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

[Tshering22]

America imposing an ETO and installing us as a counter? They're confusing us with the ragtag countries they attack. US can want whatever it desires but we do what is important for us and don't need anyone's consent. Thanks for the offer.

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.

Uncle Sam, first save your own America from being occupied by your own people and then come and talk to us. First save your own house from fire and then talk about burning others up. Obambam and Brezensky have really last their minds. Create and fund.. as if there are any funds left. Save the funds for the soldiers dying in Afghanistan rather than funding a mutual blackmail.

They couldn't fund a mutual blackmail from 70s to 90s in our weakest times, and now are talking about it when this weakling government itself will be bunted out by us Indians. Nice dream.

 

[SQ8]

I think the time has come to talk to India directly..if the recent incidents of goodwill are an indicator of changing perspectives.
Its time to get the two armies to talk.Perhaps they can find the groundwork for an amicable solution, although all this depends on there being a strong civilian GoP. Wishful thinking perhaps, but the coming elections may provide some hope.
Maybe a self grown ECO and not one led by the US(although with US involvement) can provide both an accelerated exit strategy for the US from Afg and settle a future for Afghanistan.
I am more and more convinced that it is time for the east to start building up its own policies independent of the west, there is a far greater chance of people to people understanding between the Chinese and the Indian or Pakistani rather than the west.
I do not propose something the likes of an alliance, rather a mutual understanding that when it comes to the privilege of being able to make independent decisions these nations will support each other.

 

[VCheng]

I think the time has come to talk to India directly..if the recent incidents of goodwill are an indicator of changing perspectives.
Its time to get the two armies to talk.Perhaps they can find the groundwork for an amicable solution, although all this depends on there being a strong civilian GoP. Wishful thinking perhaps, but the coming elections may provide some hope.
Maybe a self grown ECO and not one led by the US(although with US involvement) can provide both an accelerated exit strategy for the US from Afg and settle a future for Afghanistan.
I am more and more convinced that it is time for the east to start building up its own policies independent of the west, there is a far greater chance of people to people understanding between the Chinese and the Indian or Pakistani rather than the west.
I do not propose something the likes of an alliance, rather a mutual understanding that when it comes to the privilege of being able to make independent decisions these nations will support each other.

Good points, but given that India feels it has an long term advantageous position, it may not feel inclined to accept Pakistani overtures for better relations. An ECO underwritten by USA would go a long way in ensuring that both India and Pakistan can rely on a powerful intermediary to sort out teething issues. Once the process starts, it can proceed independently of the US over time.

 

[SQ8]

Good points, but given that India feels it has an long term advantageous position, it may not feel inclined to accept Pakistani overtures for better relations. An ECO underwritten by USA would go a long way in ensuring that both India and Pakistan can rely on a powerful intermediary to sort out teething issues. Once the process starts, it can proceed independently of the US over time.

I see a catch with that.
An ECO by the US gives the impression that it was the US that wanted Pakistan to be part of the ECO and not by its own choice. India is in an advantageous position, anybody who doubts that is a fool. However, has it gained so much of an advantage that now it would treat Pakistan from a condescending position? If the GoI thinks so, then they are the fools.
Pakistan cannot consider itself to be treated with the same economic ,strategic and military respect as India.. that is a paper dream. However, Pakistan does not need to do that at all in the first place.. Pakistan and India are today an analogy to apples and oranges. Each has its own position with respect to strategic and economic cards and must be compartmentalized separately.
If the leaders of the two nations can recognize that, not only will they reach an agreement on Afghanistan. They will reach an agreement on most disputes between them.

 

[VCheng]

I see a catch with that.
An ECO by the US gives the impression that it was the US that wanted Pakistan to be part of the ECO and not by its own choice. India is in an advantageous position, anybody who doubts that is a fool. However, has it gained so much of an advantage that now it would treat Pakistan from a condescending position? If the GoI thinks so, then they are the fools.
Pakistan cannot consider itself to be treated with the same economic ,strategic and military respect as India.. that is a paper dream. However, Pakistan does not need to do that at all in the first place.. Pakistan and India are today an analogy to apples and oranges. Each has its own position with respect to strategic and economic cards and must be compartmentalized separately.
If the leaders of the two nations can recognize that, not only will they reach an agreement on Afghanistan. They will reach an agreement on most disputes between them.

Very good points that need to be considered by the power elite in Pakistan and India.

I still see the US as an important initiator of the process you have outlined.

 

[OrionHunter]

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.

Firstly, yesterday he said in an interview that there can be no compromise or talks without bringing the Taliban's Mullah Omar, into the loop. And Mullah Omar avoids any interaction with the US like the plague. So this talk of bringing the Haqqani's to the negotiating table for a solution is a non starter without Omar's participation.

Secondly, as you mentioned, Pakistan's game plan is 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. This flies in the face of establishing a ETO.

Thirdly, the only way an ETO can be established is for both Pakistan and India to lay off and let the Afghans decide their future. But that is easier said than done as the stakes in Afghanistan for both countries are pretty high.

So is it back to square one?

VCheng, well written article!

 

[Vinod2070]

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.

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.

How does this tie in with your claims that 9/11 was an inside operation?

In that case, AQ was never the initial goal. It was always the latter.

But funny that India (despite being the only beneficiary) didn't seem to bite into it. No military presence in Afghanistan after a decade. Not even a talk of it.

Still funnier, China has benefited from the WOT. Both in using it to crush the Uighurs (by painting them as Islamic radicals allied to AQ) and by getting deals in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whoever planned this has not run it very well.

Very unlike the sole superpower.

Or there always remains the other possibility.

 

[President Camacho]

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

Perhaps that is the example of "mutual blackmail", or in other terms - sustained dependency, that you proffered in your passage.

Here's my understanding of it:

The two nations (China and India) competing against each other, and having fought a war already, are not friendly to each other on any scale, yet the massive bilateral trade has forced both of them to keep bitter situations, such as stapled visas, territorial disputes, and South China Sea conflict, from turning into a full-fledged war.

What has happened in South China Sea, is very similar to what is happening in Afghanistan. India wants to explore its prospects in that region, which though near to Pakistan, is not exactly in Pakistan - Just as the oil exploration in South China Sea.

While South China Sea problem got quiet in a matter of days, owing to that "dependency" on their respective markets, the problem in Afghanistan appears insolvable simply because none of the involved countries have any sort of sustained trade of that magnitude going on between them.

---------------
If this comprehension of mine is correct, VCheng, then I would like to dig a little deeper into the complexities and get to the specifics, and ask you:

What sort of trade, or "mutual dependency/blackmail" would be such that it will not only be equally beneficial to all the three countries (Excluding the US, since none of us have much to offer, and that country does not need anything more than an excuse to force itself as a mediator in these problems), but also be of such importance/magnitude to the respective parties that they will be forced to keep hostilities aside for the sake of it?

India is still a developing country, but industries are powerful, and sorry to say - they are also highly monopolistic. It just might turn into a war on economies, with India enjoying an already strong base.

However, the only part that Pakistan can offer to India, where India will not only greatly benefit, but will also be completely dependent on Pakistan, would be a transition route through Pakistan, to Afghanistan, to Central Asia. But if such a scenario were really feasible, and we include the US as a party too, then the IPI pipeline would have already materialized, don't you think?

After all, Afghanistan has to go a long way into becoming a major market, and at this point of time, it cannot serve as more than a transit route to... Central Asia, and Iran? And if that ever happens, Iran will be pi$$ed off beyond measures because the US will have gotten what it seems to have always wanted - A transit route from Caspian to Karachi. Iran's oil will rot for decades.

And when you say that Iran too shall be taken on board (and I too think it has the legitimate right), then to me it appears it will turn into a deadlock, since the US will certainly try bossing around - something that India wouldn't mind at all.

 

[VCheng]

Firstly, yesterday he said in an interview that there can be no compromise or talks without bringing the Taliban's Mullah Omar, into the loop. And Mullah Omar avoids any interaction with the US like the plague. So this talk of bringing the Haqqani's to the negotiating table for a solution is a non starter without Omar's participation.

Secondly, as you mentioned, Pakistan's game plan is 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. This flies in the face of establishing a ETO.

Thirdly, the only way an ETO can be established is for both Pakistan and India to lay off and let the Afghans decide their future. But that is easier said than done as the stakes in Afghanistan for both countries are pretty high.

So is it back to square one?

VCheng, well written article!

It need not be a circular game; all parties have to give up some things in order to gain others, for that is the art of negotiations and politics. There is much to be gained economically for Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and it is high time people in the region from both sides of the two borders realize this fact. Please keep in mind that the rest of the world marches on!

==========

President Camacho: I will respond to your great post as soon as I have some time.

 

[President Camacho]

President Camacho: I will respond to your great post as soon as I have some time.

Please do take your time VCheng, time is what we all are rich with

 

[VCheng]

Please do take your time VCheng, time is what we all are rich with

Then you are rich indeed.

I have very little time and much to do.

 

[Vinod2070]

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?

Fair enough. You are talking from the same perspective that Zia brought in.

Rawalpindi as the citadel of the Pak Army's corps (crore?) commanders is committed to investing in non-state terror groups as part of a very long-term Afghanistan strategy. This was enunciated by Presient Zia ul Haq unambiguously, at the height of the Afghan war in the mid 1980's when he declared: "We have earned the right to have a friendly regime (in Afghanistan)a¦We took risks as a frontline state, and we won't permit it to be like it was before, with Indian and Soviet influence there and claims on our territory. It will be a real Islamic state, part of a pan-Islamic revival that will one day win over the Muslims in Soviet Union, you will see it." Alas, General Kayani is ploughing the same furrow and spilling considerable Pakistani blood in the process. It is a Pyrrhic victory for the Zia vision, that a pernicious pan-Islamic revival has tenaciously embedded itself in large sections of the Pakistani 'fauji-maulvi' psyche and hence many malignant mirages have been created.

You think you should be rewarded for the "risks" of 1979 by having a compliant Afghanistan. You think that is the steady state for them and for the region.

For us, the Taliban period was an aberration. The steady state is a return to the pre-1979 (golden ) days. Just kidding.

Anyway, you can't force yourself onto Afghanistan without destroying yourself in the bargain. There have been enough indications of this but many of those who matter are still married to the strategic overreach.

 

[Vinod2070]

@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.

Now isn't that just another inconvenient fact?

Just to be ignored like all other inconvenient facts.

The fact is that Pakistan was and remains an ally in this war on Taliban. It was a perfidious ally but it was the only one they had.

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

None of which lessens their mutual animosity and political machinations. I am sure you haven't missed the American statements and actions to shore up military alliances around Australasia to contain China.

Similarly, when the US asked India to jump ("look east"), India said how high? (Vietnam oil drilling)

The "Look East" policy has been there since 1991.

Just another inconvenient fact? I know.

Bottom line: the US has decided that it's strategic interests lie with India. If Pakistan gets involved, it won't be as an equal partner, but as an expandable asset.

And you think China treats you as an "equal partner"?

Or it is just preferable to be treated a certain way by the Chinese rather than that other rather unpleasant alternative!

 

[Vinod2070]

Of course not, we have received a lot more than we have given in the strategic relationship with the PRC, that is a fact - whereas india does not want a relationship based on sovereign equality.

Doesn't sound like a solid basis for "sovereign equality"?

 

[Pfpilot]

The only way forward for Pakistan and India is a normalization of the relationship. The cultural and ethnic similarities provide each nation a golden opportunity to spur future economic growth. The world has moved on from the pre-WW2 era of closed economies. For the success of the region, India cannot establish itself on the world stage and develop into a first world nation, unless it deals with a conflict on its western doorstep. Similarly, Pakistan has no economic future, if it keeps trying to keep up with Indian military spending in a bid to remind the world of the Kashmiri problem, long after the world has already forgotten.
It is crucial for Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan to form a trade alliance, at the least, to form a strong South Asian block that will create leverage for all. The world is run by economic interests and so are alliances...China needs us only for the foreseeable future, due to Pakistan acting as a counter to India and a gateway to American tech. In India and Afghanistan, we have two nations that would help form a long term bloc based on economic interests; understanding can come later. For each nation, the other two nations are unexplored mines of economic gold. For us to take advantage of the potential, the conflicts must be put aside for the greater good...ironically, in which case, the Kashmirs will also benefit from a prosperous region.
The American involvement is not one I support, but inevitable and probably necessary. For India and Pakistan have long shown, they need to have a babysitter to deal with the smallest of problems...once our nations see the rewards of working together, American involvement will become irrelevant.