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

[pmukherjee]

Indian and Pakistani interests in Afghanistan are at logger heads. India wants an Afghan national government represented by all the indigenous ethnic factions of that country but one not dominated by the Taliban. Taliban does have a say but not a decisive one. Pakistan, on the other hand would like an Afghan government dominated by the Taliban. Others are welcome to have their say just as long as they don't say much.

How do these differing view points find a common ground in this economic arrangement that you propose? Without a common ground, the arrangement will result in conflicting and competitive interpretation and implementation and not only will it flounder but it will also add to the already high levels of animosity between the two countries which will not benefit Afghanistan in any manner.

 

[pmukherjee]

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.

OK, how about bringing in the other important stake holders, namely Russia and Iran?

 

[Vinod2070]

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.

You can't seem to imagine it could just be a tit for tat for Chinese presence in South Asia, especially Gilgit-Baltistan and for the "string of pearls"?

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.

You really believe everything you want to? Reality can go take a hike?

Your personal views about India make you incapable of analyzing Indian policies with objectivity. Especially with regard to China because of the added and heightened sense of terrible insecurity.

India's policy has been too shackled by bureaucratic sloth in reality. You can't differentiate the reality from your imagination and what you just need to believe.

---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

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.

Great post.

Indian and Pakistani rapprochement is not as improbable (or some would say impossible) as it seems.

In fact it can be less so that the French and German rapprochement after fighting for centuries and killing millions of each other. Today one doesn't even talk of it.

The secret, pragmatism, as it was in their case.

 

[naumananjum]

The aim of US is now to contain china

 

[VCheng]

..........................

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?

First of all, benefits need not be equal, but only of a sufficient magnitude so as to be un-ignorable. The alignment of economic interest must involve three basic areas: people, goods, services. The process needs to start gradually in each of these key areas, and USA involvement is needed to overcome the historical baggage between the countries, since it has sufficient clout to underwrite guarantees that will secure a steady path forward for the process.

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.

That is exactly why US guarantees to prevent such an economic war are essential.

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?

Pakistan must be seen by India as more than an obstacle to its desired transit routes. Indeed, getting Pakistan on board as a partner can only help India. Iran has its own issues with the US that will prevent its inclusion in any energy corridor arrangements for the foreseeable future, but that need not be an issue, because Central Asian energy resources can be routed to India via Pakistan.

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.

This is a very good reason for Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to work together, and since it aligns US interests in containing Iran, it has a much better chance of succeeding than any idea to enable Iran's exports of energy to fund its undesirable activites.

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.

Inclusion of Iran is an idea that will not get off the ground for the foreseeable future, unless there is drastic change in Iran, so it would be appropriate for leaders of a large part humanity not to wait for that to happen.

 

[VCheng]

OK, how about bringing in the other important stake holders, namely Russia and Iran?

Iran is a non-starter, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Russia will find it to its benefit to participate in the ECO at a later stage as a bountiful supplier of energy, which will enable it to export to its southeast, not just west.

The aim of US is now to contain china

China's economic miracle, impressive as it is, has been dependent on the USA so far. Its internal market, and other partners are growing, but it will take time before the importance of USA as its largest trading partner will diminish to the point where it can risk taking on USA. The long term demographic changes inside China and USA make this prospect unlikely even more.

China realizes that it is better for it to work with USA, and USA sees this reality too. There is no need for containment, for that Cold War concept is no longer need or indeed implementable in this global economy.

 

[President Camacho]

First of all, benefits need not be equal, but only of a sufficient magnitude so as to be un-ignorable. The alignment of economic interest must involve three basic areas: people, goods, services. The process needs to start gradually in each of these key areas, and USA involvement is needed to overcome the historical baggage between the countries, since it has sufficient clout to underwrite guarantees that will secure a steady path forward for the process.



That is exactly why US guarantees to prevent such an economic war are essential.



Pakistan must be seen by India as more than an obstacle to its desired transit routes. Indeed, getting Pakistan on board as a partner can only help India. Iran has its own issues with the US that will prevent its inclusion in any energy corridor arrangements for the foreseeable future, but that need not be an issue, because Central Asian energy resources can be routed to India via Pakistan.



This is a very good reason for Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to work together, and since it aligns US interests in containing Iran, it has a much better chance of succeeding than any idea to enable Iran's exports of energy to fund its undesirable activities.



Inclusion of Iran is an idea that will not get off the ground for the foreseeable future, unless there is drastic change in Iran, so it would be appropriate for leaders of a large part humanity not to wait for that to happen.

Thank you so much VCheng, for your well thought-out reply. And I apologize for taking such a long time to work back on it (last few days have been very taxing).

I have a few points here that make me a little less enthusiastic about the solutions offered by you.

I will write on the most grave one first:

Such deep inclusion of the US in the region may not go down well with the Chinese and the Russians. There will always be something on the line of Iran-China-Russia, because once in Afghanistan, and esp with India and Pakistan on its side, the US is guaranteed to seek greater influence further north. While walking along with the US, both the countries will have to make sure they do not turn the US into some kind of 'all immune superpower'.

Secondly, while contrary to popular belief, the US's power has grown rather than diminish in the last few years, India and Pakistan have grown way faster than the influence of the US itself. I do not see why India would not want to utilize its more powerful position against Pakistan. After all, a strong presence of India in Afghanistan is all that India is looking for - to sandwich Pakistan. What are the chances that India will not give up its gains (the ones coming from "mutual blackmail") to squeeze Pakistan?

With Saudi Arabia and Central Asia supplying all the oil to Pakistan, it can be brought to its knees in one single day at one press of the button by the US. Also, how immune will Pakistan be to its bifurcation in the name of, say something akin to WoT, when India and US both have it surrounded from all sides? - Both, India and the US will feel the need to do that no matter how cheap the transit route is, simply because once Pakistan is brought down, transit will be free.

Finally, I would like you to take a bit different approach in formulating the scenario, which I am sure you can do.

The different approach I am talking about would take into consideration the continuous efforts of all the involved nations (including Iran) trying to expand their influence. Pakistan and India, both are completely unreliable on any bilateral terms. And neither of them are trusting enough of the US. For such a scenario, that you offer, all the countries would require powers similar to the Veto in the UN.

But how much will that work, I wouldn't know, because any of the countries may decide to go for a substitute of that "mutual blackmail", and opt out at a vulnerable point leaving all other parties hanging in the air. For example, India, while getting a lot of oil and gas from Central Asia, may suddenly be offered some lucrative deal by Iran... I am dead sure India would jump at the chance of trading for oil from a non-US influenced nation!

Or say, the US wants Iran's oil too, and may even want to punish Iran till it gives in. What would be a more opportune time than this, when India and Pakistan are all for the US? All the insurgents seeping into a Shia Iran would be so well trained and facilitated it will be a chaos over there. From Jordan to Iraq to India, it will be the US everywhere, except for Iran. What would the US not give to change that? This is the main reason I strongly feel it will not be so wise to give in to such a scenario where the US is allowed such a strong, though quiet, presence in the region.

While it is still a bit vague for me how such a scenario can be designed, one thing I am very sure of is it will have to be something that can last really long because the region has been rapidly changing and would require newer grounds every other day to sustain the "mutual blackmail", and to keep it from turning into a "one-sided blackmail".

 

[muse]

We will learn more about the US's "new silk road" in coming conferences in Istanbul and Bonn - it's clear Pakistanis have some reservations, needless to say the Iranian and the Russian and especially the Chinese have not been heard from, though one may find an echo of their concerns in the reservations offered by the Pakistanis, Iranians, Russians and Uzbek and Kyrgyzstan and Kazakh (am I getting through to you?) - in the meantime, we all know how US policy is doing in Afghanistan, but how's the US policy doing in India and Pakistan ?? This is relevant given that the main thesis of this thread/editorial is predicated on US military presence in South-Central Asia:



US sows discord in South Asia
By M K Bhadrakumar

Two templates in regional politics are seriously debilitating the United States's campaign to bring Pakistan down on its knees in the Afghan endgame. One is that Delhi has distanced itself from the US campaign and pursues an independent policy toward Islamabad.

The second factor frustrating US policies to isolate Pakistan is the South Asian nation's bonhomie with Iran. Pakistan would have been pretty much isolated had there been an acute rivalry with Iran over the Afghan endgame. The current level of cordiality in the relationship enables Islamabad to focus on the rift with the US and even draw encouragement from Tehran.

It's baloney
A recent statement by the Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna on the US-Pakistan rift underscored that India doesn't see eye-to-eye with the US approach. (See US puts the squeeze on Pakistan, Asia Times, October 22). It was carefully timed to signal to Washington (and Islamabad) that Delhi strongly disfavored any form of US military action against Pakistan.

There is a string of evidence to suggest that the Pakistani leadership appreciates the Indian stance. The general headquarters in Rawalpindi acted swiftly on Sunday to return to India within hours a helicopter with three senior military officers on board which strayed into Pakistani territory in bad weather in the highly sensitive Siachen sector. The official spokesman in Delhi went on record to convey India's appreciation of the Pakistani gesture. Such conciliatory gestures are rare (for both sides) in the chronicle of Pakistan-India relationship.

Again, last week, India voted for Pakistan's candidacy for the Asia-Pacific slot among the non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and the Pakistani ambassador promptly responded that he would work with his Indian counterpart in New York. Ironically, the UN has been a theater for India and Pakistan's frequent clashes over the Kashmir problem.

Looking ahead, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan are likely to meet on the sidelines of the South Asian Association For Regional Cooperation summit in Male on November 10-11. Washington would have been quick to insist that it acted as "facilitator" in fostering the improving climate in India-Pakistan relations. But the US is instead watching with a degree of discomfort that its complicated South Asian symphony is throwing up jarring notes. Calibrating India-Pakistan tensions traditionally constituted a key element of the US's regional diplomacy.

Washington has "retaliated" to Krishna's statement by issuing a travel advisory cautioning American nationals from visiting India because of heightened terrorist threats. Delhi, in turn, ticked off Washington saying it considered the US move "disproportionate" - a cute way of saying that the advisory is a load of baloney.

Jundallah in retreat
What is happening in Pakistan-Iran relations is even more galling for the US. There has been a spate of high-level visits between Islamabad and Tehran and the two capitals have reached mutual understandings on a range of security interests. Last week, Tehran acknowledged that there had not been a single attack by the terrorist group Jundallah from the Pakistani side of the border in the Balochistan region during the past 10 months.

Tehran has accused the US of masterminding the Jundallah terrorists to stage covert operations to destabilize Iran. However, since the detention of Central Intelligence Agency operative Raymond Davis in Lahore in January, Islamabad has clamped down on hundreds of US intelligence operatives functioning on Pakistani soil, seriously cramping the US's capacity to dispatch Jundallah terrorists into Iran.

Tehran is satisfied that the Pakistani security establishment is finally acting purposively to smash the US-backed Jundallah network. It reciprocates Pakistan's goodwill by trying to harmonize its Afghan policy and scrupulously avoided pointing fingers at Pakistan for the assassination of Afghan Peace Council head Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was closely allied with Tehran.

Essentially, Iran appreciates that Pakistan's "strategic defiance" of the US will be in the interest of regional stability, the bottom line being that Tehran is keen to force the American troops to leave the region.

Tehran succeeded in the pursuit of a similar objective in Iraq by prevailing on Shi'ite political elites in Baghdad not to accede to the desperate pleas by the US to allow US troops to continue even after the stipulated deadline of withdrawal in December 2011 under the Status of Forces agreement. But Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish and a common strategy with Pakistan will help.

Pakistan keeps an ambivalent stance on the issue of a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan, but it can count on the Taliban to robustly oppose the US plans apropos military bases. Unsurprisingly, Tehran purses a multi-pronged approach toward the Taliban.

Concerted effort
In sum, the overall regional scenario is becoming rather unfavorable to the US. The easing of tensions in Pakistan's relations with India and Iran undermine US strategy to get embedded in the region.

The US's travel advisory was intended to raise hackles in India about the imminent possibility of Pakistan-supported terrorist activities. Again, US-sponsored disinformation is reappearing with claims that China and Pakistan are conspiring against India by setting Chinese military bases in the northern areas of Pakistan, which form part of Kashmir.

This is coinciding with a distinct improvement in the security situation in the Kashmir Valley, to the point that chief minister Omar Abdullah openly advocated last week in Srinagar that decades-old emergency regulations should be progressively withdrawn and that Delhi should initiate a serious engagement of Pakistan to settle the Kashmir problem.

United States-backed propaganda about the prospect of Chinese military bases in the Pakistani part of Kashmir is intended to serve a dual purpose: namely, creating discord between Pakistan and India and in Sino-Indian relations, too.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a significant statement last week that he was "convinced" that the Chinese leadership wanted a peaceful resolution of all problems between India and China, including the long-running border dispute. Significantly, he expressed his "sincere hope [that] it is possible for us to find ways and means by which the two neighbors can live in peace and amity despite the persistence of the border problem".

Manmohan's remarks assumed significance since the two countries are to shortly hold the 15th round of talks on the border issue in New Delhi. In a meaningful move, the Chinese Foreign Ministry responded to Manmohan's political overture. Beijing said China was "ready to work with India to enhance the China-India strategic partnership". The statement said:

As important neighbors to each other, China and India have maintained sound momentum in the bilateral relationship. As for the border issue left over from history, the two sides have been seeking a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution through friendly consultations. Pending a final solution, the two sides are committed to maintaining peace and tranquility in border areas.

A season for propaganda
The speculative, unattributed - and unverifiable - reports regarding Chinese intentions to establish military bases in the upper reaches of the Kashmir region under Pakistani control are surging again at a formative point in regional security. Their labored thesis is that Delhi should be extremely wary about the "devious" intentions of China and Pakistan and should go slow on the normalization of relations with these "treacherous" neighbors.

Curiously, Delhi is also being bombarded at the same time with US propaganda that Washington is striking a "grand bargain" with Pakistan over the Afghan problem whereby there will be a mutual accommodation of each other's concerns, which may include US intervention to mediate the Kashmir problem and US pressure on Delhi to roll back its presence in Afghanistan.

In a motivated commentary in Foreign Policy magazine last week on the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Islamabad, two prominent US think-tankers wired to the Washington establishment actually tried to alternatively bait Islamabad and frighten Delhi by putting on the table the ingredients of the "grand bargain". Truly, this is all turning out to be a season for propaganda.

The heart of the matter is that the US is desperate to clinch a strategic agreement with the government of President Hamid Karzai in Kabul that would allow the establishment of a long-term American military presence in Afghanistan.

On Monday, hundreds of Afghans demonstrated in Kabul against US bases. The same day, the lower house of the Afghan parliament rejected terms guiding the operations of the Afghan government's existing agreement with the International Security Assistance Force as violating the country's sovereignty. The mood in the Afghan parliament seems hostile.

Karzai is convening a loya jirga (grand council) to seek endorsement for the US-Afghan pact. Matters will come to a head when it meets on November 16. Karzai promises that the US-Afghan pact will be sent to parliament for approval after being discussed in the jirga. Washington insists that the jirga approves the draft pact before the Bonn II conference convenes in December. Karzai's political future depends on whether he can deliver on the pact.

All sitting parliamentarians, some former members, one-third of the provincial council members, representatives of civil society and distinguished people, religious scholars and influential tribal leaders have been invited to the jirga. Two hundred and thirty representatives of Afghan refugee communities in Pakistan, Iran and Western countries will also be in attendance in the 2,030-strong jirga.

On September 13, Afghan National Security Advisor Dadfar Spanta told Afghan parliamentarians that the US might set up military bases in Afghanistan after the signing of the pact, but that the pact wouldn't be inked unless approved by parliament. Spanta added, "Concerns of our neighbors [over the US-Afghan pact] are genuine, but we will not allow our soil to be used against them."

The Afghan parliament fears, however, that Karzai might choose to bypass it after extracting endorsement from a pliant jirga and interpreting that as the collective opinion of the Afghan nation. Parliament directed the speaker on Monday to address an official communication to Karzai highlighting its constitutional prerogative to approve foreign policy issues.

The Afghan endgame is moving into a crucial phase; much will depend on regional politics. The worst-case scenario for the US is that subsuming the contradictions in the intra-regional relationships between and among Pakistan, Iran, India and China, these countries might have a convergent opinion on the issue of American military bases.

An accentuation of these contradictions, therefore, would serve the US's geopolitical interests at the present juncture, hence the US's "divide-and-rule" strategy.

 

[President Camacho]

I have to disagree with Mr. Bhadrakumar, esp on the way the stance of Iran has been interpreted and the hostilities between India, and China and Pakistan have been downplayed.

First of all, Iran has a record of siding with the worst possible enemies, if they show a sign of enmity with the US. India's hostile stance against the US in previous times brought Iran much closer, and then India's embracing the US goodies created rifts, to such extent that Iran is becoming vocal on Kashmir - the most prickly sore of India.

While he has taken the return of the helicopter as the only sign of goodwill, just yesterday Pakistan's ambassador to Iran, in a public meeting, sought Iran's support and solidarity on the Kashmir issue.

Iran's press has, for while, been busy celebrating the numerous wins on the American troops in Afghanistan. How funny is it, that Iran, an orthodox Shia country, is supporting the cause of those Sunni outfits whose acts border terrorism?

Well, there are many other pieces that do not support Bhadrakumar's view that Iran's stand might be a sign of coming tranquility in the region.

Then we come to the "propaganda" that he talks about. China and India are not going to fight a war, it is a true. But it is not because they collectively want to reduce the US presence in the region, rather because, as VCheng put it, it is more like a "mutual blackmail" that came out of the heavy trade between the two countries amounting to almost 70 billion dollars now.

If China and India were really about everything in the direction of mutual trust and peace, then what about the stapled visas, which created quite a stir? Not clinging to what many may call history, l will cite the recent row in South China Sea. It is nothing about peace in the region, rather it is about the money they both are involved in, with each other.

Now coming to Pakistan. It may appear as a strong allegation, and is purely my view, but I strongly feel that Pakistani populace's hostility toward India is the bread and butter of the Pakistan Army. Return of the helicopter was indeed a great gesture, as they could have shot it down, very legitimately, but it also comes at a time when the Pakistan Army is aggressively engaged on its western front. It is very much possible the Pakistan Army would not want any sort of disturbance on its eastern border at this hour. Truly speaking, India does not want it either. The High Court blast took place, and right away I felt that it will be blamed on some domestic outfit, and not on Pakistan - even if it did come from some Pakistani source. Ultimately, it was discovered that the facilitator was a Pakistani.

And what might India gain after all, at the departure of the US? Once the US leaves, the heavily armed Taliban and Haqqani Network are sure to hold powerful positions in Afghanistan. Whatever comes of India's heavy investment in Afghanistan? On the issue of Afghanistan, there is none that can do more for India than the US itself. Well, Afghanistan had no US presence prior to 9/11, and what did India gain? A plane highjacked by those who were themselves highjacked by the likes of al Qaeda? There is no guarantee that the Taliban and Haqqanis will again not feel sympathetic to the cause of some newer elements that just want to stir up the world, and throw Afghanistan back to the stone age.

Finally, India has said and snubbed the US quite a number of times in the past. Esp the unmatched one - elimination of the F-16IN from MRCA. Timothy Roemer resigned the next day as Ambassador to India. Travel advisories have often been issued, and it will not be surprising it happened in the backdrop of the High Court bomb blast, because it was given a lot of coverage in the US as well.

I wouldn't count so much on these not so significant happenings, as is Bhadrakumar. While the US does appear to be facing a lot of difficulties in attaining its objectives in the region, a complete failure is still very much out of question. And such incidents as signs of some kind of "utopian" peace prevailing between these historical enemy nations... as much as I would like it, I wouldn't really go that far.

 

[muse]

Presidente:

You read events and maneuvers in very zero sum ways - if a Talib and Haqqani and Shura e nazar e shomali Afghanistan is no good for India, how are hostilities between Pakistan and US good for India? Is india somehow unconnected that fire in one place will not reach the other?

 

[President Camacho]

Presidente:

You read events and maneuvers in very zero sum ways - if a Talib and Haqqani and Shura e nazar e shomali Afghanistan is no good for India, how are hostilities between Pakistan and US good for India? Is india somehow unconnected that fire in one place will not reach the other?

Well sir, lazy minds look at things in simple ways

The hostility between the US and Pakistan will not culminate into the US occupation of Pakistan, but it is already turning into a war of attrition keeping Pakistan busy, and draining it of its resources. In fact, the US can not hold a strong presence even in Afghanistan for a long time. However, a ruling coalition of parties in Afghanistan, sympathetic to all will allow for India's presence (at least to the minimal level) as well.

With Tajikistan already siding with India, Indians will not have a lot of problems in creating a supply chain through to Afghanistan. It may not become a base for India to attack Pakistan in the near future, or to keep Pakistan Army from attacking India, but it will certainly give Indians a strong ground to facilitate well-secured pipelines through Pakistan, to India, and beyond (the ocean mainly, for the US to suck it out).

India has been taking its steps with the US very carefully, so as not to fall in line like many other nations did, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran (pre-revolution) etc. After all, one of the main causes of LTTE's creation and support was Sri Lanka's allowance to the US to make bases there. India would be the first one to pull back at the signs of fire reaching home.

At least that's how it seems to me. But now matter what, I cannot really imagine how India would take it easily if the same Taliban came to power that sought freedom of terrorists like Masood Azhar and Sheikh Saeed. That incident still stirs up hot debates in India. India's stance has been very peaceful and predictable till now, but a lot will change when the BJP comes to power.

 

[President Camacho]

I rarely trust and cite TOI as the source, but this one gives a rough, yet genuine idea on how trade rights are being fought for in the region:

New Delhi: Pakistan is blocking the establishment of a regional monitoring group to oversee cooperation on Afghanistan's economic and security future. As leaders from 12 nations head to Istanbul on November 2 to help Afghanistan become a stable and independent state, Pakistan is building up opposition to the key decisions at the conference.

Foreign minister S M Krishna will represent India at the conference, the first time India will be at the table. Last year, Pakistan had successfully weighed in with its close allies and host, Turkey, to keep India out. Turkish president Abdullah Gul bore the brunt of New Delhi's unhappiness when he visited India soon after.

While negotiations for the event is yet to yield an "outcome document" (a negotiated, agreed text), there are two stated goals - to commit to non-interference/neutrality on Afghanistan and to set up a mechanism of senior officials to monitor it. Pakistan has cited "national security", maintaining its old position that it needed to have a "friendly' government in Kabul as a defence against India. Pakistan's opposition is to having so many countries - primarily India- enjoying similar status in the contact group on Afghanistan.

The US, Pakistan's principal backer, has decisively turned away from accepting Islamabad's arguments. Turkey, Pakistan's close friend and mentor, too is pushing the regional framework that includes all Afghanistan's neighbours. Hillary Clinton, who will represent the US at the conference, will push the New Silk Road concept that is aimed to help Afghanistan to its feet, and one that includes all its neighbours. This too has seen opposition from the Pakistani army.

Pakistan, said sources, is trying to marshal support from an unlikely group of countries that may have implications for India. Iran, which is opposed to the idea of US military presence in Afghanistan, has been seen to be supporting the Pakistani position, even though Teheran detests the Taliban and the al Qaeda. A curious fellow opponent is Russia. Moscow is worried about a Talibanised Afghanistan, but it is equally sceptical of a continued US presence there.

Highly placed sources in government say there have been recent "exploratory" talks between Pakistan and Russia on Afghanistan. Russia, like Iran and India, used to be the triad that supported the Northern Alliance in the 1990s when Taliban ruled Kabul with Pakistan's help. But in a changing geopolitical environment, Russia is finding itself much closer to China, which Russians have admitted to as being "need-based". Russia's economic ties with China have increased exponentially, and in regional groupings is now closer to China than ever before.

While China has little to object in the Istanbul plan, China is bound to support Pakistan. The Chinese objection has centred on a stated apprehension that the new contact group could replicate or undermine its creation, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Pakistan foreign office spokesperson repeated this line, "The existing regional organizations and arrangements may also be urged to prioritize support in their respective domains for achieving the aforesaid objectives..."

Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, the US and the UK will attend the Istanbul conference, which precedes the 90-nation Bonn conference in December.

-Indrani Bagchi, TOI.

Quite a crowd there, and Pakistan can't seem to digest anyone but itself. If I were to don its shoes, the reasons appear very valid, and very strong!

 

[muse]

Preisdente

Excellent pieces - it seems we have not been too far from correctly breaking down Mr. Ahmad's polemic - and of course identifying the usual suspect.

However, my own thinking is at odds with that of Mr. Ahmad -- it is simply too early to pick sides - we must first allow for the general idea to find some substance to it - simply having the US associate with an idea, is not helpful in judging whether the ideas has the potential of actually solving a problem or creating new ones.

And in that light, the creation of new multilateral superstructure, it seems to me, is one that may create new problems, as it's main purpose is to institutionalize US military presence and create new tensions in the region - While aspirants to newly created posts of "Chaudry" will point to the value of trade, it must be asked why a new multi-lateral system is needed, after all we all recognize the need for greater trade.

 

[President Camacho]

Ummm... who is Ahmad?

 

[muse]

It's here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/137633-what-pakistan-army-should-do.html#post2236850