Tag Archives: terrorism

Bruce Riedel’s underwhelming new book

It doesn’t tell us any more than we already know

It is hard to see what Bruce Riedel’s new book “Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of Global Jihad” seeks to do.

Book cover (credit:bestofferbuyuk.com

It covers the history of the United States’ relationship with Pakistan from Partition onwards, but is too brief and too shallow to provide a good picture. Dennis Kux and Howard Schaffer deal with this in much greater detail. As an analysis of Pakistani politics and civil-military relations, it is a subset of Stephen P Cohen’s excellent book. As a narrative of the creation and growth of the military-jihadi complex, it is supered by Ahmed Rashid and Hussain Haqqani, who go much deeper. Finally, as an account of the Obama administration’s handling of the war in Afghanistan-Pakistan, it has little to add to Bob Woodward’s book published last year.

Coming from one of the most astute analysts of Pakistan, and from someone who was “in the room” during important moments in contemporary history, the book is a disappointment. Mr Riedel could well have cited Kux, Schaffer, Cohen & Rashid as references in his introductory chapter and gone on to provide us with a deeper, broader analysis of Pakistan’s current situation and fleshed out the possible directions it may take in the future. Yet, we are left with just one single chapter on the implications of one single—what he calls “possible (but not probable)”—outcome: the implications of a jihadist state in Pakistan. That begs the question: what about the probable outcomes? Shouldn’t the book be discussing those in detail?

Perhaps because he is still too close to the policy-making in Washington, Mr Riedel uses statements like “the United States currently has better relations with both India and Pakistan than any other time in the past several decades”. This, after he lays out in great detail how deeply unpopular the United States is in Pakistan (not least because of Washington’s improved relations with India), how the Pakistani military is at loggerheads with its U.S. counterpart, and after mentioning incidents like the suicide attack on the CIA base in Khost. Let’s hope Mr Riedel was merely being diplomatic and politically correct, because the alternative is unflattering.

The disappointment deepens when you see the author accepting the trite argument that Pakistan’s insecurities vis-a-vis India will assuaged if there is a settlement of the Kashmir dispute, even on Pakistan’s own terms. A person who correctly sees a hasty U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as a victory for Al-Qaeda’s global jihad somehow fails to consider the geopolitical implications of India yielding to Pakistan’s military-jihadi blackmail. To be fair, Mr Riedel recommends nothing more than what was agreed in India-Pakistan back channel talks, but even so, the premise that Pakistan will pose less of a threat to international security if only India were to make some concessions takes the heat off the protagonists—Pakistan and its scaffold states. And no, privately nudging the Indian leadership to pursue dialogue with Pakistan is unlikely to be any more effective than doing so publicly.

What is the book’s big prescription for Pakistan? The combination of carrots (Kerry-Lugar long-term aid) and sticks (drone attacks and suchlike) that are currently employed by the Obama administration. There is very little by way of identification and evaluation of other options. This might, again, be due to the fact the Mr Riedel was recently a part of, and still very close to, the ongoing deadly embrace. By that token, this book might have come too early.

‘The Voice of the Majority -1- ‘Don’t Tread on Our Religion, Our Culture’

Every elite American newspaper is full of articles about Pakistan’s descent into religious extremism and the stunned reaction of the “westernized Pakistani elite” (as Washington Post put it) at the popular support in Pakistan for the accused assassin of Governor Salman Taseer. There is no question that successive Pakistani Military and Civilian regimes have nurtured Islamic extremism and built up the Taleban. It is also true that the assassination has severely shaken the confidence of the Pakistani elite and that of the Obama Administration.

Supports of Malik Qadri shower rose petalsI abhor any doctrine, regime or society that chooses to call itself the “Land of the Pure” or Pak-i-Stan. Once you call your society the land of the Pure, you sort of undertake the obligation to rid your society of any impure elements. That is what successive land-of-the-pure regimes have done by trying to cleanse their societies of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Ahmadiyya Muslims over a 60-year period.

But I also recognize that Pakistani society has never elected religious parties in any election. They have usually voted for non-religious parties. So what turned this Pakistani society to shower rose petals on an accused assassin of a popular governor? Below is a contrarian and perhaps controversial answer.

•    The majority in every society or country expects its religion, its culture, its belief systems to be respected and protected by its government. I consider this fact to be self-evident. As a corollary, the majority tends to protest and rebel against any external pressure to modify its religious and social laws. When its own government aligns itself with the external source of pressure, the protests turn vehement. If the external forces are of another religion, then the anger can turn incendiary.

Perhaps, this is what happened in Pakistan. Rather than working quietly and discreetly to free the Christian woman sentenced under the 30-year old Blasphemy law, serious attempts were made to force Pakistan’s weak government to amend or abolish the law. This, I think, was a huge mistake. It changed the nature of the debate from being merciful to a poor woman to pressure from American and Western Christians to force a change in Pakistani society’s sacred religious principles.

In this context, an accused assassin of a popular governor became a symbol of defiance against American & Christian pressure against Muslims and a defender of the Prophet. Perhaps, a Muslim fighter against modern Christian Crusaders?  Is this so hard to understand?

I guess it is if you are a member of the American Elite and Media Elite in particular. If you think, I am being harsh, think back to their coverage of the Tea Party in America in 2010. This is the same elite section of American Establishment that once derided Core America as “small town people clinging to religion and guns”.  These are the same people who expressed outrage that over 70% of Americans were against construction of a new Mosque near the sacred Ground Zero. These American Elite accused Core Americans for becoming intolerant. It was preposterous.

There are over 90 Mosques in New York City, by some counts. So why did Americans protest so passionately against one new Mosque in New York? It was because that project seemed to symbolize an “in-your-face-America” message. It came across as a deliberate affront to America’s sacred memories and beliefs. So the American majority stood up and said, “Don’t tread on us”. The American Elite still don’t get this.

The American Elite express disapproval of religious beliefs and promotes an arrogant secularism. If they approve of someone, they call him or her “liberal”. If they don’t, they call the person “traditional” or “religious”. They misuse America’s clout to force their “secularism” on governments of countries that depend on American aid. They do not get the basic fact that the core of most societies is religious. They do not understand that their demands come across simultaneously as arrogant “irreligiousity” (to paraphrase Stratfor) and as attacks on sacred principles. So is it any surprise that their actions usually misfire as they did in Pakistan!

Perhaps they should watch Bill O’Reilly of Fox speak of “secular-progressives” in his tone of dripping contempt. If the American Elite cannot convince Bill O’Reilly, why do they think they should pressure Pakistan? If they cannot understand Core America, why do they think they can understand Core Pakistan or Core India?

How does this discussion lead to core India or to US-India relations? That is a topic for the next article.

Up Persian creek without a strategy

India must get its act together on Iran…quickly.

The apparent lack of policy co-ordination within the Indian government over Iran is really worrying.

We are referring to the RBI’s decisions in recent days closing the Asian Clearing Union (ACU) mechanism to imports—beginning with oil and extending to other goods and services—from Iran. The move not only caught the industry by surprise, it looks like it caught the relevant government ministries by surprise as well. Given that Iran is India’s second largest supplier of crude oil accounting for around 13 percent ($12 billion) of oil imports and the risk of a short-term supply shock sending oil prices higher, the lack of policy coordination amounts to dereliction of duty.

The lack of coordination reflects a deeper malaise—the UPA government’s inability to evolve a coherent policy on Iran, with the result that New Delhi is forever in reactive mode. [See: Will the Ayatollah step behind the line?] The overall failure of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his government to communicate with the public—witness how they botched up the India-U.S. nuclear deal—means that no political leader explains why the government is doing whatever it is doing, and why difficult decisions have to be made. The latter would still be acceptable if the government executed in a competent fashion—like in the case of the nuclear deal—but intolerable where execution is poor.

In this case, there is no evidence that the relevant cabinet committees ever discussed the implications of RBI’s move and took the necessary measures to manage the fallout. The RBI’s independence doesn’t preclude coordination in matters like this. A competent government would have reassured the markets and the public that although RBI’s measures against imports from Iran would put 13% of India’s supply of crude at risk, it has alternative plans to protect the Indian economy. Instead we were left working out the implications of terse press releases issued by the central bank.

What might those alternative plans be? These could involve arrangements to import Iranian oil through other currencies (or the Indian rupee), assurances from other suppliers (read Saudi Arabia) that they will make up the shortfall or both. Given Saudi interests in keeping the lid on Iran’s nuclear programme, New Delhi could have extracted the latter as the price of tightening the financial screws on Iran. Indeed, not extracting such a price is a good opportunity squandered.

India must get its act together on Iran. First, it is in India’s interests to ensure that Iranian oil and gas continue to provide the economy with the supply diversity that an oil-importing country needs. If this objective is inconsistent with playing responsible global citizen then so be it.

Second, given that Iran shares an interest in preventing Afghanistan from falling under the sway of a Saudi-Pakistani-Taliban nexus, India needs to continue to engage Iran.

Third, while a nuclear-armed Iran may or may not be entirely in India’s interests, it is far better to manage the consequences thereof than to countenance the use of military force in a futile attempt to stop it.

Finally, while international sanctions are unlikely to prevent a determined Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it is geopolitically costly to stay out of the Western consensus. Unless sanctions prohibit India from purchasing Iranian oil and gas, it is better for India to be part of the sanctions regime.

Reconciling these objectives is not easy, but not impossible either. The big prize in foreign policy, however, is for India to assiduously work to bridge the divide between the United States and Iran. This—more than securing a permanent seat at the UN Security Council—is a project that is worthy of a rising global power. This task of international statesmanship requires a real leadership at South Block and the PMO. Till that time we can have day-to-day issue management, not strategy.

The new year begins with a question mark on oil imports from Iran. The larger question mark though is whether the UPA government will now realise that it finds itself in a jam over Iran because it has no ideas of its own.

The Year in India-US Relations

If the year in India-U.S. relations could be conveyed through pithy phrases, two immediately come to mind. 2010 was the year in which the wheel turned full circle, with the U.S. once again turning its attention towards India after its advances were rejected by a rising China, intent on blazing its own path on the world stage. After the heady highs of the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration’s half-hearted and confused approach towards India had been a party pooper, and even the Singh state visit at the end of the previous year couldn’t hide the perceptible decline in spirits.  Keeping President Obama’s November visit as a deadline, both governments searched high and low for the next big idea, a la the nuclear deal to bring the zing back into the relationship. The nuclear deal itself became the sum of many deals as the Reprocessing Agreement signed in March of this year was followed by the passage of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill by the Indian Parliament. Both procedure and outcome were mired in controversy, with India then signing the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) to resolve concerns expressed by both the U.S. government and American companies over their liability in case of a mishap.
The other phrase that comes to mind is reinventing the wheel. June 2010 saw three Indian ministers accompanied by a phalanx of bureaucrats descend on Washington for the Strategic Dialogue that had been upgraded to ministerial level. Eighteen separate dialogues took place under the overall umbrella of the Strategic Dialogue, but they ultimately amounted to picking up the threads from where the Bush Administration had left off. Among the new areas dialogued about were co-operation in science and technology, research for clean energy and monsoon prediction, health and education, and women’s empowerment, but these were largely derided as soft issues to shift focus from an absence of dialogue on the hard issues to do with regional security. With the partnership now being tagged as “indispensible”, the million dollar question was what was so indispensible about India to the United States other than its large market? While an Indian Prime Minister had coined the phrase “natural allies” to describe the relationship, the geo-politics of the day and the shifting sands of international relations have put paid to that proposition for the time being.
It may well be said that such rhetoric is meant for public consumption, but even the most hyperbolic statement would still contain a kernel that would provide an indicator of the future direction of the relationship. But in this particular instant, even a word cloud analysis does not throw up any indicator of future trends. At best, the removal of sanctions on many Indian science entities might pave the way for increased technology sharing. (For the full wish list, go here).  The quid pro quo could well be India signing the so called foundational agreements that would enable the U.S. to sell its state-of-the-art military equipment to India. There has already been movement in this direction with reports of a bilateral technical group to look into the issues being set up immediately post the Obama visit. The visit itself saw Obamamania sweeping the country; with wall-to-wall coverage and media frenzy of the type that the President would probably have last seen on his election night.
Coming to other straws in the wind, and seeing as this has become a free-wheeling blog post, there were other sets of wheels that showed that American companies were finally making their way into the Indian mind and the Indian market. Harley Davidson made it to Indian roads, though with a little help from Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, by his own admission, and ably backed up by Wikileaks. And an American car, the Ford Figo became the new kid on the block, selling almost 60,000 units and being voted as the Indian Car of the Year. Thanks to the Figo, Ford recorded an incredible 185% increase in sales in India year on year.  Ford, like other American companies has found it a hard slough in the Indian market, but it has ultimately paid off. While the American market is an equally tough one to crack for Indian companies other than the well established ones, hopes that the Adam tablet from the Indian startup, Notionink, the first to crack the competitive high technology American consumer space were belied by delays in production that even led to talk of Adam being vapourware. Not the best way to go about being a trailblazer.
What else, the soft power of the two countries would have been at equilibrium, but for the sudden appearance of Pamela Anderson on the sets of Big Boss, the Indian equivalent of the reality show Big Brother. Hollywood films ran rampant on Indian screens, with the top ten movies, dubbed and otherwise, grossing almost $450 million in the Indian box office. Unlike 2009, however, when Avatar had beaten My Name is Khan to become the top grosser in India, this year, at least, Hindi films managed to hold their own. The Indian Diaspora in the United States contributed substantially to the bottomline of the Hindi film industry with the top ten movies grossing about $ 20 million at the American box office. One of the more bizarre suggestions that one got to know of through Wikileaks was that of harnessing Bollywood’s soft power and have Bollywood stars do the equivalent of a USO tour in Afghanistan to lift up the spirits of the locals, but one that was apparently never acted upon.
What will 2011 bring? More leaks from the U.S. Embassy in Delhi, for sure. With just 1947 out of the 251,287 cables released, there should be at least a few more to add to the 39 embassy cables that have so far seen the light of day. In the bilateral context, the cables show that Indian and American diplomats are formal in their interlocutions, judicious in their words, play their cards close to their chest, and give as good as they get.  The terms of endearment are evidently different in this still somewhat prickly partnership. But is that the reason why the wheel had to turn full circle is something to be considered as we enter the New Year.

If the year in India-U.S. relations could be conveyed through pithy phrases, two immediately come to mind. 2010 was the year in which the wheel turned full circle, with the U.S. once again turning its attention towards India after its advances were rejected by a rising China, intent on blazing its own path on the world stage. After the heady highs of the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration’s half-hearted and confused approach towards India had been a party pooper, and even the Singh state visit at the end of the previous year couldn’t hide the perceptible decline in spirits.  Keeping President Obama’s November visit as a deadline, both governments searched high and low for the next big idea, a la the nuclear deal to bring the zing back into the relationship. The nuclear deal itself became the sum of many deals as the Reprocessing Agreement signed in March of this year was followed by the passage of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill by the Indian Parliament. Both procedure and outcome were mired in controversy, with India then signing the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) to resolve concerns expressed by both the U.S. government and American companies over their liability in case of a mishap.

wordcloud

The other phrase that comes to mind is reinventing the wheel. June 2010 saw three Indian ministers accompanied by a phalanx of bureaucrats descend on Washington for the Strategic Dialogue that had been upgraded to ministerial level. Eighteen separate dialogues took place under the overall umbrella of the Strategic Dialogue, but they ultimately amounted to picking up the threads from where the Bush Administration had left off. Among the new areas dialogued about were co-operation in science and technology, research for clean energy and monsoon prediction, health and education, and women’s empowerment, but these were largely derided as soft issues to shift focus from an absence of dialogue on the hard issues to do with regional security. With the partnership now being tagged as “indispensible”, the million dollar question was what was so indispensible about India to the United States other than its large market? While an Indian Prime Minister had coined the phrase “natural allies” to describe the relationship, the geo-politics of the day and the shifting sands of international relations have put paid to that proposition for the time being.

It may well be said that such rhetoric is meant for public consumption, but even the most hyperbolic statement would still contain a kernel that would provide an indicator of the future direction of the relationship. But in this particular instant, even a word cloud analysis does not throw up any indicator of future trends. At best, the removal of sanctions on many Indian science entities might pave the way for increased technology sharing. (For the full wish list, go here).  The quid pro quo could well be India signing the so called foundational agreements that would enable the U.S. to sell its state-of-the-art military equipment to India. There has already been movement in this direction with reports of a bilateral technical group to look into the issues being set up immediately post the Obama visit. The visit itself saw Obamamania sweeping the country; with wall-to-wall coverage and media frenzy of the type that the President would probably have last seen on his election night.

Coming to other straws in the wind, and seeing as this has become a free-wheeling blog post, there were other sets of wheels that showed that American companies were finally making their way into the Indian mind and the Indian market. Harley Davidson made it to Indian roads, though with a little help from Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, by his own admission, and ably backed up by Wikileaks. And an American car, the Ford Figo became the new kid on the block, selling almost 60,000 units and being voted as the Indian Car of the Year. Thanks to the Figo, Ford recorded an incredible 185% increase in sales in India year on year.  Ford, like other American companies has found it a hard slough in the Indian market, but it has ultimately paid off. While the American market is an equally tough one to crack for Indian companies other than the well established ones, hopes that the Adam tablet from the Indian startup, Notionink, the first to crack the competitive high technology American consumer space were belied by delays in production that even led to talk of Adam being vapourware. Not the best way to go about being a trailblazer.

What else, the soft power of the two countries would have been at equilibrium, but for the sudden appearance of Pamela Anderson on the sets of Big Boss, the Indian equivalent of the reality show Big Brother. Hollywood films ran rampant on Indian screens, with the top ten movies, dubbed and otherwise, grossing almost $450 million in the Indian box office. Unlike 2009, however, when Avatar had beaten My Name is Khan to become the top grosser in India, this year, at least, Hindi films managed to hold their own. The Indian Diaspora in the United States contributed substantially to the bottomline of the Hindi film industry with the top ten movies grossing about $ 20 million at the American box office. One of the more bizarre suggestions that one got to know of through Wikileaks was that of harnessing Bollywood’s soft power and have Bollywood stars do the equivalent of a USO tour in Afghanistan to lift up the spirits of the locals, but one that was apparently never acted upon.

What will 2011 bring? More leaks from the U.S. Embassy in Delhi, for sure. With just 1947 out of the 251,287 cables released, there should be at least a few more to add to the 39 embassy cables that have so far seen the light of day. In the bilateral context, the cables show that Indian and American diplomats are formal in their interlocutions, judicious in their words, play their cards close to their chest, and give as good as they get.  The terms of endearment are evidently different in this still somewhat prickly partnership. But is that the reason why the wheel had to turn full circle is something to be considered as we enter the New Year.

Peace and Stability in 2011: Turbulence will Continue

From the point of view of international peace and stability, 2010 ended on a positive note with the ratification by the U.S. Senate of the new START treaty that will further reduce deployed strategic nuclear weapons of Russia and the U.S. to 1,550 in seven years. However, in view of the ongoing conflicts and possible conflagrations, 2011 is likely to be a turbulent year.

The strategic stalemate in Afghanistan will continue with the Taliban and NATO-ISAF forces alternately gaining local ascendancy for short durations in the core provinces of Helmand, Marja and Kandahar. While U.S. forces may be expected to step up drone strikes in Pakistan against extremists sheltering in the NWFP and FATA areas, the results are not likely to appear justifiable in view of the diplomatic fallout in Pakistan. The Afghan National Army is still many years away from achieving the professional standards necessary to manage security on its own. Hence, it will be difficult for the U.S. to begin its planned drawdown of troops in July 2011.

The military stand-off along the 38th Parallel in Korea has further exacerbated the already unstable situation in East Asia caused by increasing Chinese assertiveness that appears out of character with its stated objective of a peaceful rise. Though the international community may be able to ensure that a major conflict does not erupt again between the two Koreas, the sub-region will remain volatile unless the Chinese use their influence with North Korea to persuade it to back off from the path of confrontation. As of now they do not appear inclined to do so.

Turmoil in West Asia will continue through 2011 as Israel stubbornly refuses to halt the construction of new settlements in the West Bank and the Palestinian militias are getting increasingly restive. Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the vaguely stated threats of several of its neighbours to follow suit will continue to add to instability in the region. Saudi Arabia, in particular, may fund Pakistan’s nuclear expansion programme as a hedging strategy against the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. Such a course of action would be a disastrous blow to international non-proliferation efforts.

It can be deduced form recent arrests in the U.K. and elsewhere that international fundamentalist terrorists may succeed in launching another spectacular strike in the West. A successful strike would resurrect the al Qaeda and enable it to rally its wavering cadres. All in all, 2011 will see a continuation of ongoing conflicts without major let up.

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