What's new

Def.pk op-ed: Mutual Blackmail, ETO for Afg, Pak and Ind

VCheng

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
48,460
Reaction score
57
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
from: Mutual Blackmail: Economic Treaty Organization Between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India | Pakistan Defence


Mutual Blackmail: Economic Treaty Organization Between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India
By VCheng

Sir Winston Churchill once said “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities”.

Judging by recent developments in Afghanistan, that quote is likely still true. The American are likely to stumble to the right thing to do, which, is this case would be to create and fund an Economic Treaty Organization between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India that will create all the elements of mutual blackmail by tying together long term economic interests of all the parties involved, thus in time elevating it to the higher level of friendship.

After a long and expensive war with many options being tried out along the way, three choices that were reportedly offered to Gen Kayani by the White House were A) kill the Haqqani leadership, or B) help us kill them, or C) persuade them to join a peaceful, democratic Afghan government.

On initial glance, it does seem more flexible than the stark “Either you are with us or against us” non-choice choice offered to Gen Musharraf by President Bush, but it is not most assuredly. Considering that A and B are really the same, no matter who does the killing, the choice is really between being destroyed or playing ball, i.e. “Either you are dead, or you participate in the process”, and implicit in both choices is the message to give up on terrorism as a policy from the US point of view.

After making the US realize that that Pakistan was not likely carry out any military operation against the Haqqani group nor could U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan succeed without the Haqqani group being neutralized, much to its credit, Pakistan was successful in bringing the Haqqanis to the negotiating table, with Sirajuddin Haqqani acknowledging the US offer to participate in the Afghan government, perhaps even with his father Jalaludin Haqqani as the prime minister. The problems with this setup can be gauged from the words attributed to the senior Haqqani: “After so much killing of Afghans through Daisy Cutter bombs and like, shall I sit in the government under U.S. command?”, given that he is a patriarchal figure in an staunchly tribal society where the concept of reconciliation is as alien as the concept of revenge across generations is ancient.

These recent developments represent an important success for Pakistani policy to date. However, it is a limited success only in that it has the potential of creating an acceptable way forward for all parties, and is most definitely not a victory in the traditional sense of the word. It also represents a new round in a geopolitical process where the risks for Pakistan are increasing as well, and thus future Pakistani actions need, now more than ever, to be cognizant of ground realities and the longer term picture.

The reality is that Al-Qaida has been effectively demolished by the US attacks, and that was the prime goal that has been achieved. US policy will be now geared towards ensuring that it is denied the opportunity to regrow by preventing the return of the previous chaos of Taliban rule. This runs counter to the Pakistani hopes to retain their strategic depth concept by ensuring a pro-Pakistan Afghan setup post US departure, i.e. having the “good” Taliban back in power, and is further complicated by the fact that India clearly realizes this as a golden opportunity to create the foundations of pinching Pakistan from two sides should the opportunity to do so present itself, or indeed is created.

So what to do next? Much has already been said about the Indo-Pak rivalry and history, and how it affects the present conflict as well, but it is high time for a bold idea that takes it into account, and lays the basis for achieving US goals as well, based on the idea that “friendship is merely mutual blackmail elevated to a higher level”. The US should create and fund an Economic Treaty Organization between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India that will create all the elements of mutual blackmail by tying together long term economic interests of all the parties involved, thus in time elevating it to the higher level of friendship, as already stated above. The return on investment of such a plan is going to be far higher than cleaning up the mess afterwards, and anything less would fail to the detriment of all. After having exhausted all other possibilities, it is high time the Americans did the right thing. Countless millions are counting on it.




=====================================

Let the discussion begin (on topic, and politely please)! :D
 
I like what is said. But I think China's interests also needs to be addressed
 
I like what is said. But I think China's interests also needs to be addressed

So what do you think those Chinese interests are, and how would they be affected by the ECO proposed above, if at all?
 
First, let's clear some misconceptions.

The initial US goal in Afghanistan -- to defeat AQ -- was gradually overshadowed by the more ambitious goal of shaping regional geopolitics, i.e. installing India as a regional power to contain China and Pakistan. This befuddled goal setting, incidentally, is why the US estranged Pakistan and the reason why it is now seeking a face-saving exit from a failed mission.

Since the US has acknowledged that the regional goal cannot be achieved militarily, the new track is to pry Pakistan away from the Chinese camp and into the Indo-US camp. The proposed "Economic Treaty Organization" would play into that strategy and Pakistan should not fall for it.
 
Sounds good in principal but putting it into action is another thing altogether
 
First, let's clear some misconceptions.

The initial US goal in Afghanistan -- to defeat AQ -- was gradually overshadowed by the more ambitious goal of shaping regional geopolitics, i.e. installing India as a regional power to contain China and Pakistan. This befuddled goal setting, incidentally, is why the US estranged Pakistan and the reason why it is now seeking a face-saving exit from a failed mission.

Since the US has acknowledged that the regional goal cannot be achieved militarily, the new track is to pry Pakistan away from the Chinese camp and into the Indo-US camp. The proposed "Economic Treaty Organization" would play into that strategy and
Pakistan should not fall for it.



i.e. installing India as a regional power to contain China and Pakistan.



This theory of yours is not correct. The aim after 9/11 was like Bush declared a 'war on terror' but now Pakistan is seen as a bigger terror threat compared to Afghanistan by many so the game has changed.
 
...............The new track is to pry Pakistan away from the Chinese camp and into the Indo-US camp. The proposed "Economic Treaty Organization" would play into that strategy and Pakistan should not fall for it.

Please consider two things:

One, China will watch out for its national interests only, and this fact should never be forgotten. If china is offered another geopolitical tradeoff to its advantage in exchange for Pakistan, it will likely take it.

Two, Pakistan has much to gain from a new ECO as well. The advantages need to be considered as well in order to formulate a better policy that meets its national interest better.

Sounds good in principal but putting it into action is another thing altogether

Economic incentives often have a large clout, specially in a worsening climate generally.
 
India has no role to play in it, we can discuss Pakistan and Afghanistan to have a mutually beneficial economic pact - why call it blackmail and get it squashed from the word go.

By dragging India in, we are killing it. The thing can go on without India, but not without Pakistan. You see by putting Pakistan and India both in one of us would always keep trying to wriggle our way out and then screw the other one over.

We have bilateral issues. Our issue with Afghanistan is giving military support to Indian assets in Afghanistan against us. Afghanistan's issue is us supporting their militants. Bilateral issue why do we need India to resolve this?
 
Economic Treaty Organization will not solve the issue of regional security. Groups like LET, JEM etc still pose a direct threat to India as witnessed on 26/11 and the more recent delhi HC blast. So how can USA safeguard India from such terror groups?
 
i.e. installing India as a regional power to contain China and Pakistan.



This theory of yours is not correct. The aim after 9/11 was like Bush declared a 'war on terror' but now Pakistan is seen as a bigger terror threat compared to Afghanistan by many so the game has changed.

Personally, I believe that the anti-China/Pak geopolitical goal was there from the beginning, albeit as a secondary, nice-to-have. However, I am going by the stated reason of defeating AQ, which was the primary goal at first, but became subservient to the geopolitical goal over time.

Please consider two things:

One, China will watch out for its national interests only, and this fact should never be forgotten. If china is offered another geopolitical tradeoff to its advantage in exchange for Pakistan, it will likely take it.

Two, Pakistan has much to gain from a new ECO as well. The advantages need to be considered as well in order to formulate a better policy that meets its national interest better.

Sure, each country will look out for its own interests.

Will China dump Pakistan? It's possible.
Will the US or India stab Pakistan in the back? It's more likely, given past history.

As I wrote elsewhere, India sees subjugation of Pakistan as a necessary milestone in its rise to power. No (South Asian) country will take it seriously as a power until it "deals" with Pakistan. As for Pakistan, we need to decide if Kashmir is important or expendable? There can be no genuine peace with India as long as Kashmir is unresolved.
 
1. India has no role to play in it, we can discuss Pakistan and Afghanistan to have a mutually beneficial economic pact - 2. why call it blackmail and get it squashed from the word go.

By dragging India in, we are killing it. The thing can go on without India, but not without Pakistan. You see by putting Pakistan and India both in one of us would always keep trying to wriggle our way out and then screw the other one over.

We have bilateral issues. Our issue with Afghanistan is giving military support to 3. Indian assets in Afghanistan against us. Afghanistan's issue is us supporting their militants. Bilateral issue why do we need India to resolve this?

For the bolded parts above:

1. Pakistan may think that, but the reality is that India has a role to play in the region, like it or not.

2. The word blackmail was used in reference to the saying that "friendship is mutual blackmail raised to a higher level", which holds quite true in international geopolitics.

3. I guess that means India already has a role in Afghanistan. How can Pakistan best deal with it? Crying "foul!" will not change the reality of India's involvement.
 
@Developereo : But before 9/11 happened India & Pakistan were under US sanctions, we did not figure as a priority on their strategic agenda it was only after that the US made Pakistan a major non-nato ally and the 'war on terror' started.
 
For the bolded parts above:

1. Pakistan may think that, but the reality is that India has a role to play in the region, like it or not.

2. The word blackmail was used in reference to the saying that "friendship is mutual blackmail raised to a higher level", which holds quite true in international geopolitics.

3. I guess that means India already has a role in Afghanistan. How can Pakistan best deal with it? Crying "foul!" will not change the reality of India's involvement.

Pakistan can always not accept. What can we blackmail India with anyway?
 
Back
Top Bottom