from Afghan Journal:
India, U.S. build ties, with an eye on China
In the end, Pakistan wasn't the unspoken elephant in the room when U.S. President Barack Obama sat down for talks with Indian leaders. Far from tip-toeing around India's Pakistan problem which complicates America's own troubled war there and in Afghanistan, Obama spoke clearly and squarely.
Safe havens for militants in Pakistan wouldn't be tolerated, he said, in what was music to Indian ears. But he also left nobody in doubt Washington wanted India to improve ties with Pakistan, saying New Delhi had the greatest stake in the troubled neighbour's stability.
But the one elephant that the leaders of India and the United States didn't name but which was written all over the flurry of announcements made during the three-day trip was China. Beginning with the headline-grabbing endorsement of India's bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council to maritime cooperation and a surprise partnership to promote food security in Africa, the United States seems to have gone the extra mile to bolster New Delhi's credentials as a global player.
The one country that would be watching this most closely is China where some would see America's deepening ties with India, a continent-size country with a billion-plus people, as aimed at countering its rise.
B.Raman, a former head of India's Research and Analysis wing, writes that the announcement by India and the United States to work together for stability in the Indian Ocean region as well as the Pacific will draw concern in Beijing, which has its own fears of U.S. encirclement.
"Thus, the partnership will seek to promote peace and security across Asia in general and in East and Central Asia in particular, strengthen maritime security and work for a peaceful settlement of maritime disputes. Though China has not been named, Beijing will have reasons to be concerned over the implications of this formulation."
Could Obama’s loss be India’s gain?
As the pundits predicted, India will have the inauspicious honour of being the first country to host U.S. President Barack Obama following the largest shift in public support away from an incumbent President’s party in over 60 years.
But if the results show a clear message of dissatisfaction at Washington from U.S. voters, the fallout once the dust settles on Capitol Hill could well result in good news for India.
Here are three ways that a shift in Washington politics could play into India’s interests:
Republican candidates swept to power in the House of Representatives, and almost squared the Senate, largely on widespread disaffection with the country’s stagnant economy and large unemployment rates. The new-look Congress will feel immediate pressure to tackle these.
Washington is likely to look at stimulating international trade in order to boost the struggling economy. There’s a reason Obama will have representatives from over 200 businesses in tow when he lands in India, and striking lucrative deals for defence equipment and technology sharing is a priority that crosses the party-political divide.
Now the polls have closed, the anti-outsourcing rhetoric that Obama delivered at the stump to woo voters – attracting the ire of India’s business leaders – is likely to subside. Pro-business Republicans blocked anti-outsourcing legislation in Congress in September, and moving forwards, a GOP-controlled House of Representatives will most probably protect the cost-effective practice for U.S. firms that contributes $60 billion to India’s economy.
Moreover, in an attempt to divert attention from the ranks of Republicans moving into their new Congressional offices in Washington, and remind Americans that he is still commander-in-chief, Obama may well look to forge some big-publicity agreements with India, with defence and nuclear deals high on the U.S. agenda, and an endorsement for a permanent Security Council berth is New Delhi’s holy grail.
I know I keep reading about various polls which speak of Obama’s popularity in India.
Why is it then that most people I meet seem to have lost confidence in him and remember the Bush days with nostalgia?
The Security Council berth is already off the mat, with news of his dismissing it just three days before his visit, it certainly is not going to sit well with his hosts.
Even the defence deal is not something which many cheer, for the simple reason that the US has proved time and time again that it is not a reliable partner in delivering the goods. It has often shown a penchant for stopping the flow in mid stream. This is what bothers me about having to depend for supplies on the US. They suddenly pull out some internal legislation under which supplies get discontinued – often even after payment has been made. Even their current ‘staunch’ ally in the WOT, Pakistan, has not been spared – think F-16 deal.
India votes for Obama as storm clouds gather at home
U.S. President Barack Obama is facing a storm of voter discontent but in India where he travels three days after this week’s huge congressional elections, he’s already a winner. More than seven out of 10 Indians endorse his leadership, saying they believe he will do the right thing in world affairs, a Pew poll released in late October showed.
Contrast that with his approval ratings at home just as he heads into the critical midterm election. More people disapprove of his job performance (47 percent) than the number who approve (45 percent), according to the latest CBS news/New York Times opinion poll.
It’s not just Obama who gets the thumbs-up. Indians are generally well-disposed toward America even when the rest of the world is less inclined to. According to the Pew poll, nearly two-thirds (66 percent) express a favourable opinion of the U.S., although this is down from 76 percent last year. By contrast, only 51 percent Indians rate long-time ally Russia favourably, and even fewer feel this way about the EU (36 percent) or China (34 percent). Indeed, Indians don’t even share the common belief that the United States has increasingly been acting on its own. Some (83 percent) said the U.S. takes the interests of countries like India into account when it makes foreign policy decisions — the highest percentage among the 21 nations surveyed outside the U.S.
Quite extraordinary, the unequivocal vote of confidence in America even though the Obama administration has been more measured toward India than its predecessor; the strategic warmth that marked the Bush years having cooled off a bit. It’s quite possible that Obama’s trip this week may turn out to be a game changer, but at the moment for every positive aspect of their relationship, you can find another such as trade, climate change where they are on opposite sides.
India, as the Pentagon famously put it not long ago, is neither an adversary nor an ally. It should know; for the last three years as this story notes, the Pentagon has been trying to get a logistical support agreement that will allow U.S. military planes to refuel in India. But politicians have agonised over the decision, worried that it will drive the country deeper into America’s embrace, even though ordinary Indians may not share those misgivings.
America’s popularity in India is in stark contrast to its standing in next door Pakistan, a close ally where it is spending $7.5 billion in civilian aid, not to mention a $2 billion military package approved last week. A similar poll on attitudes in Pakistan conducted by Pew in July found that despite the billions of dollars in civil and military aid, the United States had a serious image problem there. Nearly 60 percent of those polled in Pakistan described the U.S. as an enemy, while just 11 percent saw it as a partner. Obama, barely two years in office, is already deeply unpopular. Only 8 percent of Pakistanis thought that he will do the right thing in world affairs, his lowest rating among the 22 nations that Pew surveyed.
U.S. engagement with Pakistan has been far longer and deeper than India. It’s now virtually involved in an undeclared war against al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan that most people there see as a blatant violation of its rights as a sovereign nation. The results of the survey, in that sense, cannot be compared with India. But some people, at some point, may start asking if its really worth America’s while to invest in Pakistan when it only seems to turn the country further against it.
Mr Obama is definitely going to provide a great impulse for the Indian leaders and its commerce and the people of the region.
His visit to the middle east brought prosperity and peace to the people of the region. He went to Europe and excited the crowd, upset Bona part a bit and made Barlusconi nevous. At home he managed to have the health bill passed by his fellow democrats, got the approval to salvage the Investment bankers and finally managed to replace the democrat majority congress into a republican congress. He is now in India to make some bucks for the American industry and would most probably leave some attractive hightech lethal weaponry.
The leaders who are now going to call the shots in the next G20 meeting are currently having a debriefing in Paris.
Rex Minor
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Will Obama refer to Kashmir in public in India?
Will President Barack Obama make some public remarks on Kashmir during his trip to India next month?
At a White House press briefing, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes refused to be pinned down on specifics, beyond saying that the United States would continue to express support for India and Pakistan to pursue talks.
"I wouldn’t -- I don't want to get into prefacing with precision what his comments are, in part because he’ll be answering a lot of questions there in the town hall and press conference and we haven’t -- we’re still working through his remarks on certain things," he said.
Yet it is a question that cannot -- and will not -- be left to chance.
Indian is deeply sensitive about foreign visitors talking about Kashmir -- as British foreign ministers have learned to their cost on earlier trips. It regards Kashmir as an integral part of India and refuses even to recognise the territory at the heart of more than 60 years of enmity with Pakistan as disputed. Moreover, it has consistently rejected outside interference, saying that its disputes with Pakistan must be settled bilaterally.
Obama, who raised hackles in India during his presidential election campaign by suggesting the Washington should try to help resolve the Kashmir dispute, is hoping to use the trip to help U.S. business tap into India's growing economy. With a flagging economy at home, he cannot afford to offend his hosts.
But at the same time, the biggest foreign policy challenge of his administration is over how to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan cannot be ended without Pakistan's help. And Pakistan itself faces serious instability -- potentially a much bigger worry than Afghanistan with its 180 million people and nuclear bombs. Pakistan's identity in turn is intimately bound up with India - its past support for Islamist militants was driven by its belief that this was the only way to neutralise the influence of its much bigger neighbour both in Kashmir and in Afghanistan. Depending on who you listen to, it either will not, or can not, tackle Islamist militants based in Pakistan without a peace settlement with India, including on Kashmir.
Myra,
Refer Kashmir in public? Why?! Should Manmohan ask Obama about the Alaska secessionist party in public? What nonsense write up is this?
Lauding defeat of US anti-outsourcing bill premature
The Senate might have quashed Democrat plans to force U.S. firms to produce jobs and profits at home, rather than overseas, but India Inc is wrong to think the danger has passed.
Over the past few weeks, India’s newspapers have been littered with stories surrounding U.S. President Barack Obama’s comments on curbing outsourcing, and India Inc’s gross indignation at the White House’s intentions.
No surprise, then, to see bullish headlines following the Senate vote that effectively ended legislation dubbed the Creating American Jobs and End Offshoring Act. ‘India Inc cheers defeat of anti-outsourcing bill in US‘, ran one leading daily, while another led with ‘Anti-outsourcing Bill dies a quiet death in the US‘. Death is wide of the mark.
With the crucial November mid-term elections looming, the biggest issue for U.S. voters is the economy, with many angry that the lauded economic stimulus Bill passed last year has not prevented the unemployment rate rising above 10 percent. The ball is in Obama’s court, and if he can’t rectify the situation, the Democrats will likely suffer at the hands of the electorate in two months’ time.
Thus for the Republicans — who if in power would surely be contemplating similar anti-outsourcing legislation to appease angry voters seeing jobs flourish in Bangalore instead of Baltimore — the goal is to show Obama and the Democrats as an incapable party, unable to govern and unable to fix the problems. And that means blocking legislation.
The Senate voted 53-45 for the bill, far short the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, with four Democrats crossing the aisle. Democrats portrayed the Republicans as “job-killers” afterwards, but no political analyst would deny that Republicans play the patriot card far more often than their opponents.
This wasn’t all about jobs, it was also about politics. And that’s why India Inc is not out of the woods yet.
Outsourcing hurts all Americans!!
Don’t be fooled, corporations and foreign governments are heavily lobbying congress through outsourcing/H1B advocate organizations. Don’t let corporations and foreign governments be the only voice that congress hears. Call your local representatives and senators today. You can also visit and contribute to the American Engineering Organization to make sure your voice is heard: http://www.aea.org/
from Afghan Journal:
WikiLeaks: shaking the foundations of U.S. policy toward Pakistan
A Pakistani security official stands near a burning vehicle after it was attacked in Chaman in Pakistan's Balochistan province, along the Afghan border on May 19, 2010.
On the face of it, you could ask what's new about the latest disclosures of Pakistani involvement in the Taliban insurgency while accepting massive U.S. aid to fight Islamic militancy of all hues. Hasn't this been known all along -- something that a succession of top U.S. officials and military leaders have often said, sometimes couched in diplomatic speech and sometimes rather clearly?
It was only last week that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there must be somebody in the Pakistani government who knew Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. Coming from America's top diplomat, it couldn't be more blunt.
Then why is a trove of over 90,000 classified military documents released by WikiLeaks on the war in Afghanistan causing so much consternation? Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, says it is now much more difficult to deny or dodge the truths that everyone has been aware of:
Government officials can always deflect news stories simply by crossing their fingers and waiting for the story to sink in a haze of oil spills and Lindsay Lohan extravaganzas. Now, however, “proof” is there in the black-and-white of secret U.S. documents, compliments of anti-war WikiLeaks. Even if one does not believe that the information contained in every one of these reports is accurate (some do sound rather bizarre), and even if little in the reports can be corroborated independently, the very volume of the “secret” material is overwhelming and plausible—and yes, seductively “secret.”
The White House condemned the leak, saying it could threaten national security and endanger the lives of Americans. Islamabad said leaking unprocessed reports from the battlefield was irresponsible and added that Pakistan had paid in blood fighting militants.
The biggest threat to the USA security is from the current administration made up of old clintonians and headed by the , yes we can commander in chief. They need to learn that in the holy land of afghan warriors, the foreigners have always lost, the consolation prize being the opportunity to fight the invincibles and survive, The current opponentsof the Pashtoon afghns are not a good match.
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?:
On U.S., India and Pakistan: maybe some transparency would help
According to the Wall Street Journal, "President Barack Obama issued a secret directive in December to intensify American diplomacy aimed at easing tensions between India and Pakistan, asserting that without détente between the two rivals, the administration's efforts to win Pakistani cooperation in Afghanistan would suffer. "
"The directive concluded that India must make resolving its tensions with Pakistan a priority for progress to be made on U.S. goals in the region, according to people familiar with its contents," it says.
It also says there is a debate within the U.S. administration over how far to push India to improve relations with Pakistan, with the Pentagon lobbying for more pressure on New Delhi and the State Department resisting, arguing this could backfire.
The idea that resolving tensions between India and Pakistan is central to stabilising Afghanistan is not new. Its importance rose up the agenda during Obama's election campaign in 2008. And it never really went away despite successful Indian lobbying to keep any reference to India or Kashmir out of the title given to U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke in January 2009. At the time, the truncated title was seen as not so much as a reflection of ground realities (Pakistan has always fixed its foreign and security policies in relation to India), but as a way of providing the space for discreet diplomacy to succeed where public pressure might fail.
What is new is the context. India is deeply sensitive to what it sees as Washington's favouritism towards Pakistan as it tries to find a way out of the stalemate in Afghanistan. As a result it has become "America's Wounded Ally" in the expression used by Indian analyst Sumit Ganguly in Newsweek, angry with Obama for turning his back on a blossoming relationship forged by his predecessors.
As a brief aside, this has happened before. Immediately after 9/11 India sought to capitalise on its then growing ties with the United States by offering the use of Indian bases for its campaign in Afghanistan only to see Washington turn instead to its old Cold War favourite Pakistan. At the time, an Indian analyst I knew rather graphically compared the sense of betrayal in New Delhi to that of a mistress whose lover goes back to his wife. His analogy may have accurately captured the emotional response at the time, but it was wrong in substance, since India and the United States went on to build an even stronger relationship, including signing a deal effectively recognising India as a nuclear power. The same may yet happen again despite all the current hand-wringing.
However, to return to the subject of the WSJ report, and the debate over how far Washington should go to push India and Pakistan into improving relations:
Ratee:
Door-door tak jab bacha rota hai to Rehman Malik kehta hai baita chup hoja nahin to RAW aa jaiga.
@26 Indian consulates in Afghanistan” Perhaps it is time Pakistan set up a “ministry of counting Indian consulates in Afghanistan”. The numbers change each day.
from Russell Boyce:
Don’t drink the water, even if there is any to drink (Update)
One more picture that caught my eye during the 24 hours news cycle for the World Water Day is the image of hundreds of hoses providing drinking water to residents of a housing block in Jakarta. The grubby plastic pipes supplying a fragile lifeline to families seem to represent the desperation that people face when the water supply is cut off.
Hoses used to supply residences with water are seen hanging across a street at the Penjaringan subdistrict in Jakarta March 22, 2010. Residents in the area say that they have had to construct makeshift water supplies for their homes by attaching hoses to pumps bought with their own money, as the government has yet to repair the original water supply which was damaged. March 22 is World Water Day. REUTERS/Beawiharta
Today, March 22 is World Water Day and Reuters photographers in Asia were given an open brief to shoot feature pictures to illustrate it. The only requirement I asked of them is that they included in the captions, the fact that while the Earth is literally covered in water, more than a billion people lack access to clean water for drinking or sanitation. At the same time in China 50 million people are facing drought conditions and water shortages and the two stories seemed to tie in with one another.
Looking at the file today three pictures really stuck home to me as to just how enormous the problem of getting clean water to people in the world is.
A boy swims in the murky waters of Manila Bay March 21, 2010. The Earth is literally covered in water, but more than a billion people lack access to clean water for drinking or sanitation as most water is salty or dirty. March 22 is World Water Day. REUTERS/Cheryl Ravelo
Ur feeds r fed into other blogger’s RSS feeders, makin’ it syndicated or putting in anoda way, people out there will subscribe to them & receive online copies of your text.
from Afghan Journal:
Keeping India out of Afghanistan
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is in the United States for the first official state visit by any foreign leader since President Barack Obama took office this year. While the atmospherics are right, and the two leaders probably won't be looking as stilted as Obama and China's President Hu Jintao appeared to be during Obama's trip last week (for the Indians are rarely short on conversation), there is a sense of unease.
And much of it has to do with AFPAK - the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan which is very nearly at the top of Obama's foreign policy agenda and one that some fear may eventually consume the rest of his presidency. America's ally Pakistan worries about India's expanding assistance and links to Afghanistan, seeing it as part of a strategy to encircle it from the rear. Ordinarily, Pakistani noises wouldn't bother India as much, but for signs that the Obama administration has begun to adopt those concerns as its own in its desperate search for a solution, as Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek.
And that is producing a "perverse view" of the region, he says adding it was a bit strange that India was being criticised for its influence in Afghanistan. India is the hegemon in South Asia, with a GDP 100 times that of Afghanistan and it was only natural that as Afghanistan opened itself up following the ouster of the Taliban in 2001, its cuisine, movies and money would flow into the country. The whole criticism about India, Zakaria says, is a little bit like saying the United States has had growing influence in Mexico over the last few decades and should be penalised for it.
But what about Pakistan's concerns, a country that was dismembered in the last full-scale war with India in 1971 with the creation of Bangladesh. The last thing it would want is a hostile regime in Afghanistan on its western flank on top of the Indian army, the world's third largest, massed on the eastern front, not to mention the Islamist militants whom it once nurtured turning on the State itself.
Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Kayani told the U.S. National Security Adviser General Jim Jones earlier his month that Indian presence in Kabul would hurt the war objectives.
And what about the Afghans themselves ? The India-Pakistan rivalry is probably a sideshow in the broader battle between a resurgent Taliban and the foreign forces, but perhaps one they can do without.
Sharafat:
@The trouble in South Asia is called India. While Gandhi was preaching non-violence, ……………”
Sharafat: Have you ever heard “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”? This applies perfectly to you.
Ignoring the irrelevant parts of your breathless rant, I will comment what is relevant to the blog:
@The bottom line is that India is an aggressive and expansionist power, that is why it is present in Afghsnistan. There will be no peace in South Asia unless India is confined to its legitimate borders – not the ones it seeks.”
–If you consider India’s presence in Afghanistan as “aggressive and expansionist”, why this is not applicable to Pakistan that in fact was involved at military/spy agency/diplomatic (with Taliban if one call that diplomacy), training Jihadis against Afghans (Non-Pashthun Afghans in Northern Areas) and against India/Kashmir? India’s involvement is at non-military/Afgnaistan rebuilding in nature and India has spent more than 1 billion $ out of pocket for that. India is rebuilding Afghanistan, instead of destroying the country like Pak-installed govt Taliban did under Pakistan’s watch.
If Pakistan’s wings are clipped by Indian presence in Afghanistan, it will be done.
@KINGFISCHER
Well said.
Rex Minor