refused to handover their guest who happened to be the US enemy number one Osama bin Laden. On September 11, 2001, World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked resulting in more than 3,000 civilian deaths. These attacks shocked the World and US because it was a direct attack on US supremacy. Although American intelligence agencies were predicting such type of attack but they were unable to point out when and where. Some non-American agencies were also warning about terrorist attacks. America reacted harshly and accused Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network as leading suspect and declared we are in War. Taliban refused to handover Osama and demanded evidence against Osama. Taliban also offered an international investigation, but USA refused any kind of investigation and demanded to handover Osama unconditionally. It was not any kind of War against US but only a terrorist attack but America declared we are in War because only with this type of rhetoric, US could win NATOs and world communitys support. As US named Osama supported by Taliban, UAE and Saudi Arab

broke there diplomatic relation with Taliban. UN relief agencies were also pulled out from Afghanistan. US divided world in with us or with them (terrorists). Taliban also lost the support of their chief ally and promoter, Pakistan, due to pressure of US. Pakistan agreed to support and cooperates with the US in War against Taliban regime. Pakistan also offered its air bases and logistic support to US army. Not only NATO came with US, but many countries offered their support including India. Russia and China did not come with US directly but supported US and allies action. Therefore, this event gave the golden opportunity to US to penetrate in Central Asia and CAS also found a great opportunity to come nearer to US and establish close strategic relations with the US. Central Asian largest populated and powerful country Uzbekistan eagerly offered its air bases to US army. On October 7 (the day when US-led strike launched) US and Uzbekistan issued a joint statement confirming an agreement in which US forces will be based in Uzbekistan. During the attack on Afghanistan, more than 1,000 US troops were already stationed in Uzbekistan and another 1,000 US troops were deputed in Khanabad air base, which is located in southern Uzbekistan near Afghan border. Tajikistan offered air corridor to US and also air field to counter Taliban forces in case of necessity. Tajikistan offered its largest air base Kulyab which is close to the border of North Afghanistan. Tajikistan also offered its two more air bases, one near Khojand in northern Tajikistan about two hours air drive from Tashkent Uzbekistan and another Kurgan-Tibus in Northern Tjikistan. Russian news agency ITER-TAS reported that the groups of US technical experts had already arrived in Tajikistan to assess the condition of two unnamed air fields. The Kulyab and other Tajik air bases were extensively used for air strikes against Taliban. Turkmenistan, which shares 462 miles long border with Afghanistan, also offered its facilities for shipment of humanitarian cargo but did not allow foreign troops to conduct military action against Taliban.

Kyrgyzstan accepted the request of US to grant air corridor to its fighter planes involved in operation against Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan agreed to provide its strategically important Manas air base near China border. US deputed 700 troops in Manas. Kazakhstan also offered its all type of cooperation to US in this War. Kazakhstan offered its military base, country transportation infrastructure and other facilities. Thus, Afghan War not only changed the world geopolitics but most importantly Central Asian geopolitics too. Before Afghan War, there was no serious presence of US in Central Asia. But only between October 7 (the beginning of strikes) and December 7,2001 (removal of Taliban from Kabul) everything changed. In this period, US established its military bases in Central Asian states, Pakistan and in the whole of Afghanistan itself. US said that they have fought Afghan War to capture Osama bin Laden and to destroy Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. However experts argue that this War was fought on the pretexts to counter the terrorism but with a main objective to enter in Central Asia and Caspian Sea region in only to control regions hydrocarbon resources. Through this War, US also succeeded to create new crescent around China, Russia and Iran. As per an analyst who stated by now it is quite clear War on terror beginning with the attack on Afghanistan was exploited by Washington to position its forces for the conquest of strategic region as spelt out by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (Singh,2005).