from Afghan Journal:
India-Afghan strategic pact:the beginnings of regional integration
A strategic partnership agreement between India and Afghanistan would ordinarily have evoked howls of protest from Pakistan which has long regarded its western neighbour as part of its sphere of influence. Islamabad has, in the past, made no secret of its displeasure at India's role in Afghanistan including a$2 billion aid effort that has won it goodwill among the Afghan people, but which Pakistan sees as New Delhi's way to expand influence.
Instead the reaction to the pact signed last month during President Hamid Karzai's visit to New Delhi, the first Kabul had done with any country, was decidedly muted. Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani said India and Afghanistan were "both sovereign countries and they have the right to do whatever they want to." The Pakistani foreign office echoed Gilani's comments, adding only that regional stability should be preserved. It cried off further comment, saying it was studying the pact.
It continued to hold discussions, meanwhile, on the grant of the Most Favoured Nation to India as part of moves to normalise ties. Late last month the cabinet cleared the MFN, 15 years after New Delhi accorded Pakistan the same status so that the two could conduct trade like nations do around the world, even those with differences.
And on Thursday, Gilani met Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh on the margins of a regional summit in the Maldives and the two promised a new chapter in ties, saying the next round of talks between officials as part of an engagement on a range of issues will produce results. Afghanistan or the pact, was scarcely mentioned in public, although it is quite conceivable that the two would have talked about it.
Is there a shift in the ground, in both India and Pakistan ? Pakistan is battling multiple crises, including ties with the United States that at the moment certainly look worse than those with India. It is also struggling to tackle a melange of militant groups that have metastasized into a mortal danger for the Pakistani state itself and a deep economic downturn that a nation of 180 million people can ill-afford at this time. While it continues to invest time and energy in Afghanistan, a large part of the war has come home too and it is struggling to enforce its writ on its side of the Pasthun-dominated lands that straddle the two countries. A lessening of tensions with India can only help at this point.
India, meanwhile, has shot out of the blocks building a trillion-dollar economy that dwarfs everyone else's in the region, not just in size but also growth rates even if it is slowing down now. It still has a long way to go to meet the aspirations of a billion plus people and realise its own potential, though. It needs peace within and on the borders and it needs closer economic ties with all its neighbours. Its economic stakes are rising across the region including Afghanistan where Indian firms, along with the Chinese who preceded them, are the only ones prepared to risk blood and treasure to exploit its mineral resources. Conversely if a pomegranate farmer in southern Afghanistan- the Taliban heartland - wants to sell his produce to the booming Indian market, New Delhi wants to do whatever it can to try and make that possible.
Mistrust, Afghan insecurity loom over Indo-Pak talks
By Annie Banerji
As India and Pakistan begin diplomatic talks between the two countries’ foreign secretaries, Pew Research Centre published a survey this week that shows Pakistanis are strongly critical of India and the United States as well.
Even though there has been a slew of attacks by the Taliban on Pakistani targets since Osama bin Laden’s killing in May, the Pew Research publication illustrates that three in four Pakistanis find India a greater threat than extremist groups.
In similar fashion, 65 percent of Indians expressed an unfavourable view of Pakistan, seeing it as a bigger threat than the LeT, an active militant Islamic organisation operating mainly from Pakistan and Maoist militants operating in India.
Moreover, a majority of Pakistanis disapproved of the U.S. military operation that killed Osama bin Laden in his Abbottabad compound, located 35 miles from Islamabad. Only 12 percent expressed a positive view of the U.S. and most Pakistanis view the U.S. as an enemy, consider it a potential military threat and oppose American-led anti-terrorism efforts.
In the midst of these unflattering opinions that India and Pakistan share of each other, U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next summer comes to the foreground as Washington’s expectation is to see India and Pakistan jointly fill its shoes. However, India feels it will be left to babysit a dangerous neighbourhood riddled with militancy.
Though both countries wish to have improved relations, Pakistan worries about India’s influence in Afghanistan as it would have to defend both its eastern and western borders from what it sees as its existential threat. In the same way, New Delhi fears the possibility of its nuclear-armed neighbour and the Taliban filling the vacuum left by the U.S. troops.
The show must go on; the majority of Indians and Pakistanis do not want peace, but a continued war with each other, until the other party has been annihilated. This is their destiny and many of the leaders who went into dialogues to talk about talks and negotiations about the disputes ended the talks by adding new issues to the main conflict of Kashmir. The leaders of both countries have been the masters of deceit, duplicity and betrayal outwitting even the spin master of Politics, the famous Machiavelli. They have never tried sincerely to protect people’s interests or those of the coming generations, inspite of their supposed commitment to fairness and justice for their people.In the meantime they have acquired enough lethal weapons to annihilate each other, the genuine desire of both parties.
Rex Minor
India no angel in dangerous neighbourhood
By Annie Banerji
Perhaps the finger-pointing at neighbouring Pakistan and the talk of Afghan militancy destabilising the region that New Delhi so often rolls out should be reconsidered. The neighbourhood may well be dangerous, but India is no model pupil.
According to the 2011 Global Peace Index, an initiative of the Institute of Economics and Peace, which evaluates 153 countries based on the level of ongoing conflict, safety and security and militarisation, India is the world’s 135th most peaceful country, falling seven positions from last year.
This year’s rankings, which indicated a decline in the levels of peace for the third consecutive year overall, placed Iceland in the top spot as the most peaceful country and Somalia as the world’s least.
India’s performance is high on some of the indicators, for instance, level of organised internal conflict, political instability, and relations with neighbouring countries, for which reason India is a part of the 20 least peaceful countries in the world along with Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan.
India’s unfortunate state of safety and security not only emerges largely from religious conflict with active groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Students’ Islamic Movement of India, but also Naxalism, an ideology of militant Communist groups. Terror activity is not concentrated in a particular region in India, but it has poisonously seeped into almost all areas of the country.
Starting from the north, with the perennial conflict of Jammu and Kashmir due to political and religious imbalances to the north-east, where there are tensions between state governments, the central government and the tribal people. Central India is infested with Naxalist insurgency, which in the past week caused the death of nine police officers.
I do not know how authentic these studies are. There is no clear information on how the information was obtained, the sources of the information and whether any verification was done at all. Most of these surveys are done by Western countries where they inject their perceived bias and apprehension into these surveys, thereby projecting a demoniacal image of countries that do not entirely agree with their vision of the world. I’d say, based on this survey, Antarctica is the most peaceful place on earth.
If one takes a country like the USA, gun culture is legally permitted. People can own automatic and semi-automatic weapons, grenade launchers and what not. Once in a while people get shot in shopping malls and work places by frustrated or mentally deranged individuals. Safety is a big concern there. People get shot when getting mugged by school kids. Drug gangs have proliferated across big metros. Cops can shoot and kill anyone. They just have to make up the evidence. In places like Australia, racial attacks have increased. Indians are targeted and attacked. If the world is gauged from an Indian standpoint or that of an African, the rest of the world does not appear that safe.
I do not deny India’s own problems. Things were much worse before compared to now. Every country has its criminals. Therefore I am not so worried about these surveys which are amateurish at best.
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Wikileaks on Pakistan
In the State Department cables released by Wikileaks and so far reported, the most eye-catching as far as Pakistan is concerned is a row with Washington over nuclear fuel.
According to the New York Times, the cables show:
"A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
The Pakistan Army is deeply sensitive about any questions on the safety of its nuclear weapons. The country is also often awash with conspiracy theories accusing the Americans of harbouring secret plans to dismantle the nuclear weapons.
That said, the row reported by the NYT appeared to have been about HEU at a nuclear research reactor rather than the weapons themselves, so it may turn out to be less dramatic than it appears. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are considered to be well-guarded although analysts have cited a risk of militants trying to seize nuclear material which they might use to make a dirty bomb. (For a factbox on Pakistan's nuclear weapons, see here).
Of potentially huge significance for Pakistan are cables, reported in The Guardian, saying that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme.
"The Saudi king was recorded as having 'frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme', one cable stated. 'He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake,' the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008." The Guardian reported.
@Sumaira
And pray, may I ask who the so called ‘undercover’ terrorist organisations are that operate in the country?
Rex Minor
from Russell Boyce:
Asia – A Week in Pictures September 12, 2010
As the anniversary of the 9/11 attack coincided with Eid celebrations, Florida based Pastor Terry Jones announced that he would burn the Koran as a protest to plans to site a Muslim cultural centre near Ground Zero , stoking tensions in Asia. Add into the mix millions in Pakistan suffering from lack of water, food and shelter after floods, a parliament election in Afghanistan and a U. S. -led military campaign against the Taliban around Kandahar - photographers in the region had lots of raw material to work with.
Raheb's picture of relief and joy caught in the harsh light of a direct flash seems to explode in a release of tension as news spreads that Pastor Jones had cancelled his plans to burn the Koran. It has to be said that ironically earlier in the day in Pakistan US flags were burned in protest against the planned protest.
Afghan protestors shout anti U.S slogans as they celebrate after learning that U.S. pastor Terry Jones dropped his plans to burn copies of the Koran, in Herat, western Afghanistan September 12, 2010. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi
Also in Afghanistan Raheb's haunting image of the defaced election poster of an Afghan woman parliamentary candidate and the ghostly image of a US soldier shrouded in a haze of dust by Erik, who is on an embed with US forces, both caught my eye.
A damaged campaign poster for an Afghan woman parliament candidate is seen on a wall in Herat, western Afghanistan September 8, 2010. Taliban threats, shuttered polling centres and warnings of widespread fraud are clouding hopes for Afghanistan's Sept. 18 parliamentary election, a key test of an already fragile democracy, observers have warned. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi
from Afghan Journal:
Burying the India-Pakistan dialogue for now
The foreign ministers of India and Pakistan have returned home, licking their wounds from their latest failed engagement. Both sides are blaming each other for not only failing to make any progress, but also souring ties further, with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and his Indian counterpart S.M.Krishna openly sparring at a news conference following the talks in Islamabad. Qureshi suggested Krishna did not seem to have the full mandate to conduct negotiations because directions were being given from New Delhi throughout the day-long talks, drawing rebuke from India which said the foreign minister had been insulted on Pakistani soil.
Some people are asking why bother going through this painful exercise at this time when the chances of of the two sides making even the slightest concession are next to zero? India and Pakistan may actually be doing each other more damage by holding these high-profile, high-pressure meetings where the domestic media and the opposition in both the countries is watching for the slightest sign of capitulation by either government.
It's the world's longest running soap opera, made for great television viewing, says a blog on the Indian National Interest. "These events have become the drivers of the process each such opportunity attracting saturated media coverage and intense public scrutiny in both countries."
And these are only talks about what to talk about since they can't even agree on whether terrorism should be front and centre of the dialogue as New Delhi wants or the row over Kashmir be given top billing as Pakistan wants. "If anything, the precarious relationship between India and Pakistan deteriorated after the countries’ two foreign ministers haggled in day-long sessions on July 15 – not over substance but over what issues they would discuss and when they would discuss them," argues Michael Hughes in the Huffington Post
That's pretty much been the the way the implacable foes have approached each public engagement for several decades except for bursts of high-powered diplomacy such as Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee riding the first bus service between New Delhi to Lahore in 1999 in a dramatic gesture to breach the walls of distrust that some compared to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's trip to Israel. Some of us who followed Vajpayee to the impenetrable border thought history was being made and that the whole India-Pakistan narrative was being transformed. But, as has happened so often in the past, Vajpayee's peace-making ended in spectacular failure when three months later his government confronted hundreds of thousands of fighters backed by the Pakistani army who had occupied India's part of Kashmir.
Two years later,Vajpayee made a second bold move for peace inviting President Pervez Musharraf for talks in Agra, the city of the Taj Mahal, to try and find a way to end half a century of animosity and get the two countries to live at peace with each other. Those marathon talks, again under the harsh glare of the media camped outside the hotel where they met, ended in failure with a bitterly disappointed Musharraf - who was equally determined in his pursuit of peace - leaving for home in the dead of the night with barely a goodbye. Again, if you were there that night, you couldn't help thinking tthat the burden of expectations ultimately proved too much for the two unlikely peace-makers - Vajpayee a dyed-in-the-wool Hindu nationalist leader and Musharraf, a military general who had fought Indian forces.
The fact is neither side wants to talk but both need to show that they do.
There is more discussion in the press briefings than on what actually transpires during the discussions.They need to concentrate on the discussion itself, behind closed doors, not use the press conference to discuss issues.
I think there is scope for at least one issue on which both can agree – no more joint press conferences please.
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Pakistan’s General Kayani given three-year extension
Pakistan army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, is to be given a a three-year extension to his term of office to maintain continuity in the country's battle against Islamist militants.
Kayani, arguably Pakistan's most powerful man, had been due to retire in November. His future had been the subject of intense speculation for months, with opinion divided between the those who argued he should be given an extension for the sake of continuity, and those who said that Pakistan needed to build its institutions rather than rely on individuals - as it had done with powerful army rulers in the past.
Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, who announced the extension, said the decision to extend Kayani's term reflected "his effective role in the war against terrorism and in the enforcement of rule of law in the country."
Kayani is considered to have built a good working relationship with the United States - which needs the Pakistan Army's help in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan - prompting speculation, denied by the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, that Washington had pressed for his term of office to be extended.
He has also been the subject of intense speculation in India, where the views of the army - which controls foreign and security policy even under a civilian government - are seen as crucial to determining the fate of the faltering India-Pakistan peace process.
A former head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, Kayani has been credited with keeping the army out of politics on the whole. Military analysts also say he has redefined "strategic depth" - an old policy under which Pakistan aimed to use Afghanistan as a rear base in the event of war with India - to suggest instead that the country's strength should come from a strong economy at home. Yet under his tenure - both as the head of the ISI until 2007 and then as army chief - Pakistan has also been criticised for failing to take strong enough action against Islamist and Taliban militants.
Otherwise, relatively little is known about the thinking of the inscrutable general, who never gives public interviews. Pakistan, its neighbours and the United States and its allies fighting in Afghanistan, will now have another three years to find out.
He’s the best of the bunch. Have a look at his potential replacements to see why he should stay.
He’s also been remarkably committed to strenghthening Pakistan’s democracy….that’s a rare trait for a Pakistan Army general.
India and the U.S. – strategic or symbolic partners?
With initial euphoria over last week’s U.S.-India talks on the wane, it may be time to take a long, hard look at what New Delhi actually gained from the first official “strategic dialogue” between the two sides.
The timing was just right as Washington implements its AfPak plan, the correct gestures were made and U.S. officials went out of their way to convince the Indian media all was fine between the world’s two biggest democracies.
And while it is true that India-U.S. relations are now at their best, the June 2 talks between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and India’s Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna showed that though the two may have made progress on important but second-tier issues such as trade, agriculture and technology, there remains a disconnect on a strategic level.
Many in India seem worried the talks did not produce the deliverables New Delhi was looking for — even though President Obama has backed India’s $1.2 billion development initiatives in Afghanistan, Washington may not have been able to convince New Delhi it was balancing India’s interest in the war-torn country vital to its security.
Neither was there any talk of pushing Pakistan to go after the men India has persistently blamed for attacks on Indian cities, including Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed.
Of course there are things the United States wants India to do: ratify the nuclear liability bill to open India’s $150 billion nuclear power market to American firms, scale down its public support for Iran, open up the economy and expedite the award of contracts for 126 fighter jets in which U.S. companies are a strong contender for the multi-billion deal.
Both sides have acknowledged the lingering doubts they have about each other. Clinton admitted to unresolved problems as India frets that the Obama administration does not accord it the importance it received under the preceding government of George Bush.
India continues to lag behind in the world politics, despite its claim to democracy. How many democracies are hanging on to a territory with military force whose people do not accept Indian’s jurisdictions over them. Is there a hope for self determination for Kashmiris in the Indian democracy? Indian democracy had an love affair with the communist Soviet Union and at the same time acquired the membership of the non aligned countries who by no means were democracies.
India has warm ties with the muslim states and military ties with Israel, the arch-enemy of the muslim States. Let us forget its relations with its neighbours who equally have the colonial past. India needs to undertakes structural changes in its domestic institutions as well as develop an independent foreign policy. There is a Seat reserved for India in the world arena but India on account of its domestic policies is very reluctant to claim this seat. The change in the world order is in motion, India needs to become a Nation which can contribute for the welfare of not only its own citizens but the rest of the people in the world.
My advice would be to get rid of the economist and elect a visionary Statesman. Does India have someone like the Chinese President or the Brasilian or even the Turkish equivalent to confront the imposter Obamas “yes We can” of this world. I am surec they have one and needs to come up front now and tell the world what the new Indian leader can do for the world.
Rex Minor
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Pakistan-despite failed NY attack, change will be slow in coming
After the media frenzy following last weekend's failed car bomb attack on Times Square, you would be forgiven for thinking that something dramatic is about to change in Pakistan. The reality, however, is probably going to be much greyer.
Much attention has naturally focused on North Waziristan, a bastion for al Qaeda, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Afghan fighters including those in the Haqqani network, and the so-called "Punjabi Taliban" - militants from Punjab-based groups who have joined the battle either in Afghanistan or against the Pakistani state. The Pakistan Army is expected to come under fresh pressure to launch an offensive in North Waziristan after Faisal Shahzad, who according to U.S. authorities admitted to the failed car-bombing in Times Square, said he had received training in Waziristan. Unlike other parts of the tribal areas on the Pakistan-Afghan border, North Waziristan has so far been left largely alone.
But it is by no means clear that the Pakistan Army will be rushed into launching a big offensive in North Waziristan. It is already stretched fighting in other parts of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), including in South Waziristan, where it embarked on a major operation last year. Before starting any new offensive, it needs to be sure it is not going to be attacked from the rear, or become so thinly stretched that it loses hard-fought gains elsewhere. As one senior military official told me, you have to be very sure-footed, consolidate your gains, and make sure your bases are secure.
That said, even before the failed Times Square attack, the New York Times suggested Pakistan was beginning to weigh the possibility of tackling militants in North Waziristan. But its decision on timing is unlikely to be dictated by one incident, however dramatic. The Pakistan Army has put considerable energy into improving its image after the tarnishing of the Musharraf years, and is determined to show that when it does launch military offensives, it does so to win. And if there is one thing worse than not going into North Waziristan, it is going in there and losing.
Increased drone missile attacks on targets in North Waziristan are another option. But for drone missile strikes to be successful - taking out militant targets while limiting the civilian deaths which make them so unpopular in Pakistan - you need good intelligence on the ground. The killing in North Waziristan last month of former Pakistan intelligence officer Khalid Khawaja, who reportedly had strong contacts with al Qaeda and the Taliban, leaves a question mark over whether anyone now has really good intelligence on what is happening there.
Meanwhile, uncertainty over the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is not helping - you can already hear Pakistan Army officers wondering aloud why Pakistan is driving militants out of its tribal areas only for them to escape across the border to live to fight another day.
Nor are tentative peace talks with India likely to lead to a sudden change in Pakistan's military posture, under which it keeps the bulk of its army on the Indian border. The Pakistan Army already moved a significant number of troops from its Indian border to fight Taliban militants on its Afghan border last year and is unlikely to redeploy more despite an easing of tensions with India - its army chief is reported to say that the military deals with capabilities rather than intentions.
@G-W
You have lost the bet sir. Obama is unlikely to deliver Afghanistan to neocon republicans. Perhaps you should give him a tip how to exit without suffering the fate of Vietnam. Pakistan is in no position to help Obama either in this endeavour. Wars are fought on battle grounds and not in the congress, they also have their own momentum. The US is in no position to take on a fight with the nuclear armed country otherwise they would have incvaded Korea and Iran long time ago. Who says that Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal of their own. Let us leave Pakistan alone, its army has more lethal force than the vietnamese army. Remember the old Indian saying, the barking dogs seldom bite. I would not take threats from the lady seriously. The threats from the defence secretary or the President are usually serious and can sometimes cause the reaction from the thratened party prematuredly. The US is a bankrupt country and in no position to start a third front in the subcontinent next to China. The US would have delegated this task to India who I doubt has the stomach for a nuclear response.
Rex Minor
from Afghan Journal:
Afghanistan’s cricketers rise to the world stage
(Afghanistan's cricketers after they qualified for the World Cup. Reuters/Nikhil Monteiro)
Afghanistan’s cricketers are playing heavyweights India in their opening match in the 20-over World Cup on Saturday, capping an extraordinary journey from refugee camps to the game's top table.
It couldn't be a more unlikely pair walking out to the green in the Caribbean island of St. Lucia than captains Mahendra Singh Dhoni of India and Nowroze Mangal of Afghanistan to toss the coin at the start of the match.
Dhoni is just coming off the Indian Premier League, having made millions of dollars playing cricket's richest tournament and the endorsements that come with it, even though some of the sheen is off because of allegations of corruption clouding the tournament.
Mangal, by contrast, learnt to play cricket in a refugee camp in Pakistan with a ball made out of cloth and shoes for stumps. When his team won an Asian Twenty20 competition in 2008 -- the tournament that marked the start of their journey to the top -- Mangal was given a parcel of land worth $60,000. His team each get a day rate of about $75 when they are on tour, according to the Times.
Unlike India or Pakistan, Afghanistan doesn't have a cricketing history. Ten years ago cricket did not officially exist in the country. It was suppressed, like most things, by the Taliban, although the religious rulers later relented on the grounds that the sport had frequent breaks in it for prayers. In 2008, Afghanistan entered the lowest rung of cricket’s international ladder, playing the likes of Japan and Vanuatu. Now they are one of the top 12 nations competing in the T-20 World Cup.
@josokutty
Well said! Just do it, if not at the govt. level, then at citizen levels. Here is a suggestion, each village of a country should initiate to engage with a village of the other country, in partnership and friendship; cooperative joint civic projects and trade. People must develope themeselves to regain confidence and trust which has gone lost in history.
Rex Minor