The title says it all. In its quest to pursue its global aims, China is keeping India tied to the pole by needling her in a geopolitical bind while maintaining a straight face. The discussions in various posts over the last week brought out Chinese dynamics in Pakistan, Burma and Nepal. This post also brings in the Sri Lankan narrative. Apparently, the two regional heavy weights are busy shadow boxing in South Asia with India kind of getting bitten by a China phobia. In strategic circles, Chindia is a four-letter word.
60 years on, there is nothing to show for these border disputes. Dutifully, the Indians, Pakistanis and the Chinese glare at each other – over colonial border issues. These border issues are less thanperipheral to our nations. We have allowed the past to hold our future as a hostage.
The pace with which China is getting actively involved in economic and military activity in the sub continent is a reminder that the Dragon wants to spread its signature across the continent and the Indian Ocean. The philosophy of five fingers and a string of pearls has long been nursed by Indian analysts. Despite volumes of literature being churned out on the subject, there is no tangible action institutionally to tackle the troubles spawned out by this Chinese maneuvering. Of late though, there is a growing awareness of this Chinese influence as India tries to catch up in Nepal, Burma, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. This though appears to be too little too late, especially when we have handed over the initiative in each of these countries to China. Then there is the added problems of the “all weather friend” attached to China in all these countries operating counter to Indian interests. The previous posts on Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Burma are indicative of the space we have lost to China in South Asia including the Indian Ocean.
A recent issue of The Economist quotes Brajesh Mishra, former Indian national security advisor: Its (China’s) main agenda is to keep India preoccupied with events in South Asia so it is constrained from playing a more important role in Asian and global affairs’. But with or without China, India does embroil herself with her South Asian neighbours. Recent history indicates disputes with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. A greater game is unfolding through a China Pakistan ploy to destabilise India as per K Subrahmanyam. “Both countries are interested in fragmenting India. Both have tried to encourage extremist and secessionist groups within the country in J&K, the North-east and the Maoist areas. It is therefore natural for China and Pakistan to attempt to ensure that US President Barack Obama‘s forthcoming visit to India does not take the Indo-US relationship further forward”. China wants to duplicate the Indo-US nuclear deal by offering two more reactors to Pakistan in defiance of the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines.
Then there is the feedback from these countries being subjected to this regional rivalry. This media report in Sri Lanka on the eve of visit of the Army Chief General VKSingh is largely reflective of how this shadow boxing is perceived in the region:
“China two weeks ago officially became the world’s second biggest economy, overtaking Japan. India last week announced an 8.8 percent economic growth in the last three months and is expected to reach 9 percent by the end of the year. Indian economic growth could touch 10 per cent in the next couple of years and may even beat China in the next four years, Dr. Kaushik Basu Chief Economic Advisor of the Indian Finance Ministry was quoted in The Hindu, last week.
These spurts in economic growth have made the once poverty stricken Asian giants to be considered the two leading economic superpowers of the 21st Century — if not in military terms — influencing and dominating countries near and far reminiscent of the Western colonial empires such as Britain, France and Germany did in the 18th and 19th Centuries.”
While the official circles discredit the “encirclement theory” by the Chinese, there is a growing realization in the strategic community of growing Chinese influence in the region. Reports of growing military and specifically naval cooperation with Burma as exemplified last month by port calls in Burma by Chinese war ships indicate an enhanced presence in the Indian Ocean region by the Chinese Navy. Hambantota is also a cause for concern. General Singh’s visit comes ahead of trips to Colombo by defence secretary Pradeep Kumar and foreign minister S.M. Krishna . This signals Indian keenness to regain lost ground in Sri Lanka – a ground lost due to ethnic characteristic of Sri Lanka’s war on LTTE in the face of domestic opposition.
The Sino Indian rivalry is, apparently, largely driven by the PLA where in the opaque but not monolithic CMC considers India as a potential threat to it’s interests in the Indian Ocean region. Needling India on Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh ties down India and suits domestic nationalistic fervor while pleasing Pakistan. Amongst all the theories doing rounds, this appears most plausible as it keeps India in check militarily while allowing China to continue with unbridled trade with India and through the Indian Ocean. As per Chinese experts, India intrudes into many of the issues the military sees as important: Tibet, Pakistan, Myanmar and naval security. The latter is rising Chinese strategic concern, writes Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation, because Beijing faces “an unprecedented reliance on the seas for China’s economic well-being”.
The Economist in an article titled “A Himalayan Rivalry” last month articulates the mulltidimensional and complex contours of relationship between the two neighbours. Of interest, apart from the routine boundary and water disputes, is the theory of India being persued by America as a bulwark against China. This worries Chinese the most and so they too have gone on supporting all India neighbours economically and militarily to complete the strategic encirclement of India.
While some experts rubbish this theory, there is a lot of substance in the argument as evident from Chinese actions in the region. The theory of encirclement can be played in a variety of ways depending on who is looking. While India feels encircled by China, China feels encircled by America. This aspect was covered in an earlier article on Encirclement. Then there are the growing Chinese worries of increased American influence in Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia to counter Chinese interests.
Pertinent amongst the Chinese fears are America’s historical records, since World War II, of strangulating it’s rival’s energy needs – be it Japan or Iraq. China fears a similar fate and thus has resolved its Malacca dilemmas through Pakistan and Burma. China’s economic rise as the world’s largest cheap labour platform has necessitated a vast expansion of its imports of raw materials from all corners of the globe. More than half its vital oil and gas is imported, mostly from the Middle East and Africa. For this reason, China is determined to secure its sea routes across the Indian Ocean through the South China Sea by building a blue water navy. The US is just as determined to prevent this happening, and to maintain its own naval predominance. However these indirectly or directly impige on Indian interests in the region and thus the cycle of animosity and jostling for influence intensifies.
China appears to be acting out of insistence of its military to keep India engaged regionally while it tackles the American influence in the region. My vote is in favour of a China attempting to de isolate itself from a larger encirclement while encircling India – a game that will never end. As Subrahmanyam says”
Times have changed, as has the international strategic milieu. Even while retaining Russia as a friend in the Asian context, India has to develop a new balance of power equation to deal with the challenge from China and Pakistan not merely to our external security but to our national development as a pluralistic, secular and democratic nation.
India too has its ancient strategic wisdom, preached in the Panchatantra, Hitopadesa andArthasastra, encompassing sama (cooperation), dhana (buying up), bedha (causing division) and dhanda (use of force). It is time to invoke that ancient wisdom and devise an appropriate international strategy to counter the Chinese-Pakistani challenge.
This Indian ability to call the China Pakistan bluff through artful statecraft is critical to the present regional equation.
A small, 50-member Christian church in the United States state of Florida plans to burn Qur’ans, the holy book of Islam, on the ninth anniversary of the coordinated 9/11 terrorist attack. Led by Pastor Terry Jones, the group intends to burn 200 copies of the Islamic holy text at their location: the Dove World Outreach Center. The church has already prepared the firewood for the fire despite the worldwide reactions of outrage and dissaproval.
The news of the planned Qur’an burning comes with the raging fervor over the construction project of the ‘Ground Zero’ mosque. Pastor Jones remarked that the Holy Qur’an burning is not a message of ‘defiance’ against all Muslims but simply the Muslim extremists and terrorists. “Why don’t we send a warning to them? Why don’t we send a warning to radical Islam and say, don’t do it. If you attack us, we will attack you.”
As the video below shows, courtesy of Russia Today, Muslim populaces were outraged at Reverend Jones’ plans despite his best intentions. Effigies of Reverend Jones were burned as angry Afghans protested the planned book burning.
More than 100 death threats were reported to have been sent to the 58 year old Terry Jones which has prompted him and his aides to carry firearms for self-protection. Reverend Jones also spoke of the rampant vandalism of his “International Burn a Koran Day” signs out on church property.
The U.S. federal government along with the United States military command in Afghanistan warned that the Qur’an burning would enrage countless Muslims and drastically drag down the war’s progress in Afghanistan. Moreover the act would project the wrong image of America to the rest of the Muslim world; a terrible blow on U.S. President Obama’s efforts to mend relationships with the Middle East in his early presidency.
Other religious leaders condemned Jones’ plan as unproductive and a cry for attention. Some expressed concern for troops overseas as unnecessary violence over there wrought by unnecessary actions back here would be the last thing “any of our guys would want”.
New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has supported the construction of the Ground Zero mosque commented on the planned Qur’an burning as unpleasent but firmly said the Qur’an burning was to be protected “because of the First Amendment” which overrules the need for a burning permit in Jones’ area.
The Dove World Outreach Center stated it took the reactions and the government’s cautions “very seriously” but insisted it will still burn copies of the Qur’an this Saturday. The Christian pastor also said the burning was to honor the memory of the 9/11 victims. Which begs this question: would the Muslim individuals who died in the 9/11 attacks be pleased by the burning of their holy text?
Three days ago, four male Greenpeace activists boated out on the Esperanza in Arctic waters to protest against offshore oil drilling. As part of Greenpeace’s ‘Go beyond oil’ campaign, these young activists (Timo, Sim, Matteo, and Jens) from the countries of Finland, U.S., Poland, and Germany, respectively, planned to climb UK company Cairn Energy’s oil rig, the Stena Don, and camp out in its underbelly for as “long as necessary to stop this reckless drilling”.
And so they tried.
In hopes of delaying Cairn’s multimillion oil project for even the slightest moment in defense of “blue whales, polar bears, seals, sharks, cormorants, kittiwakes” and the environment in general, the Greenpeace activists scaled 15 meters of the bottom of the Stena Don and made an airborne ‘camp’. Buffeted by arctic gale for an impressive length of nearly 40 hours, the four activists “had no choice” but to go down the Stena Don and into the waiting arms of Greenland authorities. Much to the joy of the activists, the Stena Don had to cease operations. According to one of the Greenpeace activists, another nearby oil rig was instructed to stop drilling because of the occupation of Stena Don.
[The 2nd video is Greenpeace International's promotional video for its 'Go beyond oil' campaign]
While it was certainly an ‘impressive’ feat, this act has had the four activists charged with trespassing and breaking and entering. Annoyed representatives for the Greenlandic police, government and other local governments condemned the activists’ actions as “utterly foolish”. Some have even accused Greenpeace activists as “ecoterrorists” at this point. After arresting them, Greenland said the four men will most likely face significant fines or possible time in prison.
From left to right: Jens, Timo, Sim, Matteo (Greenpeace UK)
After a day in captivity, each of the four activists were deported to their native countries today with penalty fines attached to them. Almost immediately after this Greenpeace group dispersed, the Stena Don resumed its drilling.
The intensity of war in Af-Pak has picked up considerably in September beginning last week of August. The pattern indicates flexing of muscle by the Punjabi Taliban and TTP across Pakistan. The numbers in Pakistan include 108 civilians, mainly Shia minority, killed and 400 wounded. In Afghanistan the coalition forces were able to kill 64 “terrorists” of the Haqqani group in three separate incidents. It included the coalition forces repelling Haqqani attacks at Salerno,Chapman and Margah Forward Operating Bases. The events unfolded as enumerated:
On 23 August, the Taliban targeted mosques to take out pro-government leaders in coordinated attacks in South Waziristan, killing 25 people in three bombings and suicide attacks. The largest strike took place at a mosque in the town of Wana in South Waziristan. In the explosion, 18 people were killed.There have been 23 major attacks on mosques and other Islamic institutions in Pakistan since December 2007, according to information compiled by The Long War Journal.
On the same day Five terrorists and seven civilians were were killed when unmanned US strike aircraft fired three missiles at a compound in the village of Danda Darpa Khel, a village just outside of Miramshah in North Waziristan, according to Dawn.
On 26 August, the US struck targets with a predator attack in Kurram which killed four “terrorists”.
On 28 August coalition and Afghan troops beat back a complex Haqqani Networkassault on two bases in eastern Afghanistan, killing more than 20 fighters and a senior commander during and after the attack. The Haqqani Network “simultaneously launched” coordinated attacks on Forward Operating Bases at Salerno and Chapman. As per ISAF, 30 Haqqani Network fighters including 13 wearing suicide vests, were killed during the Aug. 28 assault on two US bases in Khost. On 02 September, as per ISAF press release, more than 20 members of the Haqqani Network were killedafter launching an early morning attack on Outpost at Margah in the Bermel district of Paktika province. On the same day unmanned US strike aircraft attacked compounds in two separate strikes in the Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan killing at least 15 Taliban as per media reports.
In the meanwhile, despite the floods, Shia minorities were attacked in two separate incidents in Lahore on 01 September and Quetta on 03 September. 29 people were reported killed and more than 200 people were wounded in bombings by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi al Almi, another name for the so-called Punjabi Taliban, during religious processions. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi in particular is well known for carrying out sectarian terror attacks against minority Shia, Ahmadis, Sufis, and Christians in Pakistan. In Quetta, a suicide car bomb was detonated in the midst of a Qods Day protest held by Shia Muslims who oppose Israel’s control of Jerusalem. 54 people( some reports claim 76) were killed and nearly 200 were wounded, according to reports from Geo News and Dawn. (Note: The figures have been compiled from the Long War Journal.)
On 01 September, the US government designated the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan as a terrorist entity, and named Hakeemullah and Waliur Rehman Mehsudas specially designated global terrorists. Hakeemullah and Waliur now have $5 million bounties out for information leading to their capture and prosecution. On 03 September the Pakistani Talibanthreatened to attack foreign aid workers delivering relief for the floods that have paralyzed much of the country.
Analysis – Pakistan’s Sectarian Violence
The patterns of these figures indicate the renewed vigour in conduct of suicide attacks and bombings by groups of all hues,backed by Al Qaeda, especiallythe attacks against religious minorities, to ignite a sectarian crisis in Pakistan. The Quetta attack immediately heightened tension between the Hazara ethnic minority – which is Shia – and the city’s Sunni majority Pushtun population. Immediately after the attack, armed Hazara men took over the streets in Quetta.
Lahore and what is happening there is important to Pakistan’s ethnic map. As per an analysis over Radio Australia by MJ Gohel, chief executive officer of the security research group, Asia Pacific Foundation,whoever wants to destabilise the country or the government has to go after Lahore. Militants in Pakistan believe that if they can turn Lahore into a battleground, then there is little to prevent the Taliban influence from spreading right across the entire country and turn it into a Taliban state.
The rise in violence levels indicates that Al-Qaeda-linked militants are exploiting the fact that the catastrophic monsoon floods that have engulfed Pakistan have put authorities under severe pressure. This gives them adequate levey to perpetuate sectarian clashes which when combined with the after affects of the floods would create the desired environment for further radicalisation of the society – an opportunity the Taliban are eagerly waiting for.
The procession in Quetta was in observance of Al Quds Day on the last Friday of the fasting period. Al Quds is the name of the historic mosque in East Jerusalem, which is under Israeli control since 1967. Ever since Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967, Muslims all over the world observe the last Friday of the fasting period as Al Quds Day to remind each other that Al Quds is still under the control of Israel.This call was given by Ayatollah Khomeini in a message issued by him to all the Muslims of the world—-Shias as well as Sunnis—in August 1979. The Pakistan Taliban and the Sunnis in general believe that Shia Iran collaborated with US for the invasion of Sunni Iraq. The attacks on Shias observing Al Quds Day in Quetta were meant to punish not only the Shias of Pakistan, but also Iran. This would fan fires amongst Iran establishment to vitiate the environment further.
The Pakistan Army has not been silent through all this. As per claims in the The News , the Pakistan Army is selectively eliminating Taliban commanders and killing Taliban prisoners. While Taliban claims should be taken sceptically, there does appear to be some truth to this report. There have been several reports of Taliban commanders being killed months after being arrested. These could be the bad Taliban not colluding with the Pakistan Army. On ground this widens the rift between Taliban and the Pakistan Army against the theory of “Good – Bad Taliban”. The Taliban and their acolytes have the easier route of putting the establishment under greater strain by inciting the ethnic violence.
Apart from their role in Pakistan, the TTP under Hakimullah Mehsud, has become ambitious and has been engaging in executing missions in Afghanistan and overseas.This is evident from the US charge of Mehsud’s alleged involvement in killing of seven Americans at a CIA base in Afghanistan and the confessions of Shahzad the NY bomber.
Analysis Afghanistan
The attacks on ISAF posts and bases with suicidal intent exhibit growing confidence of the Taliban. Despite suffering heavy casualties they have maintained reasonable control in Kandahar / Southern Afghanistan and have increased their influence North of Kabul in Mazar-e-Sharief, KonduZ and Herat. There are also reports that they have joined hands or reached an understanding with various factional militant group in the North bordering Iran and the Central Asian Republic including factions of the erstwhile Northern Alliance. This has ominous portents for ISAF which is far too stretched with the ANA and ANP not yet totally effective. Infiltration of Taliban in Afghan scurity forces is another thorny issue. The forthcoming elections will provide Taliban and al Qaeda with adequate opportunities to discredit the process through violence.
The primary targets of predator strikes seem to be Al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, and the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, especially North Waziristan – a terrorist training and breeding ground where the Pakistan Army has not launched operations as yet.
Roundup
The floods have changed the landscape of Pakistan but not the mindset. There are ominous signs that the combined effects of the floods, inefficiency of the civil government, still hawkish India centric focus of Pakistan Army and the upper hand gained by the militant groups in fanning the sectarian fires will result in a fractured future for the Pakistani polity – at least for now. The current trend of violence may continue.
The Pakistan Taliban has threatened to carry out attacks in the US and Europe “very soon”, two days after US added the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to its list of “foreign terrorist organizations”. “We will launch attacks in America and Europe very soon,” said Qari Hussain Mehsud, who is the Taliban’s top trainer of suicide bombers and Hakeemullah Mehsud’s top deputy.
Afghanistan awaits the surge after the Iraqi pullout and it would be interesting to see General Patraeus’s strategies including the plan for the end game.
Afterthought
Then there was the ISI claim of India being relegated by militant threat in Pakistan. No such luck. Amidst diverse reports on the subject, The Nation rubbished that the militant threat could ever overtake India as enemy number one. “There is no change in Pakistan’s stance vis a vis India”. The recent instance of Pakistan needlessly hesitant in accepting India’s flood relief very well exposes the typical Pakistani mindset. As per us, this claim is purely tactical; in their heart of hearts, their mortal enemy is still India. The Pakistani establishment has brought upon its people a virulently anti-Indian and doctored version of history. The venom is too deep seated and only an internal collapse and balkanisation of the Pakistan state can bring some genuine drift in the mindset. Under these conditions, the scenario of a lasting peace with Pakistan appears extremely remote. In the meantime Indian eyes are temporarily on the Dragon.
The Quartet of Powers – the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations – had been discussing a draft statement inviting the two sides to talks intended to conclude a treaty in one year. The Quartet said in June that peace talks would be expected to conclude in 24 months, but the new draft says 12 months. The Palestinian Authority government intends to have established all the attributes of statehood by mid-2011. Diplomats say the idea that a unilateral declaration of statehood could win support if talks do not start or collapse in the next 12 months is gaining interest.
Background
Netanyahu benefits from a move to direct talks, countering the notion abroad that he is not a genuine peace-seeker while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, by contrast, has a lot to lose politically. His political future is at stake if he does not get the opposite number to agree.
Confidence amongst Palestinians or Israelis on direct talks leading to a peace treaty soon, or that one would be quickly implemented if it were ever agreed, is low. In Israel’s coalition, the focus is on the 26 September settlement moratorium deadline. The majority of hawks in Netanyahu’s inner cabinet are opposed to extending the settlement freeze, but a minority seek some compromise that Abbas could swallow. One idea is to allow building in big established settlements that Israel expects to keep in a peace deal but not in those it would hand over in a land swap with the Palestinians.
The quartet statement says that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should “lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation [...] and results in” a state at peace with Israel, as per Reuters.
The White House has staked considerable political capital on the negotiations, which are the result of intense pressure exerted on both sides.
For the Cameras
Netanyahu
He was entering direct peace negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to reach an “historic compromise” that would enable both peoples to live in peace for generations ( 01 September).
“President Abbas, you are my “partner in peace”. It is up to us to overcome the agonising conflict between our peoples and to forge a new beginning.”
Mahmoud Abbas Bowing to domestic pressure he has threatened to end the talks if the settlement deadline of 26 September is not abrogated. Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. As per a CNN commentary, however, he has expressed his confidence that the talks would result in a meaningful action plan acceptable to both the sides. Let us see. He needs better interpreters! (Pun intended).
On the Agenda
At stake are four basic issues viz, the two state solution, the Israeli settlements, Jerusalem and the Refugees. Hamas are the detractors and have condemned the process and therefore could become a major stumbling block in the negotiations.
Two-State Solution Obama wants to create a Palestine state based on West Bank and Gaza alogside Israel. Netanyahu wants the Palestinian state demilitarised lest they become “Iranian-sponsored terror enclaves.” The Palestinians, while not objecting to this demand have kept it open for the negotiations.
As per Reuters, the issue has been severely complicated by the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are run by different Palestinian parties, which are virulently opposed to each other. Hamas Islamists, who govern Gaza, denounce the notion of direct talks and do not recognise Israel’s right to exist. Hamas’ military wing, the Izz al-Din Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for an attack, which killed four Israelis in West Bank, calling it a “heroic operation”. While Netanyahu has not blinked yet these attacks could tilt the negotiations in favour of detractors of talks in Israel.
Israeli settlements Mahmoud Abbas has called for a total freeze on the expansion of settlements built by Israel on land it captured in the 1967 war. That would be in line with a commitment Israel made under a 2003 US-backed peace ‘road map’. Netanyahu imposed a 10-month halt to new housing starts in West Bank settlements that expires on 26 September. He did not apply the measure to East Jerusalem, captured from Jordan in 1967, and has not committed to extending the West Bank moratorium. Palestinians say all settlements should be evacuated, and along with the World Court and major powers, consider them illegal. Israel has said it intends to keep several major settlements in any future peace deal, a move that could result in territorial swaps with the Palestinians.
Jerusalem Palestinians want East Jerusalem, which includes the Old City and its sites sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians, to be the capital of the state they aim to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Netanyahu has said Jerusalem would remain Israel’s “indivisible and eternal” capital. Israel’s claim to the eastern part of Jerusalem is not recognised internationally.
Refugees Palestinian negotiators have signalled they would accept “a just and agreed-upon” solution for refugees who fled or were forced to leave in the war of Israel’s creation in 1948. Israel says any resettlement of Palestinian refugees must occur outside of its borders.
Early Prognosis
The scars are deep, mistrust complete and the domestic pressures intense to holding any meaningful give and take at this stage. Whether Netanyahu will be able to stop the construction in the West Bank settlements will primarily decide the fate of the talks as September 26 does not give him enough levey to dither further. He will have to take a call on that count. It is no gainsaying the fact that Obama has a lot at stake here in the field of foreign policy and would have pressurised the two privately to at least agree to talk directly at regular intervals. If anything these talks could deliver agenda for further talks and to that extent would not be termed as failure.
Netanyahu’s coalition could very well abandon him if he agrees to extend the soon-to-be-expired ten-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank. Abbas, meanwhile, lacks the formal support of any faction of his government heading into the negotiations. Abbas, plagued by the Hamas, has a problem with the back door and has to find a solution. Netanyahu knows this and is likely to play hard ball initially for his domestic audience. While Abbas and Netanyahu are risking their governments, there is a ray of hope that signs of momentum will compel the critics to squelch their opposition.
Coming into the talks, NY Times on 21 August had articulated that, “There is little confidence — close to none — on either side that the Obama administration’s goal of reaching a comprehensive deal in one year can be met.” Now that Michelle is on board and Obama has rolled up his sleeves – there is every reason to believe that there will be some headway. Quoting from the same post
Haim Assa, who served as a close political consultant to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the 1990s and continues to advise centrist Israeli leaders, said that even though the talks were between the Israelis and Palestinians, the power of success was with the Americans.
“The main player is the United States,” he said. “All the cards are in its hands. When the U.S. leaves Iraq it will want to put together a coalition of Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians. These talks are central to that happening. If they push and take it seriously, they can do it.”
The two heads of states are on their way back after what they publically called ”cordial and constructive” talks where they decided to work on the “framework of further Negotiations”. The two are meeting again after two weeks. Speculations on the private component of the talks between the two heads of states fighting for their country’s honour and their own survival may not be constructive right now.
While Obama is “cautiously hopeful” to find a solution, he has put the entire weight of his government behind success of the talks in some measure palatable to the Israelis and the Muslim World. It is here that he wants to redeem some lost ground on Bush’s War on Terror being called the War on Islam.
Can Obama risk considering a one state solution based on secular values and principles? Can he convince the two to beat de Klerk and Mandela? The questions are many and there is always more than one way – the other way. Risking the untrodden utopian path may finally be the best solution. The challenges are too many and the detractors infinite – one mistake and this fragile effort may blow into a naught.
Going into the peace talks early in his presidency he has the advantage of time to see the process through. For now, he has his eye on the ball – let us see if he can putt well!
Analysts are an intriguing lot. They want to analyse, dissect and lay bare all aspects of an issue till the issue pleads for mercy. Indus Waters are one such issue which analysts are very fond of raking up as it attracts eyeballs being an Indo Pak affair. More so, the floods have focused attention of the world on the waters so why not bring it up?
The fact that there is a model for sharing resources of all the six rivers flowing into Pakistan through the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 is known. The fact is that the Indus water Treaty has so far stood the test of time. Few countries in the world have signed and honoured such treaties as the two nations have; a fact often forgotten. India has just accepted the Bagliar Award and Pakistan has accepted publicly India’s assurance of no diversion of Chenab waters. India also has the Ganges Agreement with Bangla Desh that has held in place regardless of ups and downs.
Some perspectives from an award winning essay are here. What at times remains hidden behind the facade of politicking on the issue is the management of these resource. Whether India or Pakistan like it or not the glaciers are melting. Soon, I can’t predict how soon, the flooding will cease to be the problem in favour of droughts causing mayhem of gigantic proportions.What will we share when the source dries out. Steven Solomon, the author of “Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization ”has this to say on the issue in The NY Times :
This is because a widespread water shortage in Pakistan would further destabilize the fractious country, hurting its efforts to root out its resident international terrorists. The struggle for water could also become a tipping point for renewed war with India. The jihadists know how important the issue is: in April 2009, Taliban forces launched an offensive that got within 35 miles of the giant Tarbela Dam, the linchpin of Pakistan’s hydroelectric and irrigation system.
and
The Pakistanis may never come to love us. But as the current spectacle of Islamic jihadists bringing emergency aid to flooded areas warns us, we can’t afford to ignore Pakistan’s looming freshwater crisis.
David Rothkopf writing in Foreign Policy(FP) argues that Obama should use his visit in November as an opportunity to get India and Pakistan to talk water and resolve other vexed issues based on a “Nudge” model by America. Nothing wrong with the argument theoretically. Will it also apply to Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and terror? In this complex and most dangerous conflict of interests between the two neighbours, reason has seldom had a chance. Some in the West strategic circles argue that the US government is still not doing as much as it should in terms of contributing at a systemic level to helping the Pakistanis and Indians turn this nightmare (floods) into a strategically significant trust-building event. An Indian view is here.
The American media overdrive focusing on water is a clear effort to get India and Pakistan to talk – somehow, in the best American interests. Water is just one such excuse through which the self appointed interlocutors may spur even track two negotiations by highlighting the acute shortage of fresh water in Pakistan.
However the American interests are not as important as putting up a review of water sharing in the region including India, Pakistan, China and Bangladesh. This is a big bite to be taken one at a time but finally the relationship between Indus river system, the Ganges and Tsangpo has to be strengthened to mutually benefit the region.
Of interest to note is that China has signed no treaty and also does not recognise the UN Protocol on water sharing by upper and mid riparians.
It thus has problems with Russia, Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, India, Bangla Desh, and Pak on water sharing as all its decisions with respect to water have been unilateral. In light of this discussion, America’s polite intervention may be to score over public opinion in Pakistan. China it may not. Obama knows that the real problem is with the upper riparian, China, which US will not be willing to buck.
“What we need is a trans-boundary water opportunity analysis”. Transcending from “dividing” to “sharing” the resources, as articulated by A Rafay Alam, a respected Pakistani in the “News” in July this year. A bold piece considering the traditional rivalries between India and Pakistan where each side has an attitude focusing on a blame game. Then there is the mistrust that characterises Indo-Pakistani relations, gross mismanagement of water resources within Pakistan, outdated irrigation practices, poorly planned agricultural zoning, a rising population and resultant water scarcity that make “discussion” mandatory beyond Kashmir and terror. Whether the politicians on both sides will agree to such a discussion is a major stumling block towards creating a universally acceptable formula that creates a win-win situation for both the nations – even if it has to be brokered by Obama.
For Obama this may be a necessity borne out of diffusing tensions between the two nuclear neighbours as his “big-ticket” outcome of the Indian visit but for the region it is more a matter of survival. The fact that the West originated debate is being picked up in South Asia is a factor of Western world’s attempt to facilitate some progress on Indo Pakistan relations that have a direct impact on the “India Centric Pakistan”. This according to the West will open the doors for other bilateral issues to be resolved. Some in America see this as a strategic opportunity towards perception management post the floods.
Finally, however, the solution has to be based on an economic resource sharing formula that benefits both sides, as per observations of Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel Memorial Prize winner for Economic Sciences this year for her study of shared resources. This may appear to be a motivated article from a Western world view but as is the case in all the water wars since biblical times, this is as good an opportunity as any other to get a move on the subject. However, the issue of upper and lower riparian meets a dead-end when it comes to China and whether Obama would want to push his luck here is a matter of debate.
Alam suggests a track II channel to discuss this issue till adequate political will is generated on both sides – I differ. The track II channel in an Indo Pakistani environment is prone to sabotage by the establishment as has been the experience in the past. This cat has to be belled despite her ferocity. It would also tilt international opinion in favour of the region – especially Pakistan.
Utopian, but if followed it may end up as a formula with China(??) and Bangladesh too – water for peace! An earlier discussion Water Wars had articulated a similar thought.
The foreign policy experts need to leverage this great resource to harbinger peace in the region.
The question nonetheless is, “Will Obama bite the bait and will hawks in India and Pakistan let him?”
Obama’s watered down version of “Mission Accomplished” statement originating from the Oval office, rather than a warship on high seas, is indicative of a lot that America has endured in Iraq and is likely to endure in Afghanistan. These wars were not Obama’s choices but inheritance. Inheritance that he was well seized of when he took the plunge for presidency. That Afghanistan today has turned into Obama’s Iraq is a well known fact. As the Time articulates:
In his 2007 Iraq address, Obama cited his own words from the famous October 2002 speech he gave opposing the then coming Iraq invasion: Obama warned that the war could lead to “a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” It was a prescient warning. But in a twist of fate, those words might also apply to Obama’s troubled war in Afghanistan. As if commemorating America’s inconclusive exit from Iraq wasn’t already hard enough.
The biggest criticism, though, is that President Obama fudged on his campaign promise to end the war and remove all troops from the country by May 2010. Perceptions of a ‘complete withdrawal” remain contested across the political landscape in US.
Then there is this major blot on the US interventionism in foreign countries from Vietnam to Afghanistan – America never went in either of these places with a clear end state in mind. Like in Vietnam,in Iraq, US fell into the trap of mission creep. Their initial rationale was to find and eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
In their absence the US stayed on to topple Saddam Hussein’s government and dismantle his political party, military and government services. Once they had destroyed a brutal but none-the-less functioning government, they set up a U.S.-led Provisional Authority to replace it.
And then they stuck around to help write them a constitution, hold democratic elections, form a government, and train new military and security forces.
Afghanistan appears headed the same way but will be a much harder nut to crack. US is repeating the same mistakes here too – End State! But they have the advantage of Pakistan fighting with and against them in this war to complicate issues further. Interestingly, Iran remains the common factor in both these conflicts. The power vacuum that Obama leaves behind has been articulated well by Guardian in this post.
Answering the basic question of conditions conducive to a pull out, – the American perspective is clear – America seems to have had enough of this war in blood and money and wants out. Perfectly understandable after seven long years in combat for oil. Iraq has also paid in blood and oil for Saddam’s fictional weapons of mass destruction. An estimated expenditure of $ 750 billions ( more than a trillion if you count add ons in terms of managing the war casualties) has done little more than established the image of America as a war monger in a “War on Islam”, producing more anti american Jihadis in the bargain. This has magnified the threats to American homeland security manifold.
Iraq is still in a turmoil and suffers more civilian casualties at the hands of other Iraqis than the Americans. The Republic of Iraq or the Iraqi al Qaeda is more powerfultoday than ever. As per an APestimate the number of civilians killed in July in Iraq exceed the number of casualties in Afghanistan.
The Shia – Sunni divide is wider now than ever with Iran ready to extract its pound of flesh. The Kurds would be awaiting their turn in the governance model which will generate more conflict. More than 4,400 US troops have died in Iraq since the invasion, a number dwarfed by the estimated 100,000 civilians killed, according to Iraq Body Count.
As per Iraqi diaspora Saddam’s days were better in all hues of civil life. The systems worked and there was general happiness barring a few dictatorial glitches. Iraqis seemed unconvinced that the official end of US combat operations would herald an improvement in security. As per Middle East observers, the U.S. cuts and runs, have paved the way for Iran to declare victory. Iran has emerged the only beneficiary of the U.S. occupation and its withdrawal. Iraqis now think of their security, of their livelihood, of their wealth, their country’s future and the future of their children.While many Iraqis have welcomed the withdrawal, others say they believe it is happening too soon and that the country is not ready to manage its own security. Al Zazeera ran a debate on Iraq after America recently. The deliberations argued that peace would be fragile and America may have to return.
The withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq has begun and by the end of August there will be fewer than 50,000 left in the country. But although the so-called combat brigades may be gone, they are being replaced by equal numbers of contractors. And just this week, on one day alone, 13 separate attacks across the country provided a chilling reminder of the perilous conditions confronting the local forces.
With violence on the increase and politicians locked in a stalemate, can the Iraqiarmy ensure the country’s security or will US soldiers have to return?
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says that the conditions are conducive for a US draw down in an “Independent” Iraq,which as per Biden is not disengagement.
“If the politicians continue fighting on the chairs, the situation will get worse,” as per Salah Abu al-Qassim, 36, a trader in Shorja market in central Baghdad.
Much against Maliki’s claims the political situation in Iraq is still fragile. As per media reports,Iraq’s top army officer, Lieutenant General Babaker Zebari, warned on August 11 that a complete withdrawal of US troops at the end of 2011 was premature, and urged politicians that the American military should stay until 2020.
Many believe that by 1973, the U.S. military had a formula in place that would end its involvement in Vietnam and ensure South Vietnam’s stability after the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Yet after the signing of the Paris peace agreement that year, Congress began cutting Nixon administration requests for military and economic assistance to South Vietnam. Two years later, Saigon fell to North Vietnam. Congress must not repeat the mistakes of the Vietnam era and cut off support to Iraq as our forces redeploy. Fortunately, the differences between post-combat Iraq and post-combat Vietnam are greater than their similarities. Only the most strident antiwar critics reject the success of the surge in Iraq. Even Obama, a onetime critic of the strategy, now recognizes its success.
Experts and think tanks in US would be busy finding similarities in lessons learnt in Iraq for application in Afghanistan.The main being the enormous difficulties of trying to force a country into a political system that the majority of its citizens neither want nor are prepared to sustain on their own.
Hopefully the 50,000 left behind don’t push their luck too far. We hope Obama’s prophecy of “a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences is proved wrong and this cycle of “invasion, surge and withdrawal” thought through as the biggest lesson of contemporary military history.
India today is passing through interesting and challenging times along its periphery. Pakistan, with its focus on Afghanistan despite the floods, has not lost its balance, and continues fomenting trouble in Kashmir and elsewhere in India. Kayani, with an extended term on American insistence, has redoubled his efforts at keeping India out of any progress in Indo Pak relations. This was evident in routing India’ s aid through UN and disallowing Indian aid workers visas.
The situation in Afghanistan is spiralling out of control for the US and Pakistan is trying its best to keep India out of any political settlement there. This blog has covered this aspect extensively.
China has opened up another front for India with pressure all along the LAC, as evident from a range of its actions in the region – from denying Visas to Kashmiris to asserting its claims on Arunachal Pradesh. The Chinese military developments in Tibet are a cause for concern at Delhi.
Further, the Chinese policy of “String of Pearl with Golden Beads” has put additional strain on relationship between the two countries. Pakistan is the prized golden bead and is always keen to provide collusive support to China. Then there are Nepal, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka, where the increasing Chinese influence is giving India sleepless nights. This complicates the two front theory. Thus pressure is being put on India from two and more fronts even without going to war. In addition, there are bound to be proxy pressures mounted on India from the string of pearls. The Indian response mechanism can not overlook this and therefore has to keep all options open and work accordingly to manage its resources.
The discussions in the previous post amply highlight that India will have to maintain its trajectory despite China. Strategically China will continue to talk of peace but the tactical needling to keep India off balance will be its preferred option. Especially, with collusive Pakistani support. The larger aim would be to keep India engaged with Pakistan while maintaining pressure along a score of disputed issues. Ajay Das responding to the previous post has made an interesting but realistic observation:
Few pacifists amongst Indian strategic community often highlight asymmetries in Sino-Indian economic growth rates; military capabilities; infrastructure etc to make Indian leadership believe the futility of competing with China – ohh, we can’t catch up attitude. Let’s remember that POLITICAL WILL which represents NATIONAL WILL in a democracy, is a key component of NATIONAL POWER. China itself is nowhere near to achieving parity with US economic, technological or military might, yet it successfully applies its NATIONAL POWER against the US and other nations – it is more a manifestation of its POLITICAL WILL than the mere summation of its hard and soft elements of power. Let us face it squarely that there is no option for India to compete with China, deter and even overwhelm its anti-India moves. For that to happen, a time-bound capability enhancement program has to be in place and then pursued.This must be preceded by articulating and stating India’s strategic intent most unambiguously.
The text in bold is India’s gravest weakness as articulated in four previous posts. If only India had a strategic decision making structure which could articulate it’s short and long term strategic vision, it would have managed a better periphery – possibly a periphery of peace. This would need intelligent commitment of resources and application of policies in pursuance of National Interests. A strategic relationship with America could hold the key to emerging picture in the sub continent – a possibility which may fructify during Obama’s November visit – if all goes well.
Border management is one of the important aspects in India’s internal as well as external security. The country has 15106 km of land border running through 92 districts in 17 states and a coastline of 7516 km touching 13 states and union territories. India’s total number of islands is 1197 which accounts to a stretch of 2094 km additional border or coastline. This compounds the problems of internal security and border management manifold. Even in peace the commitment and demands on security forces ties down bulk of the security forces in border management.
The Beleaguered Backyard
The rise of fundamentalism and separatist activity in the valley, even though for material gains to Pakistan, is a headache Indian Security establishment would have wanted to wish away at a time when democratic forces were making some headway in stabilising the situation there. The political turmoil as a result of the stone pelters undermines the efforts of the ruling NC / Congress government, exposes the chinks in the political processes and marginalises the masses. The post ” The Larger Game ” has covered this adequately.
The reader participation clearly suggests that concerted political efforts are required to steer the valley towards peace. Simultaneously the security forces have to graduate to the new paradigms of riot control while keeping the insurgency under check.
North East continues to burn and no political solutions appear to be in sight. The issue of Nagalim and resultant blockade of Manipur exposes our claims that situation has been brought under control.
Naxalism has gained potency, courtesy our political and bureaucratic mismanagement, and now stares at us as the biggest threat to National Security. The stories Dantewada Again and NaxalRage cover most of the aspects of management of this bleeding ulcer. The ultimate measure of success, though can only be a qualitative improvement in the quality of life of the people of the Red Corridor, through a composite approach. There is growing evidence that the Naxals are being funded and fueled by our adversaries who are fishing in the troubled waters here.
I dare not enter into the domain of right wing violence and economic wars being unleashed against the country lest it prompts the readers to ask “What is Right”?.
Prognosis
Considering the troubles along the periphery and our beleaguered backyard, we need to get our act together in putting suitable structures and mechanisms at the National and state levels to take stock of these multiple threats. Being strictly matters of National Security, they need to be manned and managed by experts in the field who have spent a life time managing security. Generalists won’t do, Generals will. These structured mechanisms need to articulate and develop suitable road maps to take us out of the mess we are in. Coherently and collectively.
To end this piece from an observation from a very respected analyst would be in order:
Hambantotta was first offered to us by Sri Lanka. We demurred, because of appeasing the Tamils…It is again on offer for Phase 2 devp. Will we agree? I wonder.
Pak is something that obsesses us and methinks, quite unfairly at that. I do think we need to move on and not have a bleeding heart if they self destruct, because even when they do, there is precious little we can or would do about it. Kautilya’s realpolitik is indeed needed by us. Our real worry is China in the long term and in the shorter term, getting our smaller neighbours less Pak to bat for us.
The real problem is that we do not have cognisable Perspective Planning and we exclude the military from national decision making. Also, there is no follow up on military gains in Counter Insurgency operations (see Kashmir) because politicians distrust the military/do not comprehend national strategic needs and methods. Ends, Ways and Means are neither taught at Mussourie nor Parliament. Cleverness and obfuscation is, laced in endemic corruption and professional immorality. Shame.
It is time we focused on this vital aspect of governance. Knee jerk reactions will keep us mired in trouble from all fronts and burn the backyard – deeper.
The latest round of events of snapping Defence ties based on rejection of Visa to a General has cast a shadow over the uneasy relations between the two Asian Tigers and has started a fresh debate on the Sino Indian relations.
The relations between the two neighbours have never been easy at the best of times, ever since the 1962 War. However despite booming trade between the two countries this recent bout of needling appears to be motivated. Of late China has increased the stakes in Arunachal Pradesh and issued “plain paper” visas to Indians born in Jammu and Kashmir. Then there was the uproar about Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh. Increased border violations have been noticed in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese activities in Indian neighbourhood – its plans to dam the Brahmaputra and extend the Tibet rail link into Nepal are other aspects of continuing Chinese assertiveness. The operationalisation of rail and additional air infrastructure in Tibet for the first time are again signals of an assertive China.
This post, though not related to the incident perse, throws some light on the dynamics of “and” or “versus” theories in the relationship between the two countries. Then there are colours of American and Pakistan relations painting this relationship.
What we hear least about is the tangled weave of national interests that means China courts Pakistan as a proxy for it’s own competition with India, to the point where Pakistani experts concede that, given a choice between alliance with the US or China, Pakistan’s military will choose China “every day of the week, and twice on Fridays”.
This relationship is at the back of a lot of Chinese man oeuvres in the region to keep America and India at bay.
As per Vikram Sood, the ex Chief of RAW, US and China have their own geostrategic rivalries to settle, and the Chinese may have assessed that their moment has come.
“Yet China remains concerned with its intricate trade and financial links with the US, and also with the security ofits trade and supply routes that transit the Malacca Straits. It has endeavoured to develop extensive land routesthrough Central Asia, but these are inadequate. It is a matter of time before China will make its presence more visible in the Indian Ocean. It has port facilities in Hambantota and Gwadar, and a presence in the Arabian Sea as it battles Somali pirates. China has expanded its contacts with Iran, more in competition with Russia than the US, it seeks mineral wealth in Afghanistan, its relations with Pakistan need no elucidation and it has developed strong ties with Burma.” This Burmese angle may resolve China’s Malacca Dilemma.
China’s enunciation of its strategic interests in South China Sea and the Yellow Sea through naval exercises as a caution on US – Korean enterprise in Jul 2010 is a reminder that China is now ready to assert itself. Thus while we may agonise over challenges across our land frontiers, we would be ignoring the new challenge in the Indian Ocean unless we plan countermeasures now. He further articulates that:
China pretty much owns Pakistan and will own Afghanistan within a decade. India would be better served, in my opinion, by turning its back upon both in their entirety, rather than shackle itself to a ball and chain designed by China. Although national pride demands that something, anything, be “done now” about terrorism, the truth is that such attacks are gnats stinging an elephant, doing more damage by distraction than by the pain they inflict.
The recent concessions by Pakistan to China over the Karakoram highway and now greater autonomy to PLA Army to operate in Gilgit and Baltistan underscores Pakistan’s need to play by Chinese rules in keeping India away. In the bargain connecting China to Iran for gas and trade.
As per this report in BBC, India can match China in next 20 years, if it retains its focus and manages its maritime interests unshackled from the tactical friction on its Western borders.China and India, accounting for roughly 40% of the 6.5bn plus people on PlanetEarth, are not merely the two fastest growing major economies in the world at present, but are among the few countries that have continued to expand at a time when the economies of most countries have contracted. The article also asks the pertinent economic question, “Can the lumbering elephant overtake the hyperactive dragon?” But that is an economic assessment of 2009 and even if were to happen, “Can the two march together – geopolitically?”
Check this out for the relationship matrix between India and China:
China has strategically allied itself with Pakistan in a geopolitical move against India which concentrates as much on economics as on military support – although in Pakistan’s military-heavy economy the two are inseparable. For instance, dredging the harbor at Gwadar has given both China and Pakistan an important economic asset as well as China an advance naval base. But the overall aim of Chinese sub-continent policy, and its alliance with Pakistan, is to cut off India’s overland access to Europe, the Middle East and Asia while enhancing China’s own.That’s why Afghanistan is the battleground for these geopolitical rivals. Between Pakistan and China, India is effectively blocked from land routes into the continent, effectively an island should its rivals wish it.
In deference to China and wooing Pakistan for an Afghan exit, America appears to have forgotten India almost entirely. Although Indians must pursue their own strategic independence, that’s no reason why America and India should not have closer ties which would help India see its national interests as more parallel to America’s. In that respect, George Bush got something right and Obama seems to be floundering.
However, the American people are howling at the gates of Congress to end these trillion dollar, decade-long wars of occupation and aggression, and there is simply no conceivable military solution to any of our problems – whether that’s Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or even Iran. Diplomacy has to be the way to go. Huffington Post of 25 Aug explains this. A must read into the political and diplomatic muddle that the triumvirate has gotten Pakistan into.
This is where Obama finds himself in a logjam if he does not take India on board. In the present geopolitical environment America has to find a regional solution to the Afghan mess and think beyond Pakistan. The two names that come to mind immediately are India and China. How, has been discussed in an earlier post “Afghanistan after America”. Economically though, China is edging past America to be the next super power which complicates this relationship.
Theoretically speaking, the two Asian giants need to come together to make this century a truly Asian one. But there are impediments of geopolitics, suspicion and of course Pakistan. Pragmatic realism demands a multiple track diplomacy with China and USA which fructifies “India and China” rather than “India Versus China”.
The irritants of the present must thus be tackled from a position of equality with clear Quid Pro Quo.
This (right) is a satellite picture of the devastating path of the Indus that has rendered 4 million homeless and affected 20 million. This NY Times imagery gives a bird’s eye view of the extent of the calamity. Putting the pieces of this devastation back would be a herculean task for any government. Especially a government that is seen to be ineffective and living at the mercy of Kayani and his cahoots in the Army. The Taliban have added to the woes of the people by proclaiming a war against foreign aid workers and ministers in the government.
This update is debilitating when the country is reeling under such a disaster. If ever a country were ready for a coup, it is Pakistan. Voices in Pakistan, which can still access internet, are euphoric about an imminent march of Kayani to the presidential palace. Altaf Hussein, the MQM leader is asking generals to fulfill their patriotic duty by taking over the reigns of the country and redistributing land, held by the feudal landlords, amongst the masses.However Con Coughlin in this discourse argues that the military appears reluctant to bite the bait for a variety of reason. This reluctance appears to be borne out of Kayani’s preoccupation with Afghanistan or Af Pak and his ability to rule without having to govern Pakistan. Musharraf, though, seems to have repeated his bid to govern the country, if Kayani permits.
In the meanwhile, Zardari and Gilani have hit the ground running and find the chinks in their governance model exposed. Statistically speaking, 20 million people seem to have been affected(some argue the figure is 6.5 million), more than 1600 killed and about 80,000 have been marooned with helicopters being the only connectivity. At a time when 40 more helicopters are needed for relief drops by the UN relief agencies, only 13 are available. The floods have laid bare the Pakistani establishment’s hands off governance model, exposed the feudal land lords and ruined the country’s infrastructure beyond immediate relief.
Zardari, also known as Mr Ten Percent who has amassed more than a billion pounds, has donated only $58,000, less than Angelina Jolie‘s $ 100,000 contribution to the Pakistan floods. Fatima Bhutto has termed this as “Zardari’s Caterina”.
In a country where most of the agricultural wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few feudal landlords, the misery being experienced by millions of dispossessed and impoverished citizens is inevitably going to stoke the fires of dissent.
The marginalisation and alienation of the poor in Pakistan today is phenomenal. In the province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwala(KP), dominated by the Pashtuns, the alienation is complete as Pashtuns claim that Islamabad has favoured Punjab over KP for political reasons. Of the 1,600 confirmed dead, 1,086 people died in the northwestern KP province, 183 in northern Gilgit-Baltistan district, 109 in southern Sindh, 103 in central Punjab, 71 in Pakistan-administeredKashmir and 48 in southwestern Baluchistan. These disproportionate deaths have angered the provincial council of KP further.
Amidst all this chaos and suffering, the Pakistani militant group Tehrik-e Taliban(TTP) plans to conduct attacks against foreigners participating in the ongoing flood relief operations in Pakistan. The US government also believes that the “federal and provincial ministers” may be at risk. TTPs threat may be in direct support to the militant cadres and Islamic charities spreading their sphere of influence during this adversity. The UN has however stated that it would continue with the relief operations.
The U.S. interest in Pakistan goes beyond helping flood victims as Pakistan is a key strategic ally in the battle in Af Pak. Analysts contend that the United States can ill afford to let a lack of Western aid increase the influence of charities associated with militant groups. But whether the outpouring of donations from U.S. taxpayers can appease the Pakistani public, many of whom resent U.S. drone strikes in the country’s north, is uncertain. A recent Pew Survey found nearly six of 10 Pakistanis view the United States as an enemy. It is this sentiment which is being exploited by the terror groups to strengthen their hold on the average patriotic Pakistani.
Looking ahead, as the flood waters advance south towards the sea, they leave behind them a trail of death, disease and destruction never experienced in living memory.
Out of these disease will claim many more lives as medical aid is scantily available, especially where people have been marooned. The worst has still to be experienced in Southern Sindh.The magnitude will only increase as the flood waters recede. The world may have pledged an aid of $ one billion but the problem is who will disburse it and manage the disaster now.
Indian hearts bleed for their Pakistani brethren but Pakistani rulers are willing to sacrifice their own people rather than accept relief operations by India.
It is suicide to block Indians Visas at a time like this. It could get ridiculous enough to accuse US and India, with Afghan connivance, to have engineered the floods by controlling monsoons and river waters. Such is the politics being played over the lives of people when the SAARC disaster management mechanism could have been put in place immediately.
Then there is the feedback from these countries being subjected to this regional rivalry. This media report in Sri Lanka on the eve of visit of the Army Chief General VK
Singh is largely reflective of how this shadow boxing is perceived in the region:
appointed interlocutors may spur even track two negotiations by highlighting the acute shortage of fresh water in Pakistan.
biggest threat to National Security. The stories 
than 
