Obama's Policy making: Of Double speak and Duplicity

There are serious chinks in Obama’s bid to non-proliferate the world. In fact from a no nonsense perspective, Obama’s administration seems to indulge in double speak and double standards. On one hand, his “eager” attempts to cut down the nuclear arsenal of US and Russia are quarter baked. Even if the suggested reduction of strategic nuclear warheads happens, there is enough that is left (three quarters) to smoke out each other and the world several times over!

On the other hand US’s move into the G8 to deny enrichment and reprocessing facilities to India as a non signatory to NPT is a key deterrent to the issue of Climate change. This is expected to figure in Secretary of state Hillary’s visit to New Delhi soon.

From the Indian perspective, reprocessing of spent fuel is imperative if India were to proceed with the indigenous, three stage, Thorium based Nuclear powered energy programme. Denial of re-processing facilties will slow down India’s nuclear power programme, inhibiting India-US cooperation on nuclear power and not exactly serving the cause of replacing polluting hydro-carbons with clean nuclear energy. Sadly, itwould also undermine the letter and the spirit of the October 2008 123 agreement and the “clean waiver” that the nuclear suppliers group accorded to India.

Cold wind from Washington

The Obama administration has to realize that there is a crucial difference between the Cold War-type relations that the US is accustomed to making, and dealing with India. Re-producing an article profiling the Indo US relations in the current context. http://www.livemint.com/2009/07/16213824/Cold-wind-from-Washington.html

After the last eight years of warmth and friendship, Indo-US relations are heading towards the thermidor, unless, of course, corrective action is taken soon. Given the current posture of the Barack Obama administration this appears unlikely, though it cannot be ruled out. As US secretary of state Hillary Clinton begins her India visit, she should bear this in mind in her engagement with Indian leaders.

The why of the sudden decline in warmth is a complicated story, one that is linked to domestic US politics (such as the efforts to wipe clean the legacy of George Bush Jr) and the world view of the Democratic Party. This need not detain us: What is important are the visible, if not glaring, signs of trouble. Here is a sampler:

The why of the sudden decline in warmth is a complicated story, one that is linked to domestic US politics (such as the efforts to wipe clean the legacy of George Bush Jr) and the world view of the Democratic Party. This need not detain us: What is important are the visible, if not glaring, signs of trouble. Here is a sampler:

l. US efforts to undo the gains made by India under the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. A recent example is the G-8 resolution aimed at tightening the spread of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies. This was moved at the behest of the US and was aimed at India. This has the potential to damage relations as nothing else can.
2.US pressure, in concert with that from the European Union, to make India adhere to binding greenhouse gas emission targets. While such pressure is being exerted on India, there is silence on providing India with climate change effect mitigation technologies and financial help.
3.Efforts at “rehyphenation” with Pakistan and goading India into meaningless talks with the latter. That is not all: Under Pakistani influence, the US nearly made Kashmir a part of special envoy Richard Holbrooke’s mandate. It was only Indian lobbying (of “Israeli proportions”, as one commentator put it) that made the US back off. It also is against India building a durable presence in Kabul though Indian efforts are aimed at helping Afghans rebuild their country.

The Obama administration has to realize that there is a crucial difference between the Cold War-type relations that the US is accustomed to making, and dealing with India: workable in good times and disposable in bad situations (two good examples being Pakistan and Indonesia). India is not in that class of nations, nor is it an age in which Washington can bend nations in that manner.

Here it is pertinent to add that India is not victim to blind anti-Americanism of the kind that afflicts Third World countries. If the relationship has to move ahead, it has to be on realistic lines. Friendship has little meaning when one partner is actively trying to subvert the interests of the other

The Countdown to the end of Pakistan

7 months after my first story on Pakistan (2nd October 2008) and 13 posts later, its time for the final countdown to begin on curtains to the nation state of Pakistan. At the outer limit, experts give Pakistan 6 months before it calls in international troops to help control the fundamentalist Taliban from running over the state.

To quote David Kilcullen, adviser to David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command (that oversees operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan):
Pakistan is today a nation without a political gyroscope. Its political leadership is at war with itself and its army thinks India is top enemy while the Taliban steadily inch towards territorial control. In fact, its army elite are inclined in favour of the Taliban. When the radicals do take over the reins in Islamabad, it would be a unique example of a nation handing over the levers of state power to non-state actors.

The spectre is fearsome for India and the international community with around 100 nuclear war-heads within reach of the Taliban forces. Taliban have violated peace agreements with the Islamabad governments at will and have extended their run from FATA to Swat and Burner, which is 100 miles away from Islamabad. There is no doubt that Taliban advances are focussed on running over the whole state of Pakistan. Only if you are an individual called Asif Ali Zardari (AAZ) would you be hallucinating “all’s well in Pakistan”.
On one end, AAZ is talking about military and economic aid to the tune of $30 billion to finance his “efforts” against “war on terror”. On the other, AAZ effectively ratified the government's deal with the Taliban Monday by signing a bill that imposes Islamic law in Swat on 13th April 2009. Pakistani officials have touted the deal, reached in February, as a way to restore peaceful order in the bloodied region -- which lies just a few hours' drive from the capital -- and halt the Taliban's advance. Striking peace deals with some Taliban factions is part of Pakistan's broader strategy to counter the militants. The government's logic is that such accords can exploit the groups' fractious nature; one enemy can be neutralized with a peace deal while another is defeated on the battlefield. The deals also have been struck when the army has struggled to overcome militants. In Swat, about 3,000 militants pushed four times as many soldiers out of the valley in 18 months of fighting, leaving some 1,500 people dead.Nearly all the peace accords reached in the past few years in areas near the Afghan border, where the Taliban are strongest, have collapsed. Often they have left the militants more powerful. A similar deal in Swat fell apart last year after the Taliban renewed attacks on Pakistani forces.

The deal was counter productive if anything and served in strengthening the militant’s base for war in Swat Valley. The number of militants in the valley swelled to double the number at the end of last year. The Taliban's actions since the new peace deal was unveiled have alarmed Washington, where officials fear that Swat will become an effective launching pad for expansion into Pakistan's more densely populated plains. "This is a rest stop for the Taliban, it's nothing more," said a U.S. official in Washington.

On the ideological plane, the idea of Pakistan has ceased to be meaningful; it is a failed state led by reckless elite who could not care less. The fate is sealed more or less and the way it looks from here is that Taliban would run over the plains of Pakistan and establish a parallel government in the country-sides while the federal government would be confined to cities. Suicide attacks, terror training camps and bombings would increase as militants would find their first legitimate lands where Sharia laws would be imposed. A US-International attempt at purging Pakistan would result in a bloody civil war. The ISI- Pakistan Army loyalties would be tested and eventually Pakistan would emerge as a war devastated economy which for other political reasons would have to be split into three countries. The first would be the confederation of states NWFP, FATA and parts of Balochistan. In spirit, this would be exactly like Afghanistan and would continue to be the hot bed of terrorism. The other two states would be Punjab and Sindh. As far as AAZ is concerned, I see him to be a victim of an assassination much like his late wife. History would forget and forgive him for failing his opportunity as the last president of Pkaistan who could have altered the fate of the country.

Next terror attack on US will originate in Pakistan, your thoughts?

My views of the non challant and myopic views of The US government in dealing with the terror crisis.
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=51584&discussionID=658312&sik=1228546149185&split_page=1&report%2Esuccess=PdmtybENV2mnc3t3p8JpWuFiB1ZhaD9OnKUphCsu7LRNRYTOK1wrHHO_rcDN0rVBb1wuxUyPL-SZ
http://digg.com/world_news/Next_terror_attack_on_US_will_originate_from_Pakistan

US's myopic views of the world is a substance of cartooning and folklore. The last count, US had spent 1 trillion dollars on its "war against terror" with little to show as results. A few hundred missiles, a few thousand corpses and a handful of terrorists killed is how the report card reads even today. It is singularly frustrating as to why would the policy makers blind themselves out on the larger picture. The threat today is Radical Islamic movement (not to be confused by Islam, the religion). While US marines try to nuke out the western province of Pakistan searching for Al Qaeda rats, the "radical islam" movement has augmented itself into agencies in the heart of Pakistan and elsewhere, where the idealogies of radical islam find blind supporters. As such stamping of AL Qaeda will not be an end to terror. AQ has already spawned many more cells which will take the "jihad" to the next frontier. Coming to the subject of Pakistan: Clearly the Army and the ISI hold all the chords of a puppet democratic government. As a state, 60 years post its making, Pakistan remains to be a failure. Its economy and society in tatters, this is state on the brink of anarchy, how ever hard the Pakistan government tries to supress the facts. Lawlessness and anarchy rule this land. No wonder then that Osama, Dawood, Azhar and other terrorists continue to live under the government/ISI patronage and operate freely from this land. In such conditions, the next terror attacks whether be London, New York or Mumbai are destined to originate here. Thus instead of state visits like that of Rice (i wonder what benefit does it bring to either India or Pakistan), the international community would have to bargain for a strike at identified Pakistani locations to purge it from these perpetrators of terror. One might have to factor in wholesome elimination of ISI as well. As long as this hard bullet is not bitten, US may choose to spend another trillion (which its own economy needs so badly) and yet be way off the mark in striking terror out forever. Dont expect the lame duck Bush to be doing anything more to help this. Am pinning my hopes on Obama.

US suspects Kashmir-based group behind attacks: Official

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/US_suspects_Kashmir-based_group_behind_attacks_Official/articleshow/3774358.cms#write
I wonder just how many more 9/11s and innocent lives will it take for US and the international community to understand that it is the Al Qaeda and LeT which have perpetrated the terror. I wonder when the sense will dawn on the inetrnational community that Pakistan is under anarchy and is being run by a cartel of extremists, ISI and terror organizations. Pakistan will never be able to fight this cancer. It will take an international effort to get rid of this. Do we want more of such attacks happening at Paris, London, Brussels and other trade centres or can the civilized world move towards a definitive and coordinated attempt to get rid of this?