South Asia double down

I've been slow to write about the events in India for a variety of reasons, but now that (some of) the dust has settled, it seems appropriate to offer a few thoughts. India (especially Mumbai) is a country I love and have spent a lot of time in and I am loathe to think that the US is dragging its feet in response. 

In the midst of condemnations and travel plans, people seem to be forgetting that these are two nuclear powers in a strategically critical part of the world. What the US does is vital to the future security and stability of South Asia. Though their methods may not have been perfect, our present administration has done a wonderful job of simultaneously maintaining good (well, decent) relations with Pakistan and India.  India is, and should be, one of our strongest allies, even if we have to offer some concessions (non-prolifi what?) and Pakistan continues to be vital to our efforts in Afghanistan. The danger of wrong, or even worse - no, action in this scenario may hasten the loss of two of our most important allies.

The US needs to stamp out any speculation that the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence agency) was involved: even if they were, the notion will simply weaken Pakistan's young, struggling civilian government. The simple truth is that we can't afford to lose support from either of these countries and that will require the type of diplomatic nuance the Bush administration widely lacks. Secretary Rice must send a strong message that any military movement or action will be closely watched, roundly condemned, and will result in lost concessions, whether in trade, arms, or technology. Cooperative investigation is the best, and hardest, path to restoring some semblance of normality.

Take notice W: we can't wait until January 20th for any type of resolution. US memory is short and a deft handling of this situation may alleviate much of the disdain the foreign policy community holds for you.

(Photo: EC)

Pakistan's rudderless course

Anonymous sources within the Indian government have finally come out and said what everyone in the international community is thinking: it is "negotiating with an elected Pakistani government that has little influence over the country’s more powerful army and spy agency."

It is true and it is scary. Much the same way generals will control Zimbabwe regardless of the political agreement there, the democratically elected government of Pakistan lacks the strength to control the country.

Even scarier than the thought of Pakistani hardliners destablizing the entire region (while in control of a nuclear bomb, no less) is that the government's actions suggest they do not care that they are not really in control. They are more than happy to build political capital and rake in the benefits.

Instead of tackling rampant inflation, securing their border, or quelling Kashmiri dissent, Yousaf Raza Gilani (with many others) has worked for the impeachment of Musharraf. Given the historical tension between the two parties in control, it is really no surprise that this is all they can agree on. But given the leadership void and seemingly "rudderless" path Pakistan is following, it would be nice to see the government take needed action. I just hope it does not come to the other choice.

Musharraf's last stand

I've talked about the importance of Pakistan a few times, especially concerning South Asian regional stability. The latest development there revolves around President Musharraf who is refusing to resign, despite impending impeachment charges.

The charges stem for a number of "offenses", varying in their legal strength. Despite his economic mismanagement and authoritarian streak, the only charge with merit concerns his dismissal of a number of judges, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The next week will prove vital for Pakistan's democratic development and US strategic interests. Pakistan has had trouble embracing the democratic process and its history is littered with coups, some successful, others not. You can be sure that a lot of licit and illicit diplomatic maneuvering is occurring right now and will continue throughout the hearings. Pakistan is too strategically important to allow for any period of serious instability or confusion.

What the international community is hoping for, and should be working toward, is one of two things. Either a swift conviction of Musharraf, followed by his exile and the decoupling of the military from government hands to independent military men, preferably sympathetic to US training and presence OR Musharraf's acquittal where after he becomes a shadow controller of his loyalist party. I may be vilified for saying this but it is the most attractive option if the first does not happen, which, Pakistan being Pakistan, it will not.

While Musharraf was a "dictator" he kept Pakistan free of the extremism that has spread since he lost central power. While he certainly overstepped his bounds by attempting to strong arm the judiciary, if he worked behind the scenes and effectively kept Pakistan on the path to liberalization this would be vastly preferable to a democratically elected (but still corrupt) government lacking the strength and control to stabilize Pakistan.

Foreign policy is often about picking the best of the worst. And right now, unless Pakistan's government steps up, that pick will be Musharraf.

Pakistani doubletalk

I've discussed the importance and role of Pakistan in South Asia before. Now CIA officials are taking a hard line with the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence agency) regarding their involvement with militant groups. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has denied the supposed links.

The ISI ran arms to the Mujaheddin and other Afghans fighting against the Soviets. Back then it was with CIA backing, but Pakistan retains a vested interest in being seen as an ally of whatever group grabs power in Afghanistan. The new coalition government wants to see democracy thrive in Afghanistan. It would promote peace and stability within Pakistan and increase their international standing. But their porous border in the FATA region prevents any such events. The ISI could certainly, with CIA help, close this border, or at least tighten it. But there are factions of the ISI that are more than happy to assist the Taliban in their various nefarious activities, and take a nice cut off the top. In addition to this, the military men running the ISI are hedging their bets by supporting both sides of the power struggle in Afghanistan. They are stuck in an outdated mindset and hoping for an Afghan ally, regardless of who is in power, to counter the perceived threat from India.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The stability of Afghanistan and the entire region is hinged on a working relationship between Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan. The US is right to force the ISI's hand and demand a legitimate and appropriate response. But military and intelligence aspects must be tempered by transparent, civil structures. We should be encouraging, and diplomatically maneuvering for, civilian control of the ISI. Counter-terrorism requires a civilian, not military, response. We should help Pakistan in developing just that.

Loose nukes

In a time when every politician seems to be calling for a nuclear renaissance to solve climate change and the danger of "baby nukes", shouldn't non-proliferation be of the utmost concern to the US government? The recent disparities between various foreign negotiations certainly don't suggest the uniform strong policy that an issue of such concern would require. 

Iran announced today it will not scale back its nuclear activities to the ire of the West. I'm certainly not a proponent of any type of Iranian nuclear capability but I think we should enforce our stipulations evenly. We certainly haven't. In fact we've gone out our way to ensure India can continue to advance its nuclear capabilities by supporting a government that wants to be excused from the non-proliferation treaty. It makes more sense for India to be allowed nuclear weapons rather than North Korea or Iran. And to pretend India should not exercise its nuclear capabilities while hostile neighbor Pakistan does so would threaten the little remaining stability of the region.

There's no simple answer to a multi-faceted problem such as this and no such thing as a unilateral, one size fits all nuclear containment policy for the world. No matter the complexity of the situation, nuclear allowances cannot be dangled for economic gain and political promises. Nuclear proliferation has far too many implications to be bait in strategic US negotiations; it has worldwide effects and requires international cooperation and a singular compromised voice as such.

Talibanistan?

Pakistan is quickly becoming home to more foreign terrorists than ever before. This is not helped by the truce being cut between the government and tribal groups from the northwestern FATA region. Baitullah Mehsud, a warlord widely suspected of plotting Benazir Bhutto's assassination, is leading the charge. The deal comes fresh on the heels of a suicide bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed 41 civilians and injured 139.

While the US demurly denies any direct link between Pakistan and the bombing, the Afghan government has been more than forthright sharing its belief that Pakistan, specifically their ISI intelligence arm, was behind the attack. The rumor mill is awash with tales of varying veracity but one thing is certain. The possibility of success in Afghanistan is directly hinged on a working relationship between its two tenuous neighbors: India and Pakistan.

The lack of news from Afghanistan - a $4 billion G8 pledge for Afghani security and development was pushed to the back page this week - reflects a worrying sense of idleness and complacency. The situation in Afghanistan is growing worse by the day and requires delicate maneuvering by its neighbors to prevent any further decline.

The relationship between India and Pakistan is shaky at best. Foreign pressure and nuclear co-habitation are the two main reasons they still talk and flare-ups, such as the recent protests in Kashmir, are still common, though violence is at an all-time low. But if there is to be success in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India must restrain their public voices and defuse the situation using diplomatic back channels. Their relationship is too perilous to permit unfounded nationalist rhetoric.

Regional stability is at risk but Afghanistan also needs all the help it can get - especially from two such powerful players. The country's development and freedom requires the military cooperation of Pakistan and the economic support and guidance of India. Without these two pillars, peace may never take hold. The bombing represents many things but not a personal attack on India; the Taliban agents carrying out such work are not Pakistani but Chechnians, Uzbeks, and Arabs. Their fight is a global one. India must realize this and work with Pakistan to stamp out such extremism in Afghanistan. The US must help.

It is unwise and unfair for the US to openly criticize the tribal negotiations. Though more jihadis are now in the FATA, this reflects a perceived chance of success in Afghanistan and one of defeat in Iraq. In this case, correlation is not causation. The negotiations may not be to the US' liking but after supporting an autocratic ruler like Musharraf for so long we must be willing to back a democratically elected government, regardless of whether we like their actions. If Karzai can maintain his grasp on Afghanistan and Pakistan can bring quiet to the FATA, even through devolution of power, then the billions of development dollars pouring into both countries may be put to some use. Without security, and at least the semblance of due political process, extremists will continue to prevent any advancement or peace. NATO forces are already planning their withdrawal: shouldn't they at least leave the Afghans a chance of success?