Comments on: Pakistan, India and the United States http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/ Perspectives on Pakistan Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: kashifsharjeel http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-26996 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:14:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-26996 USA never sincere Pakistan its a real history
http://www.adylimo.com/

]]>
By: rajeev http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-26338 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:04:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-26338 Keith:

With respect to our discussion on the relationship between India, China and USA, here are some useful links.

Altered Fundamentals
“Despite honour of the first state visit, India is peripheral to the US strategy, as demonstrated by the recent U.S.-China Joint Statement that has only accentuated Indian anxieties”
Ashley J. Tellis
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx  ?262966

“Forget China, the real threat is ‘Chinusa’
Shobhan Saxena

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com  /Main-Street/entry/forget-china-the-rea l-threat

]]>
By: rajeev http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-26233 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:30:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-26233 Keith:

Somehow my post is not being uploaded. I am skipping any details—(URLs etc) supporting the IBC figures below that were informative but perhaps are coming in way of uploading. Will upload them later if possible. Will try to say this:

@ Let us say that genocide is an inappropriate word, but “strategic error” is the wrong choice of word either. I think Iraqi victims deserve special treatment—not just considered collateral damage of a war that should not have taken place.

“Strategic error” is also a good word if you are thinking from US POV and that US went to Iraq instead of staying put and strengthening themselves in Afgh.
The number of Iraqis died is 655,000 according to “Lancet” –a controversial figure but no one can prove it wrong—Republicans and its media cried a lot but they have not scientific evidence to refute that figure (I always thought that such a big figure was propaganda but I zoomed in and found otherwise. Still, I wish that # is an overestimate (it is not body count obviously but an estimation and I think that this is an overestimate). But there is another study by the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization (WHO) published in The New England Journal of Medicine that reports 104,000 and 223,000 Iraqis died violent deaths between the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and June 2006. Still a lots of death, ignoring Lancet study.

This cannot be called just another war or Indians operations in Kashmir and SL or now anti-LTTE by SL etc…. There was lot at stake for each one but nothing for US in Iraq as far as the basis of the war is concerned.

If this does not fall in the UN definition of “genocide” then clearly UN definition needs to be expanded or a better word is required. I can go in detail on this since it falls in gray area of genocide or not—depends. But I know this: Dead Iraqis deserve more than being called collateral damage.

]]>
By: rajeev http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-26208 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:34:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-26208 @ And arguably on Afghanistan, the administration in power at the time chose to disregard much of what it was being told by their military staff, aid workers, diplomats, intelligence analysts, etc. That does not mean these people didn’t do their job.
– Posted by Keith

@I don’t think its right to slight the diplomats here.”
–No way I am slighting any one. My reading of people who know the region and are from the region and in touch with the American govt. allows me to say so. Admn will listen to all the happenings in the region but will do nothing about it, despite these guys pleading with the admn.

Main point is US did not think Afghanistan is that important or will become this important.

]]>
By: Keith http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-26053 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:17:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-26053 US did not do enough home work in Af/Pak case. Very clearly, it is learning on the job. US left 1989 and stopped studying Pushto/Dari and the culture as if there is no coming back here. So the Army of Diplomats and agents were not up on the task here.
– Posted by rajeev

Keep in mind, there’s a big difference between the diplomats doing their job and their masters following their advice. I don’t think its right to slight the diplomats here. American diplomats (several of whom I’ve met), senior military officers, aid workers, etc. did have a decent understanding of the region. And they did convey the complexity of the problems in the region to their masters.

However, governments are not duty bound to take the advice of their servants. If the politicians decide not to listen to their civil servants that’s their choice. And arguably on Afghanistan, the administration in power at the time chose to disregard much of what it was being told by their military staff, aid workers, diplomats, intelligence analysts, etc. That does not mean these people didn’t do their job.

]]>
By: rajeev http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-26042 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:11:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-26042 @And India has far too few diplomats for a country of its size and stature. Last I heard it was somewhere around a thousand or so. The US probably has more than that many staffers at the State department headquarters building alone.
– Posted by Keith

–On India, I agree without doubt.
US did not do enough home work in Af/Pak case. Very clearly, it is learning on the job. US left 1989 and stopped studying Pushto/Dari and the culture as if there is no coming back here. So the Army of Diplomats and agents were not up on the task here.

]]>
By: Keith http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-26002 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:53:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-26002 I can see that. Much of my anxiety arises from soft Indian diplomacy. For India’s size, rise and aspirations and the complex relationships–regional and elsewhere—India needs increase in quality and quantity of its manpower–diplomats etc who efficiently and positively do their job. I don;t want to see them complaining and giving excuses for their lack of insight.

There are two kinds of Indian diplomats. The young guy who’s educated, has exposure to the West and works hard. And the old guy, who’s basically stuck with the Cold War anti-Imperialist, Nehruvian mentality. What’s holding India back is for every young guy the Indian diplomatic corps has, they’ve got 2 or 3 of the older type. And India has far too few diplomats for a country of its size and stature. Last I heard it was somewhere around a thousand or so. The US probably has more than that many staffers at the State department headquarters building alone.

]]>
By: rajeev http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-25988 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:04:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-25988 @The US is not going to fix Pakistan for India’s sake. It will do so only if its in the interest of the US. This is not a slight to India. The US has had disagreements with all its allies. That’s just how it is.
…..
“Living in the West, I just don’t get the sense that there’s a China-US axis. For all the talk and bonhomie during state visits, it’s quite clear there’s a lot of tension beneath the surface between China and the US.”
-Keith

Keith:
I can see first hand how hard it is for difficult to get the job done from Pakistan by US in its own interests. So it is understandable it becomes harder to ask favors for your friends unless the interests overlap. No denying that. Terrorism that India faces falls in this category. Interests seems to overlap lately.

@The US-India relationship is a separate issue. One of the biggest complaints western diplomats have is that Indian diplomats always want to talk about Pakistan. It is good that India is slowly moving away from that. Pakistan has become more of an annoyance than a paramount strategic threat.”

–I can see that. Much of my anxiety arises from soft Indian diplomacy. For India’s size, rise and aspirations and the complex relationships–regional and elsewhere—India needs increase in quality and quantity of its manpower–diplomats etc who efficiently and positively do their job. I don;t want to see them complaining and giving excuses for their lack of insight.

@Democrats/India: Obama is new and let us see how US-India relationship grows under his admn—time will tell. Bush was a hit though–many things happened.

@But the US is trying very hard to improve relations with India. It has been recognized in the US India could be a natural partner. And there is recognition of this in both major parties (though Democrats remain weary of India’s nuclear record). There has been a sea change in the attitude of even the average American towards India, in no small measure because of the hard working Indian diaspora who’ve become textbook immigrant success stories (Americans love that stuff). One would hope India recognizes the change of heart and accepts the hand of friendship being extended here.

-I live in US–5 hrs drive from Toronto–for a decade and agree with what you said and recognize that. I think America is viewed quite positively in India. To me Indian market and democratic system are huge plus for US to interact with India.

I hope this post gets uploaded–takes several attempts recently.

]]>
By: Keith http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-25973 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:47:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-25973 Rajeev,

My original point was that the Clinton option is on the table to deal with Pakistan, post-Afghanistan. At that point, with no US troops in the region, Pakistan’s instability and terrorist sympathizing institutions could become a threat not just to US interests but US national security itself. In this case, the Clinton option will seem mighty tempting. After all, what does the US have to loose? It’s not like Pakistanis love the US anyway.

Living in the West, I just don’t get the sense that there’s a China-US axis. For all the talk and bonhomie during state visits, it’s quite clear there’s a lot of tension beneath the surface between China and the US. And I would argue that over an issue as important as terrorism and its impact on US national security, there is no way the US would give in to China. The biggest stick of the Clinton option is US policy itself, which China has zero control over. Should the US declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, and ban companies from trading with Pakistan, there is nothing China can do about it, since the laws are US laws, enforceable only in the US (though of course, every multi-national does business in the US, hence the strong impact of such laws). There is really no leverage for China should the US decide to get really aggressive with Pakistan. Are they going to risk economic war with the US, over Pakistan? I doubt it. They haven’t even defended Pakistan when it’s had conflict with India. Would they really going to bat for Pakistan, against the US? I doubt it.

Aside from that,

The US-India relationship is a separate issue. One of the biggest complaints western diplomats have is that Indian diplomats always want to talk about Pakistan. It is good that India is slowly moving away from that. Pakistan has become more of an annoyance than a paramount strategic threat. And India’s confidence with regards to its Pakistan policy is showing. And this is what has allowed relations to progress. Today, India does not make relations conditional on talking about Pakistan. India should be careful (and for the most part it has) that Indian diplomacy doesn’t go back to old ways except with China substituted for Pakistan.

The US is not going to fix Pakistan for India’s sake. It will do so only if its in the interest of the US. This is not a slight to India. The US has had disagreements with all its allies. That’s just how it is.

But the US is trying very hard to improve relations with India. It has been recognized in the US India could be a natural partner. And there is recognition of this in both major parties (though Democrats remain weary of India’s nuclear record). There has been a sea change in the attitude of even the average American towards India, in no small measure because of the hard working Indian diaspora who’ve become textbook immigrant success stories (Americans love that stuff). One would hope India recognizes the change of heart and accepts the hand of friendship being extended here.

Nursing past wounds of the relationship or lingering in mistrust, as proposed by some, like Vijay here, will only do damage to India’s interests at this stage.

]]>
By: rajeev http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/11/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-states/comment-page-2/#comment-25958 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:28:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/?p=4152#comment-25958 uthor/moderator: Could you please be kind to let this go through?
Thanks in advance,
rajeev

Keith:
@You seem to misunderstand what the Clinton option was. There is a lot that the US can do to make life difficult for Pakistan even if the Chinese protect them at the UN Security Council.
-posted by Keith

Keith: I am aware that Clinton option is much more than just US influence in UNSC. You would have seen Indians talking about US using its powers to take care of Pakistan—that’s what they mean since we know that US can take care of Pakistan which is becoming a genuine and increasing headache. K-L bill is the first step for tightening the leash—but a useful one for everyone including Pakistan.
My point was that the rise of China has placed them in an increasingly powerful position from where China can influence US— not just as Permanent security member. Pakistan is just part of India’s concerns—the other one is China itself. Obama’s China visit indicates a lot how US puts China and some useless decibels by Obama to please China, such as China’s role in India-Pak relationship—knowing very well India is averse to 3rd party. He should be smart enough to know that China is the most unfit country to do the job given that China itself has problems with India and is using Pakistan is China’s proxy. Definitely India is going to get uncomfortable at this but that’s their game and India has to watch out for its own butt and tread carefully, but positively. China-US axis will blunt any Clinton option.

]]>