The US & others working with Pakistan

[Madhu]

@ carl -

UNITED NATIONS: Pakistan today joined the UN Security Council for a two-year term as a non-permanent member of the powerful world body, which also has India among its 15-member states.

Pakistan was elected to the Security Council last October when 129 out of 193 members of the UN General Assembly voted for it during an election.

Pakistan has previously served the Council in 1952-53, 1968-69, 1976-77, 1983-84, 1993-94 and 2003-04.

"It will be Pakistan's seventh time on the Council, and the fourth time its term will overlap with India, as it did in 1968, 1977 and 1984," the state-run APP news agency said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/11329074.cms


Sorry to be so gloomy given the New Year, but nothing has changed and nothing will change. Monies siphoned off from civilian aid or gifted by those who wish to be regional "players" will continue to build up a conventional and nuclear arsenal pointed eastwards and all the while our best minds will write journal articles detailing how "assuaging fears" will "demilitarize" the subcontinent. Too many people are professionally and personally invested in one narrative - and one narrative only.

[Madhu]

that would go to such lengths as to create a peaceful nuclear explosion? Lesser men and women might be restrained by the reasonable prediction that their paranoid and militarily inferior neighbor would see the detonation of a nuclear device as a provocation, an imminent threat, a slap to its national pride, an impetus to redouble its own efforts to split the atom, and as a completely reasonable justification for the development of weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent. The Union Government, however, was bigger than this and forged ahead.

I had meant to post a response earlier but time got away from me....

Lesser men and women of the non-proliferation community might be restrained by the quite reasonable prediction that a newly (only a few decades) free post-colonial state with unsettled borders and fears of dissolution might feel the need to "lock in" a nuclear regime when the pressure from the former colonizer and its allies (old Cold War blocs of Saudi/NATO/UK/France, etc) grandfathers nuclear status to China and builds up the conventional and muclear weapons of said paranoid military - all the while stating a commitment to disarmament and peace. And yet, such people continued in their badgering (sorry, diplomacy) and blamed the militarily insecure post-colonial state. Ironic, when the post-colonial behavior wasn't really all that different from the pre-colonial, which caused a lot of the mess, if you see what I mean....

One would think educated and intelligent people might intuit what such pressures might lead toward....unless said educated and intelligent people had no ability to be empathetic WITH ALL PARTIES.

[Madhu]

Madhu wrote a few posts back, briefly on the Whitehall (UK) stance:

Yes the kith & kin links of the Pakistani / Kashmiri communities in the UK, who are overwhelmingly in the English urban areas outside London, have had an impact on Whitehall and primarily via the Labour Party. The Labour Party IMHO has relied upon their electoral support and given very little in response domestically, let alone over Kashmir.

There has been very little UK aid to Azad Kashmir (AK) despite the kith & kin links. Even the recently built, DFID funded bridge shortening the journey time between AK and Islamabad was built by a Chinese contractor and not widely advertised. In fact our diplomats appear to have looked at other places from the safety of Islamabad, notably the Punjab for commercial reasons and NWFP for security reasons.

Locally it is evident that amongst the younger generation of British-born, Kashmiri origin there is less interest in AK, a place widely regarded as corrupt and far from a green paradise, with high youth unemployment. Not helped by the regular visits by AK politicians at election time to raise funds; Kashmiris here cannot vote in AK elections unless they return.

There is little appetite for "solve Kashmir, solve Pakistan" in Whitehall-Westminster, virtually no political pressure and less community interest, let alone passion.

In summary no solution here.

Using Kashmir as a bargaining chip (or pretending to talk about issues of importance to the Pakistani military) is sometimes held up as something the US can do when the US wants some short-term cooperation. The history, I believe, shows that to be the case. Not consistently, but often enough. I agree in that I doubt there is any serious interest.

At any rate, I tend to get carried away in discussion. Not a good habit. I want to say here that I meant nothing in particular about Whitehall and nothing in particular about any one British analyst given the nature of the discussion here and elsewhere on the subject of COIN and scholarship. I was merely stating a common complaint heard among my own type of "kith and kin" (I say "type" because no one in my family is political or cares much about foreign policy one way or the other: "yeah, given 'em Kashmir, more trouble than its worth" seems to be the general feeling. Really, it's the economy and China that seems to animate.

Here are examples of a "different narrative":

Subsequent Changes in American Stand: In brief, a historical analysis of subsequent events would indicate that America’s stand on Kashmir kept changing in direct response to India’s stances and attitudes on international issues. The more important factors that came into play, singly or in combination were:

* United States State Department policies towards the Indian Sub-continent becoming overly dependent on the guidance of Sir Olaf Caroe, the British expert and friend of Pakistan.

* United States stand on Kashmir was being determined by Britain. Britain has never till today got over the loss as to why Kashmir did not accede to Pakistan despite, Britain’s determined efforts.

* The Cold War enlistment of Pakistan as a strategic ally for containment of the former Soviet Union.

* India’s policy of non-alignment which became an anathema for the United States and the West.

Broad pattern of American Involvement with Kashmir Issue: The American involvement with the Kashmir issue has been a constant. What has varied is the intensity and this corresponded to the prevailing security environment and USA-India-Pakistan equations. (1) The 1950s witnessed active involvement; (2) The 1960s and 1970s was an era of detached involvement; (3) The 1980s marked US promotion of dialogue.

The 1990s witnessed an intense anti-Indian manifestation on the Kashmir question under the Clinton Administration. This was chiefly due to the pro-Pakistan proclivities of the Asstt Secretary of State, Robin Raphael who on October 23, 1993 declared that: "We (USA) do not recognise the legal validity of Kashmir’s accession as meaning that Kashmir is for ever an integral part of India... The people of Kashmir have got to be consulted in any kind of final settlement of the Kashmir dispute." It was a strange reversal from what Warren Austin had declared in 1948.

Clinton was later to make amends in the last year of his second administration on this count when Pakistan was berated by him on the Kashmir issue, specifically in terms of respect for the LOC. It must be noted that the proxy war in J&K by Pakistan intensified during the 1990s i.e. the era of United States permissiveness of Pakistan’s delinquency in Kashmir.

What has crept in US policies in the 1990s and being sustained by the present Bush Administration and particularly the Secretary of State, Colin Powell is "the aspirations of Kashmiri people".

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5C...Cpaper403.html

Not endorsing all of that unconditionally. I just wanted to point out that traditionally Western diplomacy and scholarship has been so Pakistan- and NATO-centric in that part of the world that it is very hard for institutions to think differently. One need only sample traditional Western scholarship on the subject to see that the narrative tends to run in one direction. My opinion, obviously, and one that can be argued. I'd just like to see more nuance in the scholarship and discussion, a nuance that takes into account something like the above history.

RUSI has an interesting article about "root causes" that pooh poohs all the fuss in India when Miliband made his comments some time back. I think it is that sort of thing that irritates, actually (that the root cause of all of the problems in Pakistan is Kashmir is an area of debate and contention. Yet this debate until recently never made its way into much of American/UK think-tankistan or scholarship). I think the tone of the paper and its attempts to explain away a "gaffe" are something that tends to irritate if I read things correctly. Ray or other Indians may want to say something about that. (This may be a cultural misread on my part, but man, is the tone of the linked paper condescending.)

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment...49906F67ADFEE/

Anyway, the point is not to say the above is correct or not, but once again, to point out that there is a different way of looking at things.

[Ray]

One has to give credit to the British that a mere handful could control such vast colonies. It was only the other day that I was discussing various methods how the British ensured that they integrated with the locals, without losing their supremacy and hauteur.

It is also a fact that wherever Britain had a colony, in most places, they have left a raging dispute. It may appear Machiavellian, but if viewed from the British standpoint, it was an ideal policy.

Kashmir is one of them.

Nehru spurned John Foster Dulles 'you are with us or against us' theory. Any nation, worth its salt, immediately after a hard won freedom from colonialism, would prefer to chart its own course, rather than subject themselves to 'neo colonialism' (for the want of a better descriptive word).

This naturally did not please either the US or their ally and one time master of undivided India. They backed Pakistan. And this antagonised India and it soon came to pass that the US or UK would not accept anything but 'you are with us or against us'.

The USSR (and as China is doing now) had no such reservation and instead indicated that they have no interest in 'interfering with the internal affairs of another country' and so India fell into their lap, without ofcourse, joining in any Alliance or Pact in its true sense.

Pakistan, on the other hand, realised that to wrest Kashmir (a Muslim majority province of India) the only way was to align with the US since it would give them leverage in the UN as also get free military assistance with the most modern and sophisticated arms as also, money to fill its coffers.

Pakistan unfortunately has not been able to fructify its dreams into reality and instead has got bifurcated by their own cussedness of not allowing a democratically elected leader to be a PM because of racial considerations. (In all fairness I will state I am a Bengali).

Cut to contemporary times.

USSR has collapsed. India has abandoned socialism. It has a large market and so western nations eye it favourably. Pakistan is nowhere in the reckoning to be attractive to the Western economy vis a vis India.

That apart, notwithstanding the bon homie with China, the US realises that China is a dragon on the rise and the US will be overshadowed. India comes into the strategic reckoning with its growing economy and its animus toward China, which China reciprocates in equal measure.

To add to Pakistan being a has been on the Western radar, is the fact that it has become a womb of anti US sentiments and terrorism. Most terrorist attacks have connection with Pakistan. Adding to the Western woes is the Pakistan's double game in Afghanistan where they hunt with the hounds and runs with the hare! Musahrraf was the master of this game and he is said to be coming back piggybacking on Imran Khan and the Pakistan Army and the ISI!

In so far as Miliband is concerned, he is taken to be a clot (in India). It is extraordinary that the UK which is riddled with Pakistani second generation people turning the country on it head can be so masochist as to play second fiddle to such downright scoundrels!

Many in my country accuse me to be an Anglophile, but I am strongly of the opinion that if you wish to live in a foreign country, you should jolly well follow their ways and not impose your ways on them with such claptrap as human rights and all that!

If you are that keen to follow your ways, do so within the confine of your homes.

The English dictum that a man's home is his refuge.

So, if you are in England and hold a British passport remember to be British and remember every Englishman's home is his castle!!

Practise what you want within the confines of your home!

If that does not suit you, then return to the land of your origin! You will not be missed!

[omarali50]

The mess in Afghanistan is probably beyond the ability of NATO to fix completely. But it is still possible for NATO to try and ensure that they leave a survivable Afghanistan behind, and that they damp down the chances of a wider war in the region (meaning they make Pakistan some fair and reasonable offers and also take some less-advertised but serious steps to ensure we dont refuse said fair and reasonable offers). If NATO pulls out without making such arrangements, the whole region will suffer for decades.
About the kind of toxins that have already taken root and that will be so hard to control even when GHQ wakes up to the need to control these people: http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/01/04/opium-brides/

And please excuse the somewhat snarky tone of the brownpundits post. That site has a different atmosphere; its not SWJ

Btw, Ray, can you comment on this situation: http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/01/...ating-himself/

I am a bigger anglophile than you and find the Indian army chief's willingness to get into a public spat like this rather distasteful ("its not the done thing") , but again, I hope you excuse the tone on that website.

[omarali50]

http://nationalinterest.org/article/...6285?page=show

My comment on this article, to an Indian friend: America should get out before it does more damage. Pakistan under Chinese supervision will actually be a much saner country. Indians find this unbelievable, but its true. The Chinese are not chumps. If I was an Indian planner, I would sit tight and ask Amrika bahadur to please stop "helping" the regional players make peace. Let them help India in other ways if they want an alliance, but not in this matter. Things will then get better. Pakistan's posture regarding India is partly a rational response to market forces...that posture gets money and attention from Uncle Sam (its also partly a response to domestic political needs, keeps the army on top). Let Uncle Sam butt out and many distorting forces will disappear with Uncle ji. ....
forget "good intentions" and what is or is not in the hearts of men. Simple economics will drive Pakistan towards a less confrontational policy and strong forces within China wants that too. They want trade routes, they want minerals, they dont want bull####...there must be some PLA generals who think like generals are supposed to think and who want mischief, but there is no perfect solution to anything. India will have to take care of its own problems and will have to do what reasonably functional countries do to stay safe. I am not talking about rivers of goodwill flowing or anything like that. Just a slightly warm peace with multiple irritants hanging around. The trick is to be able to say "no thank you, uncle, no need to help make peace", we are already making peace
Of course, this comment is as unrealistic as the Etzioni article. America, being America, will probably drag this out for years.
I need not add that I would be delighted if somehow America was to become a truly successful force for good in the region. But the world we have is the world we have. At some point its good to admit that this dog won't hunt..

[Ray]

I am a bigger anglophile than you and find the Indian army chief's willingness to get into a public spat like this rather distasteful ("its not the done thing") , but again, I hope you excuse the tone on that website.

The Chief has not gone public.

It is the bureaucrats who are selectively leaking.

It is all politics.

But, unlike Pakistan, there is no danger of any take over by the military.

We are too steeped in democracy.

[davidbfpo]

An IISS Strategic Comment on 'US and Pakistan: a troubled relationship' and I have cited three of the four last paragraphs.

With my emphasis:

Although views differ on the extent to which the Taliban leadership is serious about entering into negotiations, some experts believe it is ready to do so but its hands are tied by a Pakistani military reluctant to see talks progress – though it is unlikely that the talks referred to above could have happened if Pakistan had not at least tacitly acquiesced.

From Pakistan's perspective, the military does not believe that there will be an end to hostilities by 2014 – nor in any case would it favour the emergence of a stable Afghanistan if this were seen as privileging the interests of India and rendering Pakistan vulnerable to strategic encirclement. On the assumption of continued hostilities, Pakistan's military will want to ensure that extremist groups – which it regards as strategic assets in confronting an uncertain security situation in Afghanistan after 2014 – are protected from the process of attrition that the US has inflicted on al-Qaeda.

With the clock ticking, recent tensions between the US and Pakistan can be seen as the drawing of lines in the sand – a process of defining the limits to which Pakistani and US interests do and do not intersect in relation to Afghanistan. Both sides have many reasons to avoid a complete rupture in relations. For the US, Pakistan is a key factor in the struggle against extremist terrorism and nuclear proliferation. For Pakistan, the US remains both an important source of international legitimation and funding, as well as being the only major power able to exercise strategic leverage on India in the event that Indo-Pakistani relations undergo another major deterioration.

There are signs that, having looked into the abyss, the two countries are working to ensure that essential collaboration continues. But a further serious incident could prove terminal for a relationship that neither party has ever found satisfactory.

Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...-relationship/

One wonders if a Pakistani 'strategic asset', like the Haqqani network or LeT, was to successfully mount another bloody attack we'd fall into the abyss. It is easy to imagine some in the USA would not wish to exercise 'strategic leverage' after a Mumbai Two.

[omarali50]

I think the Pakistani military is extremely short-sighted while believing that they are very far-sighted. This is usually a fatal combination.
If they were truly far-sighted they would see that cooperation with America and China to make a reasonable peace in Afghanistan (not a "friendly taliban govt", but a stabilization of the current regime with a fair deal for all major ethnic groups) and peace with India without new changes in frontiers (a deal that India would make in a jiffy) along with establishment of functioning civilian institutions and focus on trade and development, will make Pakistan a normal third world country with tremendous potential. But to them, this scenario is an anti-Pakistan imperialist plot and I am probably a CIA agent for saying so (http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/...PaUCk.facebook). They want their capitalist cake (http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/01/...dubai-wedding/) but they also want to eat their Islamist-Paknationalist-fascist fantasies and the two are not compatible in the long run (http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/08/...tnt-and-so-on/).
The irony is that the American imperialists really had them over a barrel for a while and could have made them do some useful things if the american imperialists had a better idea of what was needed and what they were up against. Unfortunately the imperialists were taken for a ride and by now it may be too late to establish trust and start over.
But for the sake of the 1.5 billion affectees in the region, I wish someone would somehow pull a gigantic rabbit out of this very small hat. The alternatives are all terrible.

[omarali50]

see also: http://www.viewpointonline.net/punja...-pakistan.html

[omarali50]

and this may be of interest, three years later how do the predictions look?: http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com...ions-2009.html

[davidbfpo]

Grim selection of thoughts.

Somewhere I have a longer review by a US analyst, based in the UK and will check what he thought.

[carl]

We won't be able to restrain India when the next Mumbai happens even if we wanted to. The Indians won't listen to us. That is the irony of the Pak Army/ISI's game. By so successfully making monkeys out of us for so long, they have effectively cut out the only country that could have saved them.

[omarali50]

http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/01/...n-afghanistan/

[carl]

Omar:

Your advice that Pakistan give up foreign adventures and confine itself to its' business within its' borders is sound but won't happen; especially since once our bug-out is complete the confidence and ambition of the Pak Army/ISI will head straight toward the roof.

Unfortunately, the roof is India and I don't think it can be penetrated.

You mentioned something in your Brown Pundits post that I want to ask you about, Pakthun nationalism. What if the Indians decided that they would overtly or covertly support a Pakthunistan part of which would be carved out of Pakistan's hide? The object of this exercise would be to give the Pak Army/ISI all it could handle on the side of the country away from India without costing the Indians much more than some money.

Do you think if the Indians were to do that, the Pak Army/ISI could handle it?

[Dayuhan]

Do you think if the Indians were to do that, the Pak Army/ISI could handle it?

And would the Pakhtun play along? That's not something India or anyone else can simply make happen by throwing money at it.

Is there significant agitation or desire for an independent Pakhtunistan?

[carl]

Dayuhan:

I don't know exactly which is why I asked Omar. But there is some kind of an identity there seeing as how Taliban & Co is primarily a Pakthun organization. Also I've read that if there is one thing the Pakthuns mostly agree on, which may not be much, it is that they really really dislike the Pakistanis. So I figure that if there is even a hint of national aspiration, that is something that can be worked with.

If, if, there is some dreamy eyed desire for that, a lot of actual money backed by some Indians with military and organizational skills to impart can turn that dreamy eyed desire into real live trouble.

Taliban & Co. know they are being used for Pak Army/ISI ends. I am just wondering what would happen if the Indians showed up and offered to subsidize an end that the Pakthuns may want more and that would just happen to benefit the Indians.

I don't think India is going to sit back and do nothing once we bug out and am trying to puzzle out some of the things they may do.

Ray: What do you think?

[omarali50]

I dont think old fashioned (relatively secular) Pakhtun nationalism is an armed insurgency kind of threat, with or without Indian "help". At best, pakhtun nationalists can use the available civilian political space in Pakistan and try to maintain a relatively liberal, progressive and "nationalist" provincial government ..one that stresses Pakhtun identity and maintains links with like-minded Pakhtoons across the border but functions within the framework of Pakistan. By now, the Pakistani Pakhtoons are relatively integrated in Pakistan and are hopelessly outgunned by Islamists as well as the army. I dont think there is any chance of turning on some kind of serious insurgency by just flipping a switch somewhere.
One can imagine a scenario where the US leaves in disarray and the Taliban take over and the Taliban turn around and become "pakhtun nationalist" if the Pakistani army has not itself become openly Talibanish at that stage....GHQ could then become the next infidel enemy and the Taliban may eye expansion into Pakistan rather than the other way round.
If the US (which may be exerting some effort to protect the ANP government in Pakhtunkhwah right now) were to leave in disarray and GHQ were to opt for a full-frontal jihadi-taliban option (not necessarily the case, but could happen) then the Taliban would be more integrated into the resulting Jihadi superstate, so there would be no pressure to split anything apart (I am not saying this is a likely scenario, unlike Carl, I dont think the US can leave in disarray even if it wants to, not soon anyway). Of course, such a Pakistan would rapidly become an international pariah and may then self-destruct as Jihadi spirit runs into economic and social reality and civil war in Afghanistan drags on forever. Pakhtun nationalists of the ANP would probably have to run for their lives in the first flush of Jihadi fervour in such a scenario, but once the place crashes and burns, they may find themselves inheriting an actual Pakhtunistan (this scenario building can branch endlessly once you get far enough in the future ).
THe point is, the Pakhtun nationalists (generally somewhat educated and liberal in that part of the world) are totally outgunned. Far from launching an Indian sponsored insurgency, they would be lucky to escape alive if both GHQ and Taliban turn on them.
But all this is third hand. I will try to get some Pakhtun friends to comment..

[omarali50]

Carl, I saw your second comment after I posted my reply. I was obviously thinking of secular Pakhtoon nationalists.
The Taliban are Pakhtoon nationalists, but if Pakistan itself is talibanized then why would they cooperate with India? But as I said, if Pakistan, having used the taliban to push the US out, then decides it doesnt want to completely talibanize, then there will be trouble and some of it will acquire a pakhtoon natioanalist flavor. But in that situation, I think you may see GHQ asking India for help, and if India can overcome suspicions, they may even help...the taliban are not the party they would want to defeat GHQ...out of the frying pan into the fire for India in such a scenario...though some Indians may do what some in GHQ are probably doing: support the taliban not because they want them to really totally win, but to keep a civil war going. (of course I mean that in one case the aim is to keep the war going in order make money and stay relevant or whatever, in the other it would be mostly to keep bleeding the Pakistani army).
Actually, when you think about it the bottom line is that GHQ's strategy (if one exists) is incomprehensible in rational terms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdNsltQXTVU
I know, its a confusing paragraph. I will try to inject more clarity next time..

[carl]

Omar:

I wasn't thinking along the lines of liberal and educated Pakhtuns doing much. I was thinking of something more along this line.

One can imagine a scenario where the US leaves in disarray and the Taliban take over and the Taliban turn around and become "pakhtun nationalist" if the Pakistani army has not itself become openly Talibanish at that stage....GHQ could then become the next infidel enemy and the Taliban may eye expansion into Pakistan rather than the other way round.

We will bug out. The place will be a country wide massacre waiting to happen but we will proclaim that it ain't so with a whispered sub-tone to the effect that those damn Afghans deserve what they are going to get at the hands of the pure patriots in the Taliban. You already see that on SWJ and numerous other places.

So I figure India and maybe Iran too are going to do something or other and that something might be to try and turn the monster back upon its' creator.

Now if this were to happen.

...GHQ were to opt for a full-frontal jihadi-taliban option (not necessarily the case, but could happen) then the Taliban would be more integrated into the resulting Jihadi superstate, so there would be no pressure to split anything apart...

Would ideology trump national identity? I don't know. And even if it didn't, there would inevitably be splits. Ideological splits in that part of the world can get bloody. I am not so sure Taliban & Co would agree to stay under the authority of the Pak Army/ISI. They have to now because they can't succeed without Pak Army/ISI help. But once we bug out, they won't need them so much anymore.