Is Obama repeating historic mistakes in Pakistan?

Is America repeating a historic mistake by pumping in money to support Pakistan? Will the Pakistani army move out of the country's north-west once the current operation is thought complete and allow militants to grow in influence again?

Praveen Swami analyzes and asks America to be more creative if it really wants to remove the militant threat on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Rum, Cigars and a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts

Ah Qooba. How far are you from having your exile ended? Not too far if Barry keeps going the way he is.

Speaking at the Organization of American States (OAS), Obama said he was willing to hit the bar with Raul Castro and discuss human rights, free speech, drugs, migration and economic issues in between downing Jaeger bombs. Castro was pretty happy to reciprocate saying, "Your place or mine?". Its been so refreshingly astounding for Latin American leaders that even the one who froths most at the mouth amongst them, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, seemed to forget the smell of sulphur that emanates from any American and thought it was JC himself back to absolve man's sins. What else could lead to such a facial expression?



Much of the American antipathy towards Cuba is because Cuba was once the prodigal foster son of the US. It produced rum-a-plenty, the finest cigars in the whole world and had the best casinos when Las Vegas still consisted of one horse-watering hole. It was the perfect vacation spot whether you were in Florida or off in bitterly cold New York. It was so coveted as an island state that blood and guts Teddy Roosevelt ran up a hill with a volunteer brigades scaring the hell out of the Spanish. The rise of Castro was not so bad until he nationalized the state and allied himself with the Soviets, an unacceptable slap in the face for the US. If ever a country had been betrayed by one it fought for, nurtured and exploited in equal parts here it was.

And now with Barry at the helm, it may all just be consigned to the rubbish bin that is history. Decades of embargoes have left Cuba more impoverished than it was in 1959 but it has led to no political upheaval. Increased remittances, visits of Cuban-Americans back home will lead not just to further development of Cuba but may also plant the seeds of upheaval should the government not further liberalize. The obvious model to follow is that of the Chinese with a strong grasp maintained over the press and political freedoms while slackening the hold on free enterprise. It may buy the Castros some more time in power but at least the American policy of hurting the people for their leaders' actions will be repealed. Of course, this is only possible once some initial agreements are made or the 50 year old embargo will stand.

Hopefully this is some intricate ploy of Barry's to reform the Monroe Doctrine. He started making his promises early on ready to hurt the sentiments of political advisers who thought rapprochement with Cuba was ringing your death knell in the most sacred of states, Florida (try looking past the rather quick fulfillment of a campaign promise). Black caucus members of Congress made a visit just a few weeks ago praising the hospitality of Cubans everywhere who have ever existed. This contrived love fest has driven away GOP hardliners but big deal they were already sharp-shooting. The key benefit is the look of lust on Chavez's face. A few more such events and the Western Hemisphere will sit in America's back pocket again and Monroe's name will be replaced by Barry's.

Friedman Starts School of Diplomacy - World Immediately Regresses to Stone Age

Tom Friedman, Esquire is at it again using manatees to bring up random words and joining them in a sentence with verbs and adjectives. The magic words of the day are 'diplomacy' and 'lever'; here is the introduction to his op-ed.

It would consist of a single classroom with a desk and a chair. At the desk would be a teacher, pretending to be a foreign leader. The student would come in and have to persuade the foreign leader to do something — to pull this or that lever. At one point, the foreign leader would nod vigorously in agreement and then reach behind him and pull the lever — and it would come off the wall in his hands. Or, he would nod vigorously and say, “Yes, yes, of course, I will pull that lever,” but then would only pretend to do so.

The student would then have to figure out what to do next.

Hmmmmmm. How much smack did Friedman score before writing this paragraph?

“Mama, don’t let your children grow up to be diplomats.”

This is not the great age of diplomacy.

Pearl or swine? Oink oink. What is the definition of great age of diplomacy for him? A time when everyone kept their promises no matter what?

Once you look past Friedman calling all mothers 'Mama' whether they're his own or not, you realize the man may have a point. If you're going to indulge in nation-building do it the right way and not some half-assed attempt like Iraq. The decision to clear out Afghanistan was made 8 years ago and he might remember the catalytic event that led to it. Pakistan is a by-product of its own deficiencies and the crumbling of the border between the two countries, leading to a merged rebellion force gaining ground all round. So Friedman seems to be right, plain old sweet talking by smooth diplomats won't work and some old fashioned blood and iron will be needed to forge the foundations of these two countries. Is it possible in the current scenario? I don't know but I hope Friedman or someone else does.

And in the case of the strong states — Iran and North Korea — we would have to generate much more effective leverage from the outside to get them to change their behavior along the lines we seek. In both cases, though, success surely would require a bigger and longer U.S. investment of money and power, not to mention allies.

No shit, Sherlock. Though at what point, diplomacy wouldn't be leading the charge stumps me. How does he plan to use leverage without diplomacy? Friedman seems to think these are the first countries unwilling to follow through on a promise. Won't engaging with Iran diplomatically be the first step to getting them to a negotiating table or should the Security Council keep barking threats out to them? Kim Jong Il in that last bastion of Stalinism knows exactly what he is doing. He gets the attention of the world with his histrionics and then pulls out another set of bargains. Very effective. How about using more leverage on China to force Kim to the table? Figuring out the right carrots and sticks to use on all parties concerned is a crucial part of diplomacy. If successful, he can even sneak in a few of his own students well versed in the art of watching levers being pulled in all directions.

You Go Obama Dawg!

Just watch this! I could not come up with a better way to describe my sentiments than the title of this entry I read on another blog.

A Storm Brewing?

Political trouble and instability continue to brew on all sides of the Indian border. The latest news of turmoil comes from Pakistan and Bangladesh, after Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal and Burma have all been subject to domestic, often war-like conflicts and clashes in the last few years.

Terrorists struck at a symbol close to the heart of any person in the sub-continent in Lahore earlier this week. Meanwhile, Bangladesh had already been reeling from a rebellion of the Bangladesh Rifles who protect and guard the country's borders. Their attempted mutiny left not just the populous country vulnerable, it also left one side of the border with India unsecured and insufficiently unmanned. In the duration of a week, India has received multiple warnings of the fragile political nature of states on its periphery. And in the duration of that very week, the lack of deliberation regarding India's role in the sub-continent or its foreign policy in general has been exposed.

When civil war engulfed Sri Lanka, freedom was curbed in Burma or Maobadis took over power in Nepal, what was India's collective response? A series of extremely delayed gestures of concern, which by their timing immediately put the many smaller, less powerful states around India on the front foot and severely undermining its geographic and economic might.

The Ministry of External Affairs (at whose helm is a gentleman who wears many a hat for the current administration, thus displaying his amazing multi-tasking abilities at running the country), the Opposition and not even the group that calls itself the country's watch dog - the media, seem to miss a coherent, practical, evolutionary foreign policy agenda. Nuclear deal done, a deep slumber seems to have set in. Meanwhile, India's neighborhood continues to burn.

What we need to fear is not perhaps a full blown armed conflict in the short run. Our neighbours are too weak to unleash that. The real threat is the ability of disruptive forces in the region to destabilize India's domestic security and society. Refugees entering India from porous borders along Nepal and Bangladesh add not just another mouth to feed but another person to protect, another child to put in to school and another job to create in a country with an already dismal Human Development Index count. The spillover effect of human rights abuses on Tamils in Sri Lanka has caused a furore in the southern state of Tamil Nadu and threatens to hold captive political alliances and negotiations in India's upcoming general elections. All of these will add up to make India a state bleeding at too many points to remain focused on its own development.

The External Affairs Ministry along with the elite Indian Foreign Services needs to sit down and chart out an agenda for India's role in South Asia at the earliest. Individual Prime Ministers have dealt with our neighbours as per their political exigencies. If India truly aspires to be a superpower, it must start gaining some respect and clout in its own backyard before trying to make its mark on global affairs. Otherwise, the storm brewing will creep closer and closer to India's borders and make us take two steps backward for each foot forward.

Hillary, where art thou?

Current Madam Secretary and former First Lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton is on her first overseas tour as America's top diplomat. Having visited Jakarta and Tokyo, she is now on her way to Beijing. There is one Asian capital though that is conspicuously missing from her schedule, New Delhi. The reasons for not making time for this visit are yet unclear and the move is being widely criticized.

New Delhi's absence from Hillary Clinton's itinerary is slowly giving rise to concerns that the Obama administration does not have India high up on its list of foreign policy priorities. These fears would not be unfounded. After the overtures of the Bush administration and the goodwill it managed to garner in India, Obama should make all efforts to take this relationship forward, regardless of Democrats who don't favor the Nuclear Deal between the two countries. It would only be the obvious next step in Indo-American relations.

America and India have grown ever closer with similar foundational ideologies and political and strategic values. As I have written here earlier as well, there are almost no pitfalls to a deeper strategic alliance between the two countries. They have only to gain by allying further. India is sure to be one of America's most important allies in the years to come and Obama should have made a better start to his relationship with India.

Sending an envoy (Holbrooke) alone does not cut it, to a country Obama assured was going to be an important ally of America's during his term. Holbrooke was appointed primarily for the Afghanistan and Pakistan problem and the Kashmir issue (on which India has time and again resented third party intervention) was lumped in with his more important duties. He is not the man to take Indo-American relations forward in a broad and meaningful manner.

Hillary Clinton is well known in India from her time as First Lady of the US and is said to be quite fond of the country. Having her visit as a follow up to Holbrooke's visit would have given the Indian government as well as the public opinion here just the indications it was looking for for a new, dynamic relationship between the two countries. She would have assured America's sustained cooperation on counterterrorism efforts as well as other strategic, cultural and commercial aspects of the relationship. To an easily skeptical Indian public, this would have been an excellent way to get the ball rolling.

India has been for years looking for greater cooperation from the US on counterterrorism efforts. Mere sympathy will not do any more. It does not want to be lectured on the Kashmir problem any more either. It wants the US to keep its borders open to its citizens looking for work. America by all indications will become the largest exporter of arms to India in the next few years. In all other investment indicators as well, the US is sure to lead.

All of this cannot be achieved at a low level of talks any more. To a country aspiring to be on par with China, America cannot get by placing India alongside Pakistan anymore. The Republicans understood this. India should be on Obama's top 5 foreign policy priorities. The Democrats' typical foreign policy towards India is one of distrust and patronizing. This is incongruous in today's age. The earlier Obama understands this the better. Hillary should have visited New Delhi. It would have been a significant follow up to the nuclear deal between the two countries. She's missed her chance and the seeds of concern have been sown. Let us hope this is righted as soon as possible. It is in both countries' interests.

India and the US - A New Hope

India's relationship with the US has come a long way in recent years. From the Clintons' love for the country to the Republicans' understanding of India's strategic benefits to America's own interests, the Cold War days of mistrust and deep suspicion between the two countries' diplomats are for the most part a distant memory. That India is increasingly being used by the US as a counterweight to China has gone from being a purely academic conjecture to a more explicitly understood fact. Barack Obama's overtures to India are in keeping with recent American governments' overly friendly policies toward India. While Indians are aware of America's reasons for a close relationship, they are confident of their independence and place in the world and so have no qualms about them and are happy to take what they get.

The US is nowhere more popular abroad than in India. While there are several plausible reasons for this, the fact that they are both large, diverse and young democracies is a foundation for many other similarities. Both countries also share a distrust of China, at least at the popular level. Being ideologically similar also renders them close. While Democrat governments have tended to harp on human rights issues and development, as is their wont, the Republicans have treated India in more Realist terms, and Indians have for this reason tended to be more forthcoming when Repubicans have been in power. The last few years are a clear indicator of this. George Bush for all his other shortcomings (if I may call them so, euphemistically) was a great friend of India's. However history remembers him, Indians will remember him for getting us the nuclear deal.

Barack Obama seems to understand India's strategic influence in the future world order and will surely only improve upon Bush's efforts to court India and possibly make it one of America's closest allies in the world. India and the US need each other. The Cold War years were a false start in many ways, with only the brief but glorious respite of Kennedy and Nehru's friendship. Thankfully the ambiguities of that relationship never turned to hostility at any point. Things were only waiting to take off. All the signs for them to do so now are evident. Let us hope it leads to a better, safer world at the very least.

Mr. Holbrooke Goes to Islamabad/Kabul

Welcome Mr. Holbrooke, to the theater that is Pakistan and Afghanistan, a troupe of non-state actors, stateless actors, stated actors, unstated actors, and others without clear roles, engaged with each other, both through cooperation and conflict, in constructing a whole host of charades to perplex the world with, while they themselves continue to follow their own scripts behind their presented scripts. Sounds confusing? Well, obviously. This part of the world has confused and confounded everyone for decades now, especially the Pakistanis and Afghanis. Those who have claimed to be able to comprehensively explain the entire situation in this region are committing the dangerous sin of oversimplification. So, instead of committing this grave mistake Mr. Holbrooke, I would just give you a briefing on a few of the major players.

The battlefield for the war on [insert term here depending on what party you are and what side you are on] lies in the north western regions of South Asia.

For the Afghani Government, this is the War for Survival. The Afghani government is threatened on every front by the Taliban menace. Recent reports by NATO show that the Taliban are not just a threat in Southern and Eastern Afghanistan but have now become a threat within Kabul itself. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence to show that even within the Afghani government there are elements covertly profiting from supporting the Taliban as they destabilize the government and the country.

For Al-Qaeda, the notorious international terror network, this is the front for the War on Attrition. For Al-Qaeda, this region of disorder and discontentment is the perfect place for them to train, recruit, strategize and accumulate weapons and money, to prevent depletion, and continue to plan and carry out terrorist attacks around the world.

For the Taliban, this is the War on a Fragmented Opposition. The Taliban wish to control this region unopposed, and expand beyond this region to capture and control as much of Afghanistan and Pakistan as possible. The expansion is in all directions, and the opposition therefore comprises a variety of actors, fragmented across the region, including NATO, the Pakistani and Afghani governments, and local tribal rivals, among others. I challenge the wisdom that today’s Taliban is a loose term for different Islamic extremist militia of largely Pashtun origin looking to exert control over different parts of this region. As I see it, these are no small localized operations, but instead there is clear coordination and unity of purpose and even strategy, an issue that I will discuss subsequently in another blog entry.

For the Pakistani government and the Pakistani army, two separate entities, the force being fought against is far less clear. The civilian Pakistani government has made its secular leanings clear, and is committed to fighting the Taliban threat within Pakistan, a War on the Taliban as it were. However, it finds itself fighting a war opposed by its own people. At the same time this war pits it in many ways against it own army. The Pakistani army, is, on the surface, fighting the War on the Taliban as the lead ally of the United States, but is increasingly showing a greater interest in pursuing the War on India. Behind this gravitation from one front to the other is, what could well be a different war, being fought by the army against its own civilian government, as it hopes to keep control of the country. This is a struggle in which they see the Taliban as a vital asset. Hence the Pakistani army seems to be fighting three different wars on different levels, a subject I shall deal with in subsequent blog entries in this series.

Mr. Holbrooke is entering a situation where he cannot be clear who his friends and enemies are, and what his assets and liabilities are. The only truth he can be certain of is that the threat of Islamic militant extremism has grown much stronger in this region than it has been in a long time, and somehow, he needs to unravel this mess of characters in order to re-write a script for success and stability in this region. We wish him the best of luck.

India - Holier Than Thou

It is a well established fact in both academic circles as well as in the public discourse that India is weak on foreign policy. This weakness, kicked off in splendor by Nehru running to the newly formed UN on the Kashmir issue in the early years of India's independence, has lately been front and center in the news. While the country's citizens wait with bated breath on what particular steps the Government will take in response to the Mumbai terrorist attacks, the opposition has severely criticized what in their view has been a rather mild response until now.

Calls for forceful and bold moves on the outward have come from retired government and army persons, who having failed to act in even close to so belligerent a manner are now quick to criticize their successors. These calls, ranging from a suspension of the composite dialogue to a call for bringing back the military option to the table, do not appear to elicit much response from the government, which seems keen to march to its own drumbeat. Having prematurely taken off the military option from the table, it appears to be floundering between considering at least upping the ante by mobilizing along the border on the one hand and asking for more international support on the other.

India’s reaction to foreign policy crises is like a stuck tape recorder, repeating worn out clichés and stating equivocal policy steps. Unable to come up with a coherent and effective reply to almost any crisis, it moves from one to another coming up with suitable steps along the way that are considered seriously for about 15 days before all necessity dies down and the status quo is established once again.

It is a recurring source of amazement and consternation to all concerned as to why India, famous for its Machiavellian internal political struggles is perennially unable to replicate the shrewdness in international relations. What is it that precludes India’s foreign ministry and its hordes of diplomats from embracing a more robust foreign policy stance and acting in an explicitly tough manner? This answer has eluded analysts since India’s independence and there are no signs of an answer any time soon.

A retired general had this to say about India’s weakness in the foreign policy sphere, “India suffers from a weak strategic culture; most of our political leaders conjuring up the idea of a morally superior India professing peace and harmony in a world where nations indulge in cut throat competition. Value based politics is morally superior, but as we all know, that does not reflect the international realism.”

India’s recent condemning of Israeli action in the Gaza strip is an excellent case in point. This is no time for a country, in the course of reacting to the largest terror attack on its soil, to be condemning anybody else’s military actions. Nobody condones entirely what Israel is doing, but it is strategically weak for India to take a moral standpoint on the matter. India should be keeping the military option on the table, it should be considering strikes against terror camps in PoK and elsewhere, it should be learning a lesson in counterstrikes from the Israelis and formulating its own devastating reply to the terrorists.

This is no time for moral posturing and a ridiculous obsequiousness to god knows whom; Iran? Saudi Arabia? It is high time India knew its friends from its enemies and engaged in realistic foreign policy. No longer must it remain holier than thou.