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

[VCheng]

Might be so but does India wield any significant leverage on either Afghanistan or the United States? It's doubtful to state the least.Unless the United States puts it's considerable weight exclusively behind India and Pakistan for tieups,it's a hairy situation for each party concerned.

Pakistan already has a way out of it,It can offer to exclusively protect Chinese interests in Afghanistan which is not going to go down well with the Americans.Hence,the most likely outcome is a stalemate amongst all.

Exactly the point I made in the article.

 

[lem34]

China is with Pakistan as long as its national interest mandate it to be so. Pakistan should be ready for that mandate to be compromised in due course.



I wish to see Pakistan not be subjugated at all, no matter which country is doing the subjugating.

all relationships could be said to be unequal. Except I love mrs B as much as she loves me lol

 

[cyphercide]

Exactly the point I made in the article.

And a well thought out article it is,Just that the United States isn't going to be a beneficiary in such a development and considering they still call the shots in Afghanistan,I suppose they have a few tricks up their sleeves to recoup some profits out of Afghanistan.

You guys haven't exhausted your strategy of "trying everything else" just yet,ergo only time will tell which way the wind blows and which direction and on whom sh*t falls on !!!

 

[muse]

Excellent thread - kudos to VC

However, before we get into the interests of regional players, perhaps we can get a handle on what the US is doing in this equation - do you agree that we begin with the beginning? If yes, then lets try and get to some understanding as to why the US is there, and exactly - that is, EXACTLY, what constitutes mission accomplished for the US - because as long as the US has a military footprint in Afghanistan, well, you realize that all discussion of bow the region may come together over economics will be just so much "khiali palau" - So, why was and is the US in Afghanistan? The US said it was to get AL-Qaida - SO, exactly when will this be mission accomplished?? What will constitute "mission accomplished" in this case?? Till the last AQ is dead? and how will we know this?

Then of course the US policy makers have also changed the goal posts so to speak - Now it's get the Talib -- and what is "mission accomplished" with regard to that goal?

Then of course there is the question of US bases in Afghanistan - do any of us really see an end of hostilities with US bases present and active in Afghanistan? Honestly, is there anyone here who thinks that peaceful, normal trade relatiions can even develop with US forces present in permanent bases in Afghanistan??

To burden all of this further, is the continuous struggle between the DoD and State and indeed through out the US government structures to define what is the US - Republic or Empire - While in earlier times US policy could be termed "imperialist" and not be far from the mark, today the word "neo-colonial" has come to increasingly characterize US policy. In the last 10 years, US power has risen astronomically, with bases in more than 100 countries, with unrivaled power, with torture, with an ease of thinking about outcomes through neo-colonial lens - it's all unsustainable, the present contraction in Western and particularly Us economy is just the tip of the iceberg - the more fragile the US economy turns, the more violent and reckless it's foreign policy maneuvers - Can the region afford this? indeed, can growth in economies that have now been growing at an average of 9 percent be put at risk for US neo-colonial ambitions, and indeed can such economies hope to recover after being identifie as creations of this neo-colonial ambition??

Before we get to the discussion of binding Pakistan India and Afghanistan, we must recognize that this idea needs refinement - this idea is flawed because it does not include Iran - for those who are familiar with Afghanistan, the idea that Iran can be excluded is a non-starter - the other flaw in this idea is to imagine that all countries are seeing each other in the same light, for instance, Afghanistan is more of a place through which other countries want their goods and services to pass through, it is not the final destination of these goods and services - and it has to be recognized that Iran, Pakistan and India are offering goods and services pretty much in the same range and therefore are competing for market shares, whereas Afghanistan's competitive edge is the transit facility it offers and not the pie in the sky "minerals" which will only materialize when there is internal agreement between the Afghans as to the efficacy of mutual benefit.

So, lets get some answers to these items first:

What is mission accomplished to the US - and is that acceptable in the region? When will US forces depart? Will there be permanent US bases in Afghanistan and if yes, why are we even bothering with developing economic frameworks to bind each other through

What will it take to bind Iran, Pakistan, India, China and Russia with Afghanistan?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Trade and market access to invite 'interdependence'?

What has stopped the US from offering this to Pakistan then, and both 'winning hearts and minds' more appreciably than its dole-outs to perceived corrupt rulers, and enhancing influence in Pakistan, through both Pakistani government and Pakistani industry, who would both have some very large stakes in continued favorable relations with the US.

 

[VCheng]

Trade and market access to invite 'interdependence'?

What has stopped the US from offering this to Pakistan then, and both 'winning hearts and minds' more appreciably than its dole-outs to perceived corrupt rulers, and enhancing influence in Pakistan, through both Pakistani government and Pakistani industry, who would both have some very large stakes in continued favorable relations with the US.

The interdependence that needs to be created is regional between Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, that is why. USA and Pakistan already have enough leverage with each other.

 

[Avatar]

I dont think the US will accept anything other than a pro US leader in Afghanistan after all the dollars they have spent. There is a huge trust deficit between the American and Pakistani leadership/intelligence. The US will feel too insecure if it exits Afghanistan without civilizing it, and by civilizing I mean a stable Government that values human life & human values.

 

[Developereo]

ONGC videsh has been involved in Vietnam for over a decade now.

AFAIK, none of these ventures are in disputed areas with China. The latest Indian venture is specifically designed to be in China's face.

The US will feel too insecure if it exits Afghanistan without civilizing it, and by civilizing I mean a stable Government that values human life & human values.

Mate, if you think the US gives two figs about human rights in Afghanistan, you have been watching too much Hollywood.

Then of course there is the question of US bases in Afghanistan - do any of us really see an end of hostilities with US bases present and active in Afghanistan? Honestly, is there anyone here who thinks that peaceful, normal trade relatiions can even develop with US forces present in permanent bases in Afghanistan??

The US realizes that actual American bases in Afghanistan would be too provocative to China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. However, they are convinced that India can be trusted to be a suitable lieutenant, not because India loves America, but because their interests coincide perfectly vis-a-vis Pakistan and China.

As far as Iran is concerned, the US has plenty of firepower in the Arab states and the Indian ocean. Unlike the Arabs, who sought to encircle Iran via the Taliban, the US has the capability to do the needful without having to be in Afghanistan.

 

[Developereo]

China is with Pakistan as long as its national interest mandate it to be so. Pakistan should be ready for that mandate to be compromised in due course.

You are absolutely right. So far, China has decided that its national interests are best served with Pakistan. That calculation can change and India will make the case that Pakistan is a liability hampering Indo-China normalization.

Our focus should be on attaining self-sufficiency so that Pakistan brings more than just its geographical location to China's table. In terms of improving our situation, I would put the focus on strengething ties with Iran rather than India. It's not that I have anything against India but, as long as Kashmir remains unresolved, we are just fooling ourselves that relations can be normalized.

An Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan nexus would yield far better results, both economically and security-wise. It will also put the definitive nail on the coffin as far as Indian involvement in Afghanistan is concerned.

 

[Roybot]

AFAIK, none of these ventures are in disputed areas with China. The latest Indian venture is specifically designed to be in China's face.

Block 127 and 128(the recent ones) are not in the disputed areas, and well within Vietnam's 200 nm EEZ.

 

[Developereo]

Block 127 and 128(the recent ones) are not in the disputed areas, and well within Vietnam's 200 nm EEZ.

That's hardly the point. The important thing is that China views some of the activities as infringing upon its territory.

China paper condemns Vietnam-India energy cooperation | Agricultural Commodities | Reuters

A joint energy project between India and Vietnam in the South China Sea infringes on China's territorial sovereignty, an official Chinese newspaper said on Thursday in the first reaction to the operation by China's state media.

 

[Roybot]

That's hardly the point. The important thing is that China views some of the activities as infringing upon its territory.

China paper condemns Vietnam-India energy cooperation | Agricultural Commodities | Reuters

A joint energy project between India and Vietnam in the South China Sea infringes on China's territorial sovereignty, an official Chinese newspaper said on Thursday in the first reaction to the operation by China's state media.

My point is that India getting involved in the South China Sea hasn't got much to do with America asking India to so. Its more to do with China meddling in the Indian Ocean and close to Indian region.

 

[Developereo]

My point is that India getting involved in the South China Sea hasn't got much to do with America asking India to so. Its more to do with China meddling in the Indian Ocean and close to Indian region.

South China Sea is hardly "Indian region". The important thing is that, in a dispute between two East Asian countries, India decided to play deputy Sherriff and thrust itself in the middle precisely to stick it to China. It is India's way of saying it has arrived on the larger stage as a counterweight to China.

The US is merely prodding it along, banking on India's need for validation. This is the whole Western strategy behind propping up India. They are confident that India's ego will get the better of its pragmatism and embroil Asia in a cold war.

 

[Roybot]

South China Sea is hardly "Indian region". The important thing is that, in a dispute between two East Asian countries, India decided to play deputy Sherriff and thrust itself in the middle precisely to stick it to China. It is India's way of saying it has arrived on the larger stage as a counterweight to China.

The US is merely prodding it along, banking on India's need for validation. This is the whole Western strategy behind propping up India. They are confident that India's ego will get the better of its pragmatism and embroil Asia in a cold war.

Sorry I didn't mean that.

India's action in the South China Sea, is in retaliation to Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean region. India isn't go to sit around and let China creep into its backyard, irrespective of that American propping you talk about.

America can't force India to do something which is not in India's interest. You are underestimating India a bit too much maybe.

 

[VCheng]

You are absolutely right. So far, China has decided that its national interests are best served with Pakistan. That calculation can change and India will make the case that Pakistan is a liability hampering Indo-China normalization.

Our focus should be on attaining self-sufficiency so that Pakistan brings more than just its geographical location to China's table. In terms of improving our situation, I would put the focus on strengething ties with Iran rather than India. It's not that I have anything against India but, as long as Kashmir remains unresolved, we are just fooling ourselves that relations can be normalized.

An Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan nexus would yield far better results, both economically and security-wise. It will also put the definitive nail on the coffin as far as Indian involvement in Afghanistan is concerned.

China is already India's largest trade partner, and the growth in this trade is only up for the foreseeable future.

As long as USA has influence over Pakistan to the extent that it does, improving relations with Iran is going to be quite problematic.