Monthly Archives: February 2011

India-US Relations Blog

US, India and aid for Pakistan

Leave a comment

In his budget proposal for 2012, President Obama has proposed $3.1 billion in aid to Pakistan. The aid is spread across various parts and will be provided partly under the five year Kerry-Lugar-Berman initiative and Oversees Contingency Operations (OCO). This proposal comes even as the two countries stand-off over the Raymond Davis affair and the news of Pakistan expanding its nuclear weapons program.

Out of the $3.1 billion, $1.9 billion will go towards promoting a “secure, stable, democratic and prosperous Pakistan with a focus on energy, economic growth, agriculture, the delivery of health and education services, and strengthening the government of Pakistan’s capacity to govern effectively and accountably.” However, a recent U.S. Inspector General’s report said that the U.S. (in effect Pakistan) has failed to demonstrate that the $7.5 billion civilian aid package provided in 2009 has improved the availability of basic needs such as food, education, healthcare etc in Pakistan. The former Chairman of Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP), Mr. Khalid Mirza reiterated the lack of economic growth in Pakistan when he said that there is no clarity in the Pakistani government’s economic vision. The political and economic instability in Pakistan gives us no reason to believe that the new $1.9 billion will be spent wisely and to the benefit of the Pakistani people as intended.

Another $1.1 billion of the package will be dedicated to the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF) set up for training Pakistani forces to better fight insurgents along the Western border with Afghanistan. Here again, Pakistan has not provided us sufficient reason to believe that the aid is being used only to fight terrorists and insurgents along its Western border, or the terrorist safe-havens within its own territory. Instead there have been news of an increase in Pakistan’s nuclear capability with the country having more than 100 deployed nuclear weapons; followed by doubts about the construction of a fourth plutonium reactor. U.S. officials themselves are not convinced that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is safe, and are concerned about the volatility in the country.

But apparently U.S. desperation in Afghanistan supersedes all other considerations, and the U.S. is willing to overlook Pakistan’s inefficiency and transgressions in fighting terrorists and insurgents. The carrots and stick strategy is but a populist rhetoric, and the U.S. is willing to forgo the sticks and appease Pakistan with carrots and more in the hope that Pakistan will help it win the war on terror. The irony of the situation is however, appalling.

The Obama administration, with its call for change, has not managed to change the U.S. attitude on Pakistan, and continues to be willing to excuse all of its excesses. New Delhi has also been unsuccessful in breaking the cycle in spite of its ‘strong’ relations with Washington. All it gets is a couple of statements from the U.S. showing support and sympathy for its position and threat from Pakistan. But when it comes to action, all is forgotten and Pakistan emerges the winner with billions in aid every year it fails. Probably India needs to learn diplomatic manipulation from its western neighbor.

Along with talking with the U.S. administration and agencies, India should begin engaging the Indian-American community that has a large stake in the security of both the U.S. and India. The increasing political participation and strength of the community should be harnessed by the Indian government to lobby the U.S. to rethink the quantity and nature of economic assistance, and enforce strict accountability mechanisms for all aid to Pakistan. It is incumbent upon the Indian side to secure its own national security interests. The U.S. cannot be expected to reprioritize its national interests and goals to align with Indian interests.

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

The Raymond Davis Drama

2 Comments

Looks like the North Waziristan operation will be postponed again

From the very beginning, it was hard to shake off the suspicion that the Raymond Davis affair involved covert operatives from both the United States and Pakistan. That Mr Davis was engaged in diplomacy by other means should have been clear to anyone with a passing familiarity of the business (attained, perhaps, by the study of the scholarly works of David John Moore Cornwell or Ian Lancaster Fleming). Once the U.S. embassy confirmed that he enjoyed diplomatic immunity it was a matter of pedantic or professional interest as to whether he worked for the CIA, DHA, State Department or indeed was a private security contractor employed by the U.S. government.

raymond.davisBut what was less discussed, at least until a couple of days ago, was that the two Pakistanis men (referred to as ‘youths’ or ‘boys’ in the Pakistani media) he killed might have also been engaged in diplomacy by other means. (Incidentally, Express Tribune pulled the initial report, here’s the cached article). Diplomats and foreign journalists who have served in Pakistan are familiar with such diplomacy, not infrequently conducted from a motorcycle. It would be of pedantic or professional interest as to whether they worked for the ISI, Intelligence Bureau or some other “agency”.

It is possible that the dust-up between Mr Davis and the two Pakistanis was the result of the escalation of free and frank discussions to a higher calibre. It is also possible that the two Pakistanis, and one of their innocent counterparts, lost their lives in the risky venture of creating a dust-up.

Consider. There are two possibilities why Lahore police would arrest a white American man who identified himself as U.S. diplomat with immunity. First, that they were told to do so by higher authorities. Second, that the local authorities were so radically anti-American—consistent with general public sentiment—that they were willing to disregard claims of diplomatic immunity, and brazen out the consequences. This is unlikely, not least because it would mean some people would lose their jobs in the process.

General Kayani’s guidance to the interior minister reminding him to keep Mr Davis’ military background in mind supports the hypothesis that the military-jihadi complex instigated this drama. Why?

That is hard to say. It is, however, the biggest beneficiary of the crisis. Politically, it is the Zardari government—which it has no love for—that is on the ropes, caught between an increasingly tough Washington and an increasingly anti-American public sentiment. Even if the matter is resolved in a few days’ time by getting the judiciary to affirm his diplomatic immunity, the episode can be offered as a reason, yet again, for the Pakistani army to avoid launching the much delayed operation against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in North Waziristan. The overall rise in temperature works to call for a reduction in U.S. drone attacks, using the argument that doing so is necessary to lower anti-American feelings.

The Pakistani military leadership calculates that the United States can suspend bilateral relations or aid for a short while, but overall, the risk of a permanent break is low. It is not wrong. That is why it can afford to rock the boat—with terrorist attacks or diplomatic dramas—to pre-empt U.S. coercion. After all, for the Pakistani military-jihadi complex, poking the United States in the eye is less risky compared to having to really fight itself.

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

FMCT Negotiations: Games Pakistan Plays

1 Comment

By P R Chari
Indian Review of Global Affairs

Pakistan is at it again. Whenever it is in trouble, Pakistan turns up the volume of its anti-India rhetoric. Suicide terrorism is taking a daily toll of lives in Pakistan. Its Afghanistan policy is going nowhere. The Pakistan army is obsessed with gaining ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan, and has drafted the Taliban to achieve this objective. But, elements of the Taliban have turned against Pakistan, and are indulging in sustained, uncontrollable violence within the country. The assassination of Salman Taseer – a voice of reason raised against Pakistan’s medieval blasphemy laws – highlights the growing Islamization and chaos in Pakistan. Taseer’s murder was condemnable, but the horrifying fact is that his assassin has become a national hero. Rose petals were showered on him when he was produced in court. Lawyers are flocking to defend him. Liberal opinion in Pakistan, on the other hand, has been marginalized.

In true Nero-fashion Pakistan has now blocked negotiations on the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) in Geneva. Its Ambassador, Zamir Akram, has argued that by ceasing fissile materials production, Pakistan would concede a ‘strategic advantage’ to India. The WikiLeaks inform that Pakistan is currently manufacturing nuclear weapons faster than any other country, according to a cable sent by the U.S. embassy in Islamabad to Washington. A recent study by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists also informs that Pakistan possesses more nuclear weapons than India, but is feverishly manufacturing fissile materials to further enlarge its inventory. Nuclear weapons are not comparable to conventional weapons, and adding to their numbers beyond a point makes no sense. But, this logic is unlikely to impress Pakistan, whose defense and foreign policy is basically driven by the obsessions of the Pakistan Army. Zamir Akram had another grouse. President Obama had pledged to assist India’s admission into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australia Group and the Waasenaar Arrangement during his visit to New Delhi last November. Delivering on that promise the United States has very recently removed export controls on several Indian space and defense-related organizations, signaling a new era in U.S.-India nonproliferation cooperation. Zamir argued that this represented a “paradigm shift in strategic terms.”

Pakistan is actually hoping to somehow revive the debate on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal that was generated in 2008 when that deal was under process. The Bush administration had hammered that deal through the U.S. Congress, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), despite reservations voiced in some countries, collectively named the White Knights. Pakistan is seeking a similar dispensation, and China is working hard to provide Pakistan a comparable nuclear deal by supplying two more 300 MW atomic power reactors for its Chashma complex. Without going into the legal complexities involved, it should be noticed that China needs to place this matter before the Nuclear Suppliers Group for getting its prior approval. A similar approval had been obtained by the United States before finalizing the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. China is reluctant to pursue this route in the knowledge that the NSG may not endorse this deal between two blatant proliferators in the international system.

Reverting back to the collaterally damaged and stalled FMCT negotiations Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State, has unequivocally declared, “Let me just place full emphasis and priority today on my main message, which is to launch the negotiations this year on a fissile material cutoff treaty in the Conference on Disarmament.” She added, “That is a kind of general time frame,” though 2011 was not a “specific deadline.” In diplomatic language these words amount to expressing extreme displeasure with Pakistan, and with good reason. The 65-nation Conference on Disarmament transcended a ten-year deadlock in 2009 by agreeing to address four issues: nuclear disarmament, a fissile material cut-off pact, the prohibition of space-based weapons, and an agreement on non-use of nuclear weapons by nuclear-armed countries against non-nuclear weapon states. Pakistan has reneged now after endorsing this plan, which derails President Obama’s hopes to operationalize his disarmament agenda; hence, Gottemoeller’s subsequent threat, “If we cannot find a way to begin these negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament, then we will need to consider options.”

And, what could be these options? Most effectively, by stopping financial assistance to keep a bankrupt Pakistan afloat. And, cutting off arms transfers, which includes spares and ancillaries, would heighten pressure on Pakistan’s armed forces who are its real rulers. Can the United States afford to ignore Pakistan’s logistics support to sustain the American and ISAF operations in Afghanistan? Will China bail out its distressed ally by defying the international community in this effort, and promoting a further closing of ranks by its neighbours? The United States and China will, no doubt, weigh all their options carefully. Pakistan seems likely to witness interesting times.

(The article originally appeared at www.irgamag.com. USINPAC and IRGA are content partners.)

India-US Relations Blog

The Voice of the Majority – 2 – Religion & Regime Stability?

4 Comments

In the first article of this series, the following was deemed self-evident:

  • The majority in every society or country expects its religion, its culture, and its belief systems to be respected and supported by its government.

A corollary of this self-evident fact is:

  • A regime that is seen, felt and recognized to be respectful and supportive of the majority religion tends in turn to be supported the majority of the people.

The events of the past 2-3 weeks demonstrate the truth of this corollary.

Does any one think Pakistan is richer than Egypt or Tunisia? Does anyone think that Pakistan provides its youth greater career opportunities than Egypt or Tunisia? Does any one think that Pakistan is less corrupt than Egypt? No.

Yet, we have not seen a single protest demonstration in Pakistan. And we have seen massive demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt. The leader of Tunisia fled the country and his regime is in tatters. Yesterday, President Mubarak of Egypt announced his decision to step down in the face of huge protests in Cairo and Alexandria. Despite his 32-year reign, no one in Egypt has been willing to stand up in support of Mr. Mubarak. The Obama Administration and the Western European Governments have essentially dumped him.

The leaders of Tunisia and Egypt were and are secular men. They went out of their way to diminish the hold of religion on their people and they were ruthless against the proponents of the majority religion of their people. These leaders were the ones who created the education systems that educated the young men who have now risen against these leaders.

Look at the other regimes that seem to be trouble in the Middle East, Jordan, Bahrain, possibly Kuwait. These regimes, like Egypt & Tunisia, are generally secular; they have implemented western education systems and have discouraged overly strong influence of religion.

In each of these countries, the western educated segments are small and urban. The young “educated” people think of themselves as almost western and expect similar living standards. These “educated” youth are popular with American anchors who can interview them on American TV. They come across as just like young Americans or Europeans, young people who want the same things western young people want. It makes for lovely TV.

The Iranian students of 1978-1979 were just like these young people in Tunisia and Egypt. The Shah of Iran was like Ben-Ali of Tunisia and Mubarak of Egypt. He was dumped unceremoniously by his “bff” America and fled the country like Ben-Ali of Tunisia. Mubarak of Egypt seems made of sterner stuff and his fate is still unclear.

The Iranian Students that rioted in 2009 in Tehran were just like the Iranian Students of 1978-79, like Tunisian and Egyptian students we see today. But today’s Iranian regime is totally different. The Theocratic Regime in Iran has the support of the majority of Iranian people who are deeply conservative and religious. This is why the revolting Iranian students of 2009 received no support from the Iranian majority. This is why the Iranian regime could crush the revolt and tell the western world to bug off. And the Iranian regime won.

Today’s Pakistan is a basket case despite billions of dollars of U.S. aid. Actually Pakistan, a land with 170 million people, gets far less aid than does Egypt, a country of 80 million people. Yet, Pakistan has seen no riots about the price of bread, about the lack of jobs.

Is it because the Pakistani regime is as anti-secular as it can get? Is it because Pakistan’s religious establishment has a stake in supporting the regime, especially against American & European pressures? Is this why no American Anchor would dare to walk around Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar with a TV camera and crew to interview people in the streets? Is this lack of access to American TV another protective cover for the Pakistani regime?

President Mubarak’s Egyptian regime was a true loyal friend of America for 32 years. President Mubarak was the first to accept American Iraq, the first supporter of America’s War on Terror. President Obama chose Cairo, Egypt’s Capital, to deliver his major address to the world’s Muslims. Yet, the moment he became inconvenient, President Obama sent his envoy to Egypt to tell Mr. Mubarak to not seek an additional term.

In stark contrast, a U.S. Congressional delegation pleaded with Pakistan’s President Zardari to obtain a release of an American Diplomat who has been held in jail despite his diplomatic immunity. The Congressional delegation failed. And this is a Pakistani Government that is accused of being duplicitous and diverting American anti-terror aid to the Taleban, America’s enemies.

This is the difference between leaders/regimes that cultivate & placate the majority religion in their countries and leaders/regimes who scorn their majority religion under the banner of being “secular” and “modern”. Support of the majority gives the first set their power and immunity from America’s pressure. The second set! They get nothing from their majority because they gave the majority nothing.

How does this discussion relate to core India or US-India Relations? That is the topic for the next article.

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

From Tunisia through Egypt to Kashmir

5 Comments

The Jasmine revolution in Tunisia is only the latest manifestation of the power of the people to decisively compel dictatorial forces to yield. In February 1986, the Philippine people had brought down a dictatorship and restored democracy in their dramatic four-day People Power Revolution. Though the Soviet communist regime had quelled both the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring with tanks in the street, the influence of Lech Walesa’s Solidarity movement in Poland led to the intensification and spread of anti-communist ideals throughout the countries of the Eastern Bloc, weakening their oppressive communist governments.

egyptunrest

In August 1989, a Solidarity-led coalition government was formed in Poland and, almost simultaneously, the citizens of neighbouring Czechoslovakia threw off the shackles of four decades of totalitarian communist rule in what has been called the “Velvet Revolution”. The victory of the Ukrainian people’s Orange Revolution over their country’s corrupt leadership and the installation of Viktor Yushchenko as President in January 2005 represented a new landmark in the history of people’s movements for democracy. The Cedar Revolution in April 2005 ended the Syrian military occupation of Lebanon after 30 years. The Nepalese revolution in April 2006 led to the overthrow of the monarchy, reaffirming once again that the power of the people ultimately prevails.

The fragrance of Tunisia’s jasmine has spread rapidly to other Arab states including Algeria, Egypt, Jordan and Yemen. Libya and perhaps even Saudi Arabia may soon be smothered by its scent. Morocco and Syria may be next in line. Can non-Arab states ruled by tin-pot dictators under various garbs be far behind? Iran could be ripe for another revolution. The Pakistan army and the government of the day must surely be deeply concerned that the people might rise in revolt. They would be even more concerned about the prospects of hard-line Islamist support to the people’s aspirations for genuine self rule.

Even though India is a legitimate democracy and the people have enough avenues available to them to air their grievances and let off steam, many sections of society have felt a sense of alienation from the national mainstream for several decades. Some of them may take inspiration from the happenings in West Asia. Almost 100 stone-pelting youth had died in the Kashmir Valley in the summer of 2010 and many more were injured in police firing. The reason for the spontaneous students’ uprising appeared to be the collective weight of the hardships suffered over 20 years of militancy and terrorism and the central government’s often heavy-handed response. Though the sorry state of affairs was eventually brought under control through a measured response and the initiation of a sustained dialogue by government interlocutors with the people’s representatives, the situation remains volatile. Subterranean tensions may again rise to the surface without major provocation.

If the Kashmiri people come out on the streets of Srinagar, Baramulla, Sopore, Kupwara, Anantnag and half a dozen other towns like they did in 1988-89, in today’s mega-media age, it will be well nigh impossible for India to keep Kashmir by force. The Government of India must lose no further time in meeting the aspirations of the Kashmiri people for autonomy and self rule within the framework of the Indian Constitution. It is time to stop inflaming passions on vote-bank based party lines and to act in a statesman-like manner in keeping with the national interest.

(Gurmeet Kanwal is Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi.)