NEW YORK (TIP): The beheading of Steven J. Sotloff, the American journalist from Miami who had been held hostage by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, suddenly loomed larger for many Israelis on Wednesday, September 3, when it emerged that he held Israeli citizenship and had lived and studied in the country for a few years. Sotloff’s family broke a yearlong media blackout about his case two weeks ago after he appeared in an Internet video in which a black-clad, knife-wielding militant of the extremist group marked him as the next hostage to die after the American journalist James Foley.
Yet the Israeli connection was kept well hidden. As long as there was a chance Sotloff was still alive there was fear that exposure of his Jewish roots and Israeli past could put him in further danger. As a freelance reporter, Mr. Sotloff contributed to the Israel-based Jerusalem Report magazine along with Western publications like Time magazine, The Christian Science Monitor and World Affairs Journal. ISIS terrorists released a video Tuesday that claimed to show the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff.
In the gruesome footage, titled “A second message to America,” Sotloff can be seen kneeling in orange garb in front of his black-masked executioner after news footage of President Obama talking tough about the Syrian terror group. Sotloff, with his hands tied behind his back, stoically tells the camera that he is “paying the price” for US intervention in Syria. “Obama, your foreign policy of intervention in Iraq was supposed to be for the preservation of American lives and interests.
So why is it that I have to pay the price of your interference with my life? Am I not an American citizen?” Steven said. The killer of Steven then said, “I’m back, Obama, and I’m back because of your arrogant foreign policy towards the Islamic State. “Just as your missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people.” As Sotloff struggles and tries to stand, his killer starts to slit his throat.
The camera cuts out to black, then footage shows what appears to be Sotloff’s severed head placed on his stomach. The terrorist said a British captive, David Cawthorne Haines, would be the next. Footage of Haines, believed to be a security worker for humanitarian-aid groups, was shown in the same kneeling position as Foley and Sotloff before their executions.
Tag: Foreign Policy
-
Steven Sotloff, U.S. hostage slain by ISIS, was also a citizen of Israel
-
Questions about Nuclear Weapons
Non-Proliferation Ayatollahs are again chasing India
In a partisan and condescending editorial in early July 2014, New York Times wrote: “If India wants to be part of the nuclear suppliers group, it needs to sign the treaty that prohibits nuclear testing, stop producing fissile material, and begin talks with its rivals on nuclear weapons containment.” The newspaper is sharply critical of India’s efforts to acquire membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
It bases its criticism on a report by IHS Jane’s, a US-based research group, that India is in the process of enhancing its capacity to enrich uranium – ostensibly to power the nuclear reactors on the INS Arihant and future SSBNs, but much in excess of the requirement. This, the editorial says, is causing anxiety to the Pakistanis and has raised the spectre of an arms race in southern Asia.
It is obvious that the editorial writer understands neither the background to nor the present context of India’s nuclear deterrence. As stated in a letter written by the then Prime Minister A B Vajpayee to US President Bill Clinton after India’s nuclear tests at Pokhran in May 1998 (in an unfriendly act, the letter was leaked to the media by the White House), the primary reason for India’s acquisition of nuclear weapons was the existential threat posed by two nuclear-armed states on India’s borders, with both of which India had fought wars over territorial disputes.
The China- Pakistan nuclear and missile nexus, including the clandestine transfer of nuclear materials and technology from China to Pakistan, has irrevocably changed the strategic balance in southern Asia. It has enabled Pakistan to neutralise India’s superiority in conventional forces and wage a proxy war under the nuclear umbrella. Since then, the nuclear environment in southern Asia has been further destabilised. China’s ASAT test, BMD programme, efforts aimed at acquiring MIRV capability and ambiguity in its ‘no-first-use’ commitment, while simultaneously modernising the PLA and establishing a ‘string of pearls’ by way of ports in the Indian Ocean, are a cause for concern for India.
Similarly, Pakistan is engaged in the acquisition of ‘full spectrum’ nuclear capability, including a triad and battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons, which invariably lower the threshold of use. Pakistan has stockpiled a larger number of nuclear warheads (110 to 120) than India (90 to 100) and is continuing to add to the numbers as it has been given unsafeguarded nuclear reactors by China. Mujahideen attacks on Pakistan’s armed forces recently have led to the apprehension that some of Pakistan’s nuclear warheads could fall into Jihadi hands. Some statements made by IHS Jane’s in its report are factually incorrect.
The research group has assessed that the new Indian uranium enrichment facility at the Indian Rare Metals Plant near Mysore will enhance India’s ability to produce ‘weapons-grade’ uranium to twice the amount needed for its planned nuclear-powered SSBN fleet. The report does not say how the research group arrived at this deduction. Also, the nuclear power reactors of SSBNs require uranium to be enriched only up to 30 to 40 per cent.Weapons-grade uranium must be enriched to levels over 90 per cent. For the record, the Government of India has denied reports that it is ‘covertly’ expanding its nuclear arsenal.
An Indian official told The Hindu (Atul Aneja, “India trashes report on covert nuclear facility”, June 22, 2014) that the report was ‘mischievously timed’ as it came just before a meeting of the NSG. He said, “It is interesting that such reports questioning India’s nuclear credentials are planted at regular intervals.” The US Government also dismissed the report as ‘highly speculative’ (“US dismisses report on India covertly increasing nukes”, The Hindu, June 21, 2014).
The US State Department spokesperson said, “We remain fully committed to the terms of the 123 agreement and to enhancing our strategic relationship…” The 123 agreement signed after the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement of July 2005 gives an exemption to India’s nuclear weapons facilities and stockpiles of nuclear weapons fuel from inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). India has agreed to bring 14 nuclear power reactors under international safeguards.
Eight military facilities, including reactors, enrichment and reprocessing facilities, will remain out of the purview of IAEA safeguards. India is at liberty to set up additional military facilities using unsafeguarded materials if these are considered necessary. India has been a responsible nuclear power and has a positive record on non-proliferation. India has consistently supported total nuclear disarmament and is in favour of negotiations for the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).
For both technical and political reasons, it is important for India to keep its option to conduct further nuclear tests open; hence, it cannot sign the CTBT at present even though it has declared a unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests. Non-proliferation ayatollahs should channel their efforts towards identifying and shaming the real proliferators. Influential newspapers like New York Times should review the progress made by the P-5 nuclear weapons states (NWS) on the implementation of the commitments made by them during the 2010 NPT Review Conference (RevCon) as RevCon 2015 is coming up.
The commitments made at the 2010 RevCon include progress in the implementation of the New Start Treaty; disposal of HEU extracted from nuclear warheads; steps towards early entry into force of the CTBT, monitoring and verification procedures and its universalisation; efforts to revitalise the Conference on Disarmament (CD) by ending the impasse in its working and, the immediate start of negotiations on a legally binding, verifiable international ban on the production of fissile material by way of the FMCT; and, measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.
In April 2009, in his first major foreign policy speech, popularly known as the ‘Prague Spring’ speech that won him the Nobel Peace prize, President Barack Obama had committed the US to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons in line with the growing bipartisan consensus expressed by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz,William Perry, and Sam Nunn, in their famous 2007 Wall Street Journal article. The New York Times should enquire how well that commitment is being fulfilled. -
SHARIF FELT BELITTLED IN INDIA, CLAIMS PAKISTANI MEDIA
NEW DELHI (TIP): Even as Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif reached out to his counterpart Narendra Modi by dispatching gifts for the Indian PM’s mother, Pakistani media reported that he was “not too happy” with the outcome of his meeting with Modi last week. Despite reservations expressed by the Pakistan army, Sharif accepted Modi’s invite to attend his swearing-in on May 26. Dawn quoted an anonymous leader in Sharif’s party PML (N) saying that Sharif felt “belittled” in Delhi.
“Sharif is not too happy at his reception in India during his visit there to attend the oathtaking ceremony of Narendra Modi,” the report said, citing the leader. Pakistani government sources though reiterated the remark by Sharif’s foreign policy adviser Sartaj Aziz that the Modi-Sharif meeting was “better than expected”. They said Sharif’s gifts for Modi’s mother underlined his commitment to jointly work with the Indian PM for improving ties. Sharif, in fact, had seemed more optimistic after his meeting with Modi when he said in his statement that the two countries had agreed to a meeting between the two foreign secretaries.
India, however, continues to maintain that the foreign secretaries would “remain in touch” and that does not necessarily mean meeting in person. Sources said a segment within Sharif’s party is not comfortable with the adverse media coverage in Pakistan of the visit and that the report may be a fallout of that. Sharif received some flak for not focusing on the Kashmir issue even as he apparently allowed Modi to talk at length on the need for Pakistan to address the issue of terrorism. A senior PML(N) member told Dawn that Sharif felt belittled when there was no joint press conference after the one-onone meeting between the two PMs, the report said. -
UNITED STATES HAS A STAKE IN INDIA’S SUCCESS
It is my hope that Prime Minister Modi and his government will recognize how a deeper strategic partnership with the US serves India’s national interests, especially in light of current economic and geopolitical challenges”, says the author.
Iwant Prime Minister Modi to succeed because I want India to succeed. It is no secret that the past few years have been challenging ones for India – political gridlock, a flagging economy, financial difficulties, and more. It is not my place or that of any other American to tell India how to realize its full potential.That is for the Indians to decide. Our concern is simply that India does realize its full potential, for the United States has a stake in India’s success. It is also no secret that India and the US have not been reaching our full potential as strategic partners over the past few years, and there is plenty of blame to be shared on both sides. Too often recently we have slipped back into a transactional relationship.
We need to lift our sights again. The real reason India and the US have resolved to develop the strategic partnership is because each country has determined independently that doing so is in its national interests. It is because we have been guided by our national interests that the progress of our partnership has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support in the US and in India.
When it comes to the national interests of the US, the logic of a strategic partnership with India is powerful. India will soon become the world’s most populous nation. It has a young, increasingly skilled workforce that can lead India to become one of the world’s largest economies.
It is a nuclear power and possesses the world’s second largest military. It shares strategic interests with us on issues as diverse and vital as defeating terrorism and extremism, strengthening a rules-based international order in Asia, securing global energy supplies, and sustaining global economic growth. We also share common values. It is because of these shared values we are confident that India’s continued rise as a democratic great power will be peaceful and thus can advance critical US national interests.
That is why, contrary to the old dictates of realpolitik, we seek not to limit India’s rise but to bolster and catalyze it – economically, geopolitically, and, yes, militarily. It is my hope that Prime Minister Modi and his government will recognize how a deeper strategic partnership with the US serves India’s national interests, especially in light of current economic and geopolitical challenges.
For example, a top priority for India is the modernization of its armed forces. This is an area where US defense capabilities, technologies, and cooperation can benefit India enormously. Similarly, greater bilateral trade and investment can be a key driver of economic growth in India. Put simply, I see three strategic interests that India and the US clearly share, and these should be the priorities of a reinvigorated partnership. First, to shape the development of South Asia as a region of sovereign democratic states that contribute to one another’s security and prosperity; second, to create a preponderance of power in the Asia-Pacific region that favors free societies, free markets, free trade, and free comments; and, finally, to strengthen a liberal international order and an open global economy.
It is important for US leaders to reach out personally to Prime Minister Modi, especially in light of recent history. That is largely why I am traveling to India, and that is why I am pleased President Obama invited the prime minister to visit Washington. When the prime minister comes to Washington, I urge our congressional leaders to invite him to address a joint session of Congress.
Yet we must be clear-eyed about those issues that could weaken our strategic partnership. One is Afghanistan. Before it was a safe haven for the terrorists who attacked America on September 11, 2001, Afghanistan was a base of terrorists that targeted India. Our Indian friends remember this well, even if we do not. For this reason I am deeply concerned about the consequences of the president’s plan to pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan by 2016.
If Afghanistan goes the way of Iraq in the absence of US forces, it would leave India with a clear and present danger on its periphery. It would constrain India’s rise and its ability to devote resources and attention to shared foreign policy challenges elsewhere. It would erode India’s perception of the credibility and capability of US power and America’s reliability as a strategic partner.
The bottom line here is clear: India and the US have a shared interest in working together to end the scourge of extremism and terrorism that threatens stability, freedom, and prosperity across South Asia and beyond.
I hope the president will be open to reevaluating and revising his withdrawal plan in light of conditions on the ground. Another hurdle on which our partnership could stumble is our resolve to see it through amid domestic political concerns and shortterm priorities.
If India and the US are to build a truly strategic partnership, we must each commit to it and defend it in equal measure. We must each build the public support needed to sustain our strategic priorities, and we must resist the domestic forces in each of our countries that would turn our strategic relationship into a transactional one.
If the 21st century is defined more by peace than war, more by prosperity than misery, and more by freedom than tyranny, I believe future historians will look back and point to the fact that a strategic partnership was consummated between the world’s two preeminent democratic powers: India and the United States. If we keep this vision of our relationship always uppermost in our minds, there is no dispute we cannot resolve, no investment in each other’s success we cannot make, and nothing we cannot accomplish together. -
National imperatives in a complex world
A well-thought-through response combining intelligence, the internal security apparatus and mature political initiatives are called for. The design and execution of a response that is successful will need to ensure that the response itself does not exacerbate the problem, as would appear to be the case so far. Use of a sledge hammer either leaves a crater or results in diffusion and dispersion even more difficult to address”, says the author.
Adecisive electoral mandate provides just the opportunity required for a comprehensive review of the national security architecture long overdue. It gives the Prime Minister the freedom and authority to evaluate existing systems. Considered judgment will be needed on the efficacy of existing systems and structures, particularly of their cohesiveness and efficient functioning. Should the “review” so warrant, new systems capable of assessing threats and delivering appropriate responses to challenges to the nation’s security will need to be put in place early before existing systems are tested.
New threats
The nature of threats to national security is fast altering. These emerge inter alia from the changing nature of violence in troubled hotspots like Afghanistan, Yemen, from Syria and Iraq where there are deepening and exploding sectarian fault lines, from transnational organized crime like piracy and terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, cyber security and from instability in fragile states and cities. The BJP’s election manifesto acknowledges the comprehensive canvas of national security to include military security, economic security, cyber security, energy, food, water and health security and social cohesion and harmony.
In the BJP’s view, the lack of strong and visionary leadership over the past decade, coupled with multiple power centers, has led to a chaotic situation. Clarity is required on the factors that have led to this. Revisiting the genesis of the national security architecture as it has evolved, including prior to 1998 when the first National Security Advisor (NSA), Brajesh Mishra assumed office is instructive. It was clear all along that crafting a national security architecture on a Cabinet Parliamentary model would pose difficulties.
Members of the Cabinet, entrusted with responsibility for defense, external affairs, home and finance invariably are senior political figures. As members of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), given their seniority and influence, there was anticipation they could operate as independent silos. Experience has shown there are in-built institutional constraints to correctly assess emerging threats in an evolving and fastchanging strategic landscape by functionaries within a silo. The institution of a National Security Adviser (NSA) has worked best in a Presidential system, such as in the United States, where the NSA draws authority from the President as the chief executive.
This apprehension has been validated over the past decade and a half, variations in the personality of individuals notwithstanding. The strategic community, both within the country and outside has looked to the NSA to obtain the government’s line on issues central to the nation’s security. The ability to respond quickly, appropriately and, if necessary, decisively to threats to national security, imminent and real is of vital essence. This has, however, not always been the case.
The “review” being proposed could catalogue the challenges to national security over the past decade and a half and critically examine them as case studies to evaluate the efficacy of our response. Caution needs to be exercised. Not always is the failure to respond appropriately due to institutional constraints. Weak political leadership in the past has also been an important factor.
The attack by the Haqqani network on our Embassy in Kabul was anticipated by the CIA but could not be prevented. By the time its deputy director reached Islamabad, the terror machine had struck. No self-respecting nation can allow itself to be repeatedly wounded. Unless retribution is demonstrated, further attacks will follow.
Bifurcation of two jobs
The first NSA’s success was partly due to the fact that he doubled up as the Principal Secretary and was known to enjoy the full confidence of the Prime Minister. Healthy disagreements between the first NSA and the then External Affairs Minister, in spite of both being familiar with issues relating to defense, intelligence and diplomacy, the three components of national security, viewed holistically, was, however, an early pointer of the shape of things to come. The decision to bifurcate the two jobs for a short period under UPA-I is well documented for its shortcomings. Even Mani Dixit, the tallest professional of his generation, could not manage the pressures from the EAM and turf battles within the PMO.
The performance of successors largely content “to push files”, succeeded or failed depending on how weak or strong the silos were in defense, external affairs and home. The NSA’s influence fluctuated particularly in relation to the incumbent in the Home Ministry. In the absence of full play in the areas of defense and home, even a talented professional ended up as no more than a foreign policy advisor. The portfolios of home, defense, finance and external affairs now have incumbents who, in terms of seniority within the BJP, have the benefit of several decades of association with the Prime Minister.
This gives them clout which no civil servant can ever hope to acquire. Battles for turf are central to the functioning of any democracy. Weak political leadership in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) over the last decade, in spite of a first-rate Foreign Service has led to the relative weakening of the MEA. This weakness has been most manifest in relation to the conduct of our bilateral relationships in our immediate neighborhood which are in varying degrees of disrepair, as are our relations with China and the United States.
The policy of acquiescence with China will need to be shed at the earliest and more clinical and realistic assessments put in place. Deep incursions into our territory cannot continue to be explained away in terms of an un-demarcated border. With the United States, the transactional nature of the relationship resulting from absence or insufficient attention in Washington has been more than matched by our own shortsightedness. It will be easier to deal with China, if our relations with the United States are perceived to be on the upswing.
Focusing on Japan alone will place us in an untenable situation. The game changer will be the twin focus on US and China. In terms of military strength, there has been lack of clarity in what capability we are seeking. Most war games and doctrines are still addressing either 1971- type scenarios or a tactical nuclear weapons exchange. It is a sad reflection on the state of play that we are the biggest importers of conventional armaments, even after acquiring strategic capability.
Rationalization of armed forces
Every other country, including China and now the United States have “rationalized” their Armed Forces, a euphemism for reducing. On the other hand, we are seeking creation of three more Commands – Special Forces, Aerospace and Cyberspace. The Central Army and Southern Air force Commands have limited roles yet, we keep increasing our “tails and turf”. There is an urgent need to rationalize our defense thinking and structures as part of an overall national security review.
In 1965, the Government of India had commissioned Arthur D. Little, an American consultancy firm to make recommendations on defense production in India. Many of their recommendations, including on the involvement of the Indian private sector, are still valid. It should not be difficult given the visible and available political will to break through the dependence on imports to modernize our own defense production structures using FDI and an infusion of technology. The present system is unsustainable.
Resources are not only limited but the evolving situation in Iraq could place us in dire straits. Every dollar increase in the benchmark price of brent crude results in an additional liability of Rs 3,000 to 5,000 crore. The producers of oil are salivating at the prospect of oil prices touching new highs. This could spell gloom and even doom for importing countries, particularly those heavily dependent on imports, the price having gone up from $106 to $115 in just five days.
Shoring up security
● In 1965, the Government of India had commissioned Arthur D. Little, an American consultancy firm to make recommendations on defense production in India. Many of their recommendations, including on the involvement of the Indian private sector, are still valid.
● Given the political will, it will be easy to break through the dependence on imports to modernize our own defense production structures using FDI and an infusion of technology.
● Along with an evaluation of existing systems, a comprehensive review of all security challenges emanating from developments outside our borders is imperative.
● We are the biggest importers of conventional armaments, even after acquiring strategic capability. Every other country, including China and now the United States have “rationalized” their Armed Forces The attack by the Haqqani network on our Embassy in Kabul was anticipated by the CIA but could not be prevented. Along with an evaluation of existing systems, a comprehensive review of all security challenges emanating from developments outside our borders is imperative.Entities known to be inimical to India’s interests, particularly those enjoying some form of support from agencies of the state, if not outright patronage, in a few countries in our immediate neighborhood would readily suggest themselves and constitute the relatively easier part of this exercise. The ability of these entities to make common cause with sections of our own population whose alienation quotient has been enhanced by internal mismanagement is easy to identify if not easy to counter.
A well-thought-through response combining intelligence, the internal security apparatus and mature political initiatives are called for. The design and execution of a response that is successful will need to ensure that the response itself does not exacerbate the problem, as would appear to be the case so far. Use of a sledge hammer either leaves a crater or results in diffusion and dispersion even more difficult to address. The BJP’s election manifesto separately calls for a study of India’s nuclear doctrine and its updating to make it relevant to current challenges.
(The author, a retired diplomat, was till early 2013 India’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York. He is presently Non- Resident Senior Adviser, International Peace Institute, New York. He has recently joined the BJP).
-
Pak needs a long-term vision for Waziristan
ISLAMABAD (TIP): The long-awaited Pakistani military assault has been launched in North Waziristan. For over a decade, the region harboured local and foreign militants including Arabs, Chechens, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tajiks and Uighurs.
Some militant groups holding sway in the region were considered by Pakistan as pro-state while others antistate. Prominent among the militant groups of good guys were ones led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur and slain Mullah Nazir while the Haqqani network of Afghan militants was the only foreign militant outfit given open space to operate from the region.
Last month, a major faction of Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, which walked out of the umbrella organization, was willing to enter into the list of friendly groups, but Islamabad did not agree. Now, as the military has launched a “comprehensive” offensive in the region of battle-hardened fighters, the government needs to reveal whether the operation will take on all militant groups without discrimination or whether it is just aimed at eliminating the bad guys. One way or the other, all these groups of so-called good and bad elements have an understanding not to interfere in each other’s spheres of influence.
They have carved out their own territories in tribal badlands where they call all the shots – administrative, social, religious, legal, political and military. Their inspiration is the same. They have a history of being good at one time, and bad at another.
The question is after the military operation ends successfully, and the displaced families return to their abandoned homes, will they find themselves in midst of guntoting good militants or with the Sharifled government focused on its mega projects like highways and motorways? They have already suffered immensely due to the war on terror. They are, no doubt, simple people and their minds can be easily moulded the way one wants.
A chat with a senior intelligence official revealed that the kidnapped vice chancellor of Peshawar’s Islamia College University, Dr Ajmal Khan, reformed several militants by educating them in Shawal Valley of North Waziristan. The state brainwashed them when it wanted the die-hard religious tribesmen to take up guns in the name of religion.
Has it now decided to reverse the trend? If that is so, as some argue, the government needs to come up with a clear policy and vision at strategic, ideological, political and foreign policy levels while the military should keep cleansing the dens of militancy there. The operation in North Waziristan won’t end the scourge of terrorism in Pakistan unless a clear policy is adopted to address militancy in all shapes and shades.
Also, the government must stop calling people along Af-Pak border tribals, which makes them sound like a bunch of uncivilized people. They should be mainstreamed like the rest of Pakistanis. The people of tribal regions deserve the same rights, freedom, protection and economic opportunities available to Pakistanis elsewhere. For sustainable peace and development, the government needs to introduce political, economic, social and administrative reforms in tribal areas.
Their fundamental rights cannot be guaranteed unless the government decides to amend the constitution and transfer the legislative and administrative powers of tribal areas from the president to parliament. A comprehensive package should be announced for people of tribal areas, with focus on health, education and employment. Gains of military offensive can only be retained if these are coupled with a radical new development agenda for the deprived people.
-
It’s a new era in India’s foreign policy as countries compete to woo Modi
“The new majority government in power in New Delhi, freed from debilitating coalition politics and attaching priority to economic development, has aroused external interest”, says the author.
In foreign policy, Prime Minister Modi has hit the ground running, taking unexpected initiatives. He reached out to our neighbors, taking the unprecedented step of inviting their leaders to his swearing-in ceremony. While invitations to Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Afghanistan carried only positive connotations, those to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Rajapakse carried mixed political implications. It was felt that the plus points in extending invitations to Pakistan and Sri Lanka outweighed the negatives.
Engagement
In Pakistan’s case the dilemma is whether we should engage it at the highest level without any ground-clearing move by Nawaz Sharif on terrorism, the Mumbai trial and trade. The Pakistani premier has been, on the contrary, aggressive over Kashmir, invoking the UN resolutions and self-determination as a solution, seeking third party intervention, permitting tirades by Hafiz Saeed against India, maintaining the pitch on water issues and reneging on granting MFN status even under a modified nomenclature.
In these circumstances, the move to invite him risked suggesting that, like the previous government, the new government too was willing to open the doors of a dialogue in the hope of creating a dynamics that would yield some satisfaction on the terrorism issue. In other words, practically delinking dialogue from terrorism, despite having taken a position to the contrary while in opposition.
In Sri Lanka’s case, the whipped-up sentiments in Tamil Nadu against President Rajapakse for his triumphalist rather than reconciliatory policies on the Tamilian issue have upset the overall balance of India’s foreign policy towards Sri Lanka that requires that we adequately weigh the need to counter powerful adversarial external forces are at play there against our interests. Inviting President Rajapakse to New Delhi obviously risked provoking a strong reaction in Tamil Nadu, but the new government had to decide whether, like its predecessor, it would get cowed down by such regional opposition, or it would act in the greater interest of the country even when according importance to the sentiments of a section of our population.
This dramatic outreach to the neighbors has elicited praise internally and externally, primarily focused on the invitation to the Pakistan president and its implication for the resumption of the Indo-Pak dialogue. Internally, those pro-dialogue lobbies that have espoused the previous government’s placative policies towards Pakistan have naturally welcomed the surprise move by Modi. Externally, India has always been counseled to have a dialogue with Pakistan irrespective of its conduct and its terrorist links, the argument being that these two South Asian nuclear armed neighbors with unresolved territorial conflicts risked sliding into a nuclear conflict unless they found a way to settle their differences for which a dialogue was an inescapable necessity. Such praise from within and without from predictable quarters should neither be surprising nor worth much attention.
Outreach
The new majority government in power in New Delhi, freed from debilitating coalition politics and attaching priority to economic development, has aroused external interest. The sentiment outside the country- as well as inside it – has been that the previous government lost its way, leading India into the quagmire of high fiscal deficits and tumbling growth, belying international expectations about its economic rise paralleling that of China.
If India can be steered back into a high growth trajectory with stronger leadership and improved governance, more economic opportunities will open up for our foreign partners. This would also draw renewed attention to India’s geo-political importance which, though an accepted reality now, has receded from the foreground lately.
Reassurance
Modi is seen as the man of the moment. This would explain the telephone calls from world leaders to Modi and the invitations given and received. India is being courted, and Modi’s choice of the countries he first visits or foreign leaders he first receives, is drawing external attention as an indication of his diplomatic priorities.
On this broader front too, Modi is following an unanticipated script of his own. He is being generous to the US despite its reprehensible conduct in denying him a visa, by prioritizing national interest over his individual feelings. He has not waited for the stigma of visa refusal to be erased by a US executive order removing his name from the State Department black-list. He is planning to meet President Obama in Washington in September – the first external visit to be announced – quickly relieving the Americans of fears that the visa issue could become a hurdle in engaging him.
In another remarkable gesture that the State Department would have noted for its political import, he has agreed to a book launch by an American think-tank at Race Course Road. China wants to complicate moves by Japan to strengthen strategic ties with India. Its decision to send its Foreign Minister to India after the swearing-in seems to have been motivated by this rivalry, apart from seeking to build on the personal contacts established by China with Modi when he was Chief Minister. If the Chinese FM was allowed to be the first consequential foreign leader to meet Modi, it appears Japan may be the first foreign country – barring Bhutan – the latter may visit en route to the BRICS meeting in July in Brazil.
The Bhutan visit underscores the importance Modi intends attaching to neighbors. Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister is visiting Delhi on June 18. It would seem that Modi’s immediate priority is to reassure all his important interlocutors, friends or adversaries, that they should have no misgivings about him and the direction of his policies, and that he seeks to engage with all power centers in a balanced manner.
-
Foreign ties will blossom under the new Modi government
For adversaries, habituated to passive and defensive responses to deliberate provocations, the likelihood of a less tolerant Indian response under a Modi-led government might induce rethinking on their part about the price they may have to pay for aggressive or assertive policies”, says the author.
The BJP’s massive electoral victory brings us foreign policy gains. The prospect of a strong and stable government in India makes our external image more positive. Other countries could conclude that the new government will have a more self-confident foreign policy, and will defend the country’s interests with greater vigor. Since the BJP is widely characterized at home and abroad as a Hindu nationalist party, it will be assumed that the Modi-led government will be more “nationalistic” in its thinking and actions, and will pursue national goals more sturdily.
Decisive
Notwithstanding their rhetoric about India’s global role, big powers have for long seen us as a country too preoccupied by internal problems to be able to act on the international stage sufficiently energetically. Issues of poverty and managing our complex diversities apart, coalition politics in India has been seen by our external interlocutors as contributing to governmental delays in decision making and failures in implementation even in the foreign policy domain. Modi’s personality gives us cards to play externally with advantage. He is seen as a strong and decisive leader, committed to making India vibrant economically, and more secure. For those eyeing more economic engagement with India, Modi’s development agenda offers greater investment opportunities.
For those seeking more engagement on security issues, Modi’s India will appear as a more confident partner. For adversaries, habituated to passive and defensive responses to deliberate provocations, the likelihood of a less tolerant Indian response under a Modi-led government might induce rethinking on their part about the price they may have to pay for aggressive or assertive policies. These real and psychological advantages that India obtains under Modi’s leadership should not be frittered away needlessly.
Prudence and “responsible” conduct are often used as a cloak to cover diffidence and timidity. There will be those who would advise that having won such a massive mandate, with all the political strength that comes with it, a Modiled government, burdened by a negative ideological image that worries sections at home and abroad, should send re-assuring signals to all. There should be no requirement for this, as it is India that has been long sinned against. Sections of our political class, intellectuals and media personalities have done great disservice to the country by their incessant vilification and deionization of Modi, making untenable historical parallels with the rise of fascism in Europe and making egregious references to Hitler and abusively using words like “genocide” to castigate him.
Initiatives
That otherwise sensible people should have for so long lost all sense of proportion remains a puzzle.Maybe they felt their self-esteem rise in proportion to their revilement of Modi. This calumny of Modi has naturally colored outsiders’ views of him, which explains the negative commentaries on him in the liberal western press. Modi’s exceptional mandate, however, is derived from the masses of India, and they have chosen him for what he is and stands for, unbothered by the obloquy of his detractors. Questions are being asked as to what “initiatives” Modi could take on the foreign policy front now that he has got a strong mandate.This suggests it has become somehow incumbent on the new government to prove its credentials in some way to the international community. It also carries the nuance that India could not meet the expectations of select countries because his party hobbled the choices of the previous Prime Minister. A feeling also exists that the previous government missed opportunities and was too passive in its foreign policy, a situation that the new government should redress. The sub-text of most such criticism is that India failed to live up to US expectations and allowed the relationship to slip into a lower gear, besides not being able to push the then prime minister’s vision of peace with Pakistan.
Assertiveness
Not having engaged in any provocative act against either China or Pakistan, India would be right to wait for China and Pakistan to signal a change of thinking towards it. In reality, repeated provocations have come from their side, which the previous government preferred, in China’s case, either to downplay or not counter, or, in Pakistan’s case, avoid retaliation in order not to have to admit the failure of the policy of engagement despite terrorism and Pakistan’s enduring hostility towards us. China’s assertiveness on the border will have to be watched, especially because its conduct in the South China and East China Seas flashes red signals to us that at a time of its choosing its posture towards us can suddenly harden.The recent signals from Pakistan have been uniformly negative, whether on Kashmir, curbing anti-Indian religious extremists, trade and water, and these have been capped by the expulsion of two Indian journalists despite the much touted media role in improving relations as signified, for example, by the “Aman ki Asha” initiative. Nawaz Sharif’s congratulatory message to Modi should be taken as a routine diplomatic exercise, with the invitation to visit Pakistan as a way of making himself look good and win an easy diplomatic point. Our relationship with the US remains very important, but to reinvigorate it the US should not let short-term transactional considerations take precedence over the logic of the strategic relationship.
Modi being the sole victim of the US legislation on religious freedom, the White House should be issuing an Executive Order to annul the State Department’s decision to blacklist Modi in the first place. While Obama’s gesture of telephoning Modi and alluding to a Washington visit by him can be appreciated, the fact that as Prime Minister he can now obtain an “A” category US visa does not erase the original insult.
-
Suggestions for new govt
New Delhi (TIP): Coalition and patronage politics has led to a bloated administration that often works at crosspurposes. It’s time to shut redundant ministries and bring together related functions.
- Place external affairs and commerce and industry under charge of one minister. This would be in keeping with Modi’s oft-stated intent to make commerce integral to foreign policy. Another possibility is to merge ministries of commerce & industry, textiles, heavy industry and micro, small and medium enterprises and form a mega ministry for trade & industry. This would bring inter-linked sectors under one roof.
- Hive off internal security and intelligence functions from the sprawling home ministry.
- Create an umbrella transport ministry comprising railways, roads, ports and shipping and civil aviation. Else, keep railways separate and merge the other three. These options are key to improving infrastructure and linked to Modi’s focus on tourism, a major job creating sector. A third option is to get back to the earlier surface transport, comprising roads and ports, and leave railways and civil aviation separate.
- PMO may see induction of mission specialists dealing with infrastructure and job-related sectors.
- A ministry of energy may be born, including oil & gas, power, coal and renewable energy. This will mean close linkages of natural resources and user industries. Alternatively, there could be a separate ministry for power, including coal, and a separate one for oil & gas, which may include chemicals and petrochemicals. The ministries of coal, mines and steel may also be merged into one (coal and mines used to be part of the same ministry at one point of time).
- Combine culture and tourism; alternatively merge culture with HRD.
- An omnibus ministry straddling agriculture, food, food processing, consumer affairs and civil supplies.
- Consider a merger of rural development and panchayati raj ministries.
- A Convergence or ICE ministry comprising telecommunications, information technology and information & broadcasting may be considered.
- Planning Commission may be in for a radical overhaul as it is seen to have lost its relevance in a modern economy.
-
U.S. policy on India, and Modi, needs to change
We are a Democracy and each one of us has the freedom to express our differences without fear, but yet we have to work together in nation building and the common good of every member of the society. Whatever is needed to be done should have been done at the ballot, the majority, indeed, the overwhelming majority has chosen to trust the words of Mr. Modi and together, we have to go forward. Justice should be the foundation of every society and no one should be above the law, and the law is clear: One is innocent until proven guilty.
Mr. Modi in his interview with NDTV has challenged the civil society to hang him, if he is found guilty. Until he is found guilty, we need to value our systems. Justice is the only thing the society stands on. I have been critical of Mr. Modi from the very beginning and that has not changed, but I was never for the pound of flesh, instead I was for restoring the lives of those who lost their homes, livelihood and the loved ones, and to build a cohesive India where no Indian had to live in fear of the other.
In each one of the pieces I have written, the theme was consistent; Justice and inclusion. I agree with Fareed Zakaria on many items he has listed, I do hope, President Obama puts his differences aside, and values the verdict of the people of India, it is not a simple majority, it is a huge majority. Let’s give Modi a chance and trust our democracy and support him in his plans – as he has articulated it in his interview time and again.
Mike Ghouse : The author is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. -
A MODI GOVERNMENT MUST PROJECT A MORE ROBUST FOREIGN POLICY
“Rather than debating a new conceptual framework for our foreign policy – more “nationalistic” or resting on an “India first” foundation – we could look at how some concrete issues should be addressed by a Modi-led government”, says the author.
Now that it appears that the next government in New Delhi could well be Modi-led, questions about the possible changes in India’s foreign policy are being raised inside and outside the country. India’s external challenges are well known and policy responses have been examined over time by governments in power. Whether or not existing policies represent the best balance in coping with our external environment with the capacities we have can always be debated.
Some say that our foreign policy is weak and accommodating, too risk-averse and lacking in self-confidence. Others argue that we are unsure of what we want and consequently we are reactive, allowing others to define the agenda on which then we position ourselves. ‘Modi is not above the law’: NaMo insists he has nothing to hide from snoopgate probe and denies corruption slur against Vadra Hurriyat supports Army Chief’s statement that Kashmir is the ‘jugular vein’ of Pakistan Pakistan Army chief calls Kashmir the country’s ‘jugular vein’ Such a foreign policy is not seen as compatible with India’s stature and role in international affairs.
Refashion
Some others advocate that the Modigovernment should make a break with the Nehruvian foreign policy that India has been practicing, even under the previous NDA government. The implications of this are unclear. It could mean that we should defend our interests more vigorously, worry less about international opinion and attenuate the moral overtones of our foreign policy. Inflammatory: Pakistan’s army Chief General Raheel Sharif recently termed Kashmir Pakistan’s ‘jugular vein’ More importantly, we should develop the necessary military sinews to pursue a more robust foreign policy, including accelerating our strategic programs and climbing down from the nuclear disarmament bandwagon.It could mean therefore a more muscular China and Pakistan policy. It could also mean discarding our allergy to alliances, getting rid of the malady of non-alignment that still afflicts us, shedding leftist, third world rhetoric and not allowing concepts of “strategic autonomy” to constrict more decisive foreign policy choices. Rather than debating a new conceptual framework for our foreign policy – more “nationalistic” or resting on an “India first” foundation – we could look at how some concrete issues should be addressed by a Modi-led government. Pakistan is a perennial problem, embodying the worst challenges India faces, whether of terrorism, religious extremism and nuclear threats, all linked to its territorial claims on us.
The latest statements by Pakistan’s Interior Minister and its army chief reflect Pakistan’s abiding hostility towards us. Nawaz Sharif has been harping aggressively on the Kashmir issue, calling it Pakistan’s “jugular vein”, a phrase repeated by the current army chief. By speaking highly politically about Kashmir, the army chief has drawn a red line for Pakistan, besides signaling support to the separatists in Kashmir. An unreconstructed Nawaz Sharif is lobbying with the US and UK to intervene in the Kashmir issue.
If by “jugular vein” Pakistan means that we can inflict death on Pakistan by thirst, it is dishonestly ignoring India’s strict adherence to the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty despite the 1965, 1971, 1999 armed aggressions by Pakistan, its terrorist onslaught against India since the mid-1980s, with the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks capping its emergence as the epicenter of international terrorism, and its policy of derailing our power projects on the western rivers allowed by the Treaty by dragging us into international arbitration.
Mismanagement
Meanwhile, by acquiring contiguity with China through its illegal occupation of parts of J&K and preventing our contiguity with Afghanistan, Pakistan’s “jugular vein” receives plentiful sustenance to counter us strategically. These Pakistani statements helpfully give room and reason to a Modi-led government to reject any hurried dialogue with Pakistan and exclude Kashmir and Siachen from any future structured agenda.Pakistan’s intransigence also argues against any back-channel contacts, because unless Pakistan can publicly speak of its willingness to compromise over its differences with India, the back-channel is simply a means to “soften” India and exploit its attachment to a come-what-may, dialogueoriented and “readiness to walk the extramile” approach to extract concessions. China presents a more complex case as it has outshone us in its diplomatic, economic and military performance and has decisively gained ground on us regionally and internationally. By mismanaging our democratic politics internally, neglecting our defense preparedness and failing to sustain high rates of economic growth, we have gravely weakened ourselves vis a vis China.
Diminished
China is thus setting the agenda for our bilateral engagement, advancing its interests, keeping us on the defensive with calculated provocations and evading any serious response to our concerns. We should continue our engagement of China but make it more balanced by calibrated countervailing steps by us like winding up the Special Representatives mechanism which is no longer serving the specific purpose for which it was set up, apart from allowing the Dalai Lama to call on India’s new leader after May 16, refusing visas to Tibetans in any Chinese delegation visiting India, avoiding any official meeting between the two sides on Tibetan territory and the new prime minister visiting Tawang and Japan before the expected visit of the Chinese president to India.The US seems to be giving diminished political attention to India while stepping up economic pressure on us. Its threats of isolating Russia and sanctioning powerful Russian political and business personalities for actions in Crimea in disregard of Russia’s nuclear armory, its huge resource base, European energy dependence on Russia, and the risk of losing Russian logistic support for Afghanistan and for dealing with Iran and Syria, contrasts with the US reluctance to punish Pakistan for its misdemeanors in the region that has cost American lives too. US’s domination of the global financial system and its readiness to use it as an instrument of coercion stresses the need for India to assess more carefully the future of the India-US strategic partnership. Much more than this will be on the new government’s plate, of course. But if the big morsels are chewed well, the smaller ones can be swallowed with ease.
-
Fear and loathing in Washington
The known unknowns about Modi are perfect catalysts for a reset of India-US relations
Over the past three years, Washington has also come to believe it did India too big a favor with the nuclear deal and received little payback. This premise conveniently ignores the many tangibles (Indian purchases of US defense platforms to the tune of $10 billion in less than a decade) and intangibles (India’s decision not to criticize wholesale spying by NSA). A strong government in New Delhi is unlikely to be as patient or as yielding
The American establishment is registering a measure of fear while the liberal academic-NGO community a sense of loathing at the prospect of Narendra Modi becoming India’s next PM. They are full of questions with no real answers. If elected, how would a state CM play the national and international game? How would he deal with a US administration whose policy lately has been to hit India on multiple fronts to extract concessions? More importantly, how would he look at a country that denied him a visa and had no contact with him for seven years?
The anti-Modi coalition of Christian evangelists, left-leaning Indian Americans and Muslim activists is gearing up to mount pressure through the US Congress. They will keep the heat on even though the old fervor is gone, especially among Republicans. The uncertainties, the ambiguities and the “known unknowns” about Modi are actually perfect catalysts for a “reset” of India-US relations currently running at a low. They can create the new chemistry necessary for a more balanced equation better suited to the times.
It cannot be the responsibility of one partner to create equilibrium, constantly ignore provocations and appease. A good relationship bears traffic in both directions. Actually the reset has already begun. Ironically, the button was pushed by the Khobragade affair. Needless provocation sparked a strong Indian response and washed the fuzziness off the relationship. Dialogue has gained in clarity since. The defensive tone has been replaced by a confident articulation of Indian expectations from the relationship. It is neither arrogant nor whiney. Terms of engagement will change further if Indian voters give a clear mandate.
Unfortunately, the last phase of the UPA government left the impression that India will reverse its policies in the face of pressure and noise from Washington. It did so on preferential market access and transfer pricing. This has emboldened US lobbies out to draw more blood. After all who wouldn’t use a tactic that works? Over the past three years, Washington has also come to believe it did India too big a favor with the nuclear deal and received little payback. This premise conveniently ignores the many tangibles (Indian purchases of US defense platforms to the tune of $10 billion in less than a decade) and intangibles (India’s decision not to criticize wholesale spying by NSA). A strong government in New Delhi is unlikely to be as patient or as yielding. Piling on public pressure is bad strategy for the general health of the relationship.
It reduces the Indo-US story to one of trade and investment disputes and blurs the original idea for coming together – a geostrategic convergence of interests. The new government will realize soon enough that an inward-looking Obama administration has had only fitful engagement with the world. That it has paid no special homage to strategic vision, and instead allowed a disaggregation of the India-US relationship. Then it has come after New Delhi issue by issue. It has attacked India at the behest of big pharma and other business interests whose maximalist agenda has been repeatedly exposed.
Their game is to scotch any serious attempt to keep medicine affordable while discrediting India’s generic drugs industry through means both fair and foul. In their calculation, if India bends, it would scare smaller, weaker countries from ever contemplating a compulsory license US pharma’s brutal overreach has even put the much-touted Trans-Pacific Partnership under a cloud as negotiating countries discover the traps set for them under the guise of protecting intellectual property and copyrights. If the US Trade Representative reviewing India’s intellectual property regime downgrades it and puts it on the list of ‘Special 301’ countries, this will add another twist to an already twisting relationship. Such naming and shaming could lead to sanctions.
Pushing the business agenda of demands drafted by the US Chamber of Commerce at a time when the US is losing international partners faster than it is acquiring them is unwise. Especially when Obama’s signature foreign policy effort – the pivot to Asia – keeps reincarnating in lesser and lesser avatars. Obama had also pledged to strengthen bonds with emerging economies but today all Brics are piled up against America for various reasons. India, Brazil, China and South Africa abstained on a UN resolution condemning the fifth partner Russia’s annexation of Crimea. India also abstained on a US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka’s human rights situation.
This reflects a post-Khobragade realism, a push-back, even a new equilibrium. India will give but also take. For every US demand to open the Indian economy, there would be an equal and opposite demand on completing a “tantalization agreement”. India may find it useful to cross-link and leverage defense contracts for something tangible. Surely $10 billion worth of arms can buy relief on H-1B visas or a more honest policy towards a certain neighbor that remains the hub of terrorism. The truth is if Washington can be transactional, so can others. But this new phase should not obscure the larger logic behind India and the US coming together because the many reasons for convergence remain. Those with a wider window than a four-year election cycle understand that. Equally importantly, those who make national security policy in India know what balance of power is more beneficial.
-
US unwilling to give up Middle East peace process yet
WASHINGTON (TIP): The suspension of peace talks between Israel and Palestinians delivered the harshest blow yet to secretary of state John Kerry’s ambitious, if perhaps quixotic, hope of ending the decades-long impasse at the cost of focusing on other crises around the world.
But Kerry refused to accept defeat, saying “we will never give up our hope or our commitment for the possibilities” of Mideast peace. On Thursday, Kerry sought to portray the latest setback with as much optimism as the dismal development would allow. “There is always a way forward,” he told reporters at the state department, just a few hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv bluntly said the peace process had taken “a giant leap backward”.
Even diplomats and experts sympathetic to Kerry’s desire to soldier on with the talks declared the Mideast peace process on life support. Others, impatient with what they described as the Obama administration’s rudderless foreign policy, said the US needed to move on and refocus on other pressing priorities. Kerry acknowledged the bleakness of the situation, and said Israeli and Palestinian leaders needed to be willing to make compromises to keep the nine months of negotiations alive beyond an April 29 deadline.
“We may see a way forward, but if they’re not willing to make the compromises necessary, it becomes very elusive,” he said. Kerry has struggled to hold together the talks after a series of tit-for-tat diplomatic manoeuvres between the two sides over the last month that have eroded any trust or progress built since last summer. The worst blow came on Thursday when Israel’s security cabinet agreed to shelve the negotiations as the result of a new deal struck by the Palestinian Authority to create a reconciliation government with the militant group Hamas. Hamas has called for the destruction of the state of Israel, and is considered a terrorist organization by the US, European Union and other counties worldwide.
However, among Palestinians, the new agreement was hailed as a potentially historic step toward mending the rift that has split their people between two sets of rulers for seven years. Similar deals have been struck before between Hamas and the Fatah political party that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas represents. All have failed, and US experts said all sides should wait and see if the new agreement, reached on Wednesday, also fizzles out before declaring an end to the peace process with Israel. Former US diplomat and Mideast peace negotiator Dennis Ross said the Obama administration should wait to see whether Hamas and Fatah are able to form an interim government within five weeks, as they have pledged.
If the cannot, Ross said, the process might yet survive. Until then, “I don’t think you can say for sure that this is over with,” said Ross, who helped cobble together talks between Netanyahu and Abbas at the White House in 2010 and served as President Bill Clinton’s Mideast adviser. “It’s fair to say it’s on life support. I wouldn’t say this thing is done and can’t be resurrected.” Time is not on Kerry’s side, nor has it been throughout the negotiations. Originally, Kerry had envisioned a full agreement within nine months. When it became clear earlier this year that was not possible, given a glaring lack of meaningful progress, the state department adjusted its ambitions and set an April 29 deadline for producing a framework plan to keep the talks going for months longer.
It was not immediately clear how long the US is now prepared to let the latest impasse continue. US negotiators will remain in the region for the time being, said state department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. Throughout the year, Kerry has been forced to brush off snide accusations from critics that he is doggedly pursuing a peace deal in order to nab a Nobel Prize or make the Mideast his legacy issue after decades of statesmanship. During that time, the civil war in Syria has turned bloodier, with as many as 150,000 people killed and President Bashar Assad showing no signs of leaving.
Russia, meanwhile, has begun to flex its muscle in neighbouring former Soviet states, annexing the Crimea region in Ukraine and threatening to take over even more territory across that nation or others. No one accuses Kerry of ignoring other diplomatic crises, and he has spent at least as much time travelling to hotspots for negotiations on various problems during his first year at the State Department as he has spent in Washington. But Elliott Abrams, another longtime diplomat and top Mideast adviser to President George W Bush, described the peace process as a “forced march” fuelled by Kerry’s eagerness for a quick deal.
He predicted the peace process will live on in some form — largely because it fills a political need for the US, Israel and Palestinian leaders, and “because the two-state solution is still ultimately the right outcome”. “The pipe dream was Kerry’s belief that he could quickly reach a final status agreement; that was a vision based almost entirely on vanity,” Abrams said. “The administration should seriously be asking itself how it screwed things up so badly
-
The United States and India: Global Partners in the Global Economy
Remarks made by Nisha Desai Biswal, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, at Tampa Convention Center, Tampa, FL on April 25, 2014
Thank you, Dr. Singh, for your warm welcome. It is a great honor to participate in the 2014 FICCI-IIFA Global Business Forum. Tampa is an ideal location to talk about the important and growing economic ties between the United States and India. Not only is Tampa the seventh-largest port in the United States by volume, it also handles the highest volume of goods headed to India.
And FICCI is certainly the right partner for this conversation, as they have been such a key player in advancing our economic relationship. And how thrilling it is for the IIFA Awards to be held in the United States for the first time! Indian culture is increasingly influencing popular culture, not just in America but around the globe. I recall a moment some two decades ago,when I was a Red Cross volunteer in Tbilisi, Georgia, and I went to a local theater where Sholay was playing, dubbed in Russian.
Imagine listening to some of the most iconic dialogues of Hindi cinema in Russian! And I will never forget the time I was in the small mountain town of Kutaisi and was asked to sing a folk song. I started singing “mera joota hai japani,” and the entire room of 200 Georgians started singing with me. They knew all the words! Indian art, culture, and film have global appeal. Every day, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural lines are blurred, because from Kabul to Kinshasa, from Moscow to Mumbai, from Tampa to Trivandrum,we are all under the thrall of Indian popular culture. But it isn’t just pop culture.
It is the idea of India itself that holds such special appeal to so many around the world. As for the United States, we want to take what three successive presidents and two prime ministers and most importantly our 1.6 billion citizens have built in 15 years, in this defining partnership of the 21st century, and make it even better. Today, I want to discuss the opportunities that lie ahead as the U.S.-India economic relationship expands and matures, and as our two economies become increasingly intertwined and interdependent.We are living in a truly globalized world, brought closer by technology and trade – and yes, even movies! But despite the lightning speed of technological advances that are transforming so many aspects of our life for the better,we’re also contending with one of the most complex moments in world affairs with very real challenges, including conflict, poverty, and climate change.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in Asia, which boasts nearly two-thirds of the world’s population, squeezed into only a third of its landmass. It is a region with tremendous promise and potential. As President Obama said in Tokyo yesterday,when he reiterated that we are and always will be a Pacific nation, “America’s security and prosperity is inseparable from the future of this region,” and that’s why we’ve made it a priority to renew American leadership in the Asia Pacific. By 2050, Asia may well comprise half of global GDP. But for the region to realize its potential, it must embrace strong, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, one where the private sector, not government, leads economic development.
It must defeat terrorism and counter violent extremism,while at the same time advancing human dignity and human rights. And in an age where citizens have more access to information and are demanding more accountability than ever, governments must promote effective and transparent governance. Despite these challenges,we’ve never been more optimistic about the future of Asia – and the role the United States and India will play in advancing prosperity and stability in the region. One reason is India’s growing economic connectivity – eastward with Bangladesh, Burma, and Southeast Asia; and we see promise in links westward with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. These are vital to the prosperity and stability of Asia.We are committed to supporting economic linkages that will cultivate new markets and knit these countries even closer together – and make them more integrated with the global economy. We’re advancing regional initiatives that do just that.
First, there’s the historic opportunity to connect South and Southeast Asia into an integrated economic landscape. This Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor is a unique geography teeming with opportunity, but traditional northsouth trade still trumps east-west movement of goods and services by a factor of five. And through our New Silk Road initiative,we have been focused on creating regional energy markets that link Central Asia with South Asia; promoting trade and transportation routes and investing in critical infrastructure; improving customs and border procedures; and linking businesses and people. Today, Afghanistan and its neighbors are increasingly championing and owning that New Silk Road vision, creating new transit and trade routes that complement the very vibrant east-towest connections across Eurasia.
And the region is making concrete efforts to reduce barriers to trade, invest in each other’s economies, and support development and cross-border projects. At the heart of all of that is India, because prosperity in South Asia hinges on dynamic growth of its economic powerhouse. The United States is committed to working with India to fully unlock the true potential of our economic ties. Today, the United States is one of India’s largest trade and investment partners. Our bilateral trade in goods and services has grown to nearly $100 billion. I think India’s excellent envoy in Washington, Ambassador Jaishankar, said it best recently when he noted that the extraordinary growth in our trade relations has “changed the chemistry of our ties.”
Tectonic shifts in global economics have helped bring us to where we are today. And it didn’t happen overnight. After the Second World War, the creation of a rules-based trading system increased commerce, connectivity, and prosperity across the globe.While India’s economic transformation is more recent, its progress has been swift. Import tariffs on average are more than 30 times lower than they were in 1991,when then-Finance Minister Manmohan Singh began sweeping reforms. And since 2005 we have seen an increase in goods trade by 250%, in services trade by 350%. But we can do even better.
As Vice President Biden said last July, there is no reason why our bilateral trade shouldn’t quintuple again if our countries work to grow together and remain candid with each other about the obstacles that exist. I believe $500 billion in total trade is entirely possible. Bilateral investment flows have also grown immensely, with foreign direct investment into India from the United States reaching $28.2 billion last year. Cumulative Indian FDI into the United States has also grown remarkably, from a negligible $96 million in 2000 to $5.2 billion by 2012. Even so,we still lack the investment diversity needed to fuel the growth of new and emerging sectors in our respective economies.
India needs a transparent, straightforward way of attracting foreign investment, offering private capital a way to share in India’s opportunity. There must be a welcoming business environment that allows every dollar of investment to work efficiently. Currently, the United States and India are negotiating a Bilateral Investment Treaty, or BIT, which will be critical to deepening our economic relationship, improving investor confidence, and supporting economic growth in both countries. A BIT will go a long way toward bringing our economies closer and reducing the friction that’s only natural with two complex free-market systems such as ours. It will help us move past the choppiness that comes from not having an over-arching investment framework. And it will open up even more opportunities for American and Indian firms.
Beyond our BIT, India’s investment and tax policies need to be designed to attract capital flows from across the world. Regulatory requirements need to be transparent and consistently enforced. Contracts must be upheld and honored across jurisdictions, and perhaps most importantly, intellectual property rights – based on international norms – must be recognized. And the future of India’s economy critically depends on the ability of people and goods to move where they are needed – efficiently and affordably. Soon, some sixty-eight Indian cities will have populations of over one million people each. India’s planned trillion-dollar commitment to infrastructure, with its strong emphasis on public-private partnerships, is both ambitious and admirable.
No doubt infrastructure improvements will help to relieve the congestion on roads, railways, ports, airports, and in the power supply. American businesses are eager to participate – an effort the U.S. government fully supports. India’s future prosperity will also depend on one of our shared strengths – innovation. Increasingly, our two countries are putting our best minds together, to make growth more sustainable and inclusive and address 21stcentury challenges like climate change and energy security. That’s why we are so excited about the U.S.-India Technology Summit and Expo in November of this year in Delhi. The event will showcase our cooperation on science and technology, helping commercialize technology for economic growth and development, and shaping an ecosystem that incentivizes innovation.
Policy-makers, industry leaders, educators, and scientists will discuss topics including manufacturing; life sciences and healthcare technologies; clean and renewable energy; IT; and earth science – all areas where U.S.-India collaboration can help us seize the opportunities, and respond to the challenges, of the 21st century. The Tech Summit is the idea place to showcase initiatives like the Millennium Alliance with FICCI,where we support Indian innovators and entrepreneurs who are coming up with new technologies to meet India’s development challenges. In March, I saw first-hand some of the most cutting-edge cooperation in science and technology,when I visited the Indian Space Research Organization, ISRO.NASA’s cooperation with ISRO on India’s Mars Orbiter Mission – India’s first inter-planetary space launch – and ongoing discussions about future joint initiatives, show that even the sky is not the limit when it comes to our partnership. And our energy partnership is changing the way our economies are powered.With 400 million people in India lacking reliable access to energy, the stakes for India’s future growth are enormous.
We’re collaborating on clean and renewable energy, oil and gas, new technologies, energy efficiency, and civil nuclear energy. But real prosperity is only possible if it is also truly inclusive. That’s why ensuring women and girls are part of the conversation is a critical element to all these areas of partnership. Positive linkages between women’s engagement and a country’s economic status have been definitively proven, and the Obama Administration is determined to elevate the status of women and girls as a critical aspect of our foreign policy.We firmly believe that women’s rights are human rights, and women’s security is national security. While India is a leader in supporting women’s leadership across government, civil society and certainly in business, in many ways the potential of women and girls in India remains untapped and underutilized as a force for growth and development.
This is why we support efforts like the Girl Rising Project to encourage public dialogue on gender and education issues to encourage community level interventions to help improve girls’ education. So I look forward to the next panel as a way to advance this discussion. In this area and in so many others, our relationship is much broader than our government and business ties. As the late Senator Edward Kennedy noted, our relations are not just government to government, but people to people, citizen to citizen, and friend to friend. Nowhere is that more evident than in the deep and rich ties between the people of the United States and India. Nearly 100,000 Indian students are studying at colleges and universities in the United States. Last year, almost 700,000 Indians visited the United States for business or tourism.
It is these connections, between our entrepreneurs, scientists, scholars, and artists that make this partnership whole. We find that the relationship is also flourishing at the state and city level. And our cities and states are partnering more extensively than ever before, helping plant even deeper and stronger roots for our partnership. A growing number of states and cities are tailoring their international outreach efforts for India, with delegations from Arizona, Iowa, Indianapolis and San Francisco visiting the subcontinent over the last year. And these trips are yielding real results, opening new doors for business, educational exchanges, and workforce skill development.
A great example is California and Maharashtra, home to the megacities of Los Angeles and Mumbai, sharing ideas on how to improve fuel quality for India’s fast-growing vehicle fleets. These efforts will not only improve the health of urban inhabitants, but help mitigate climate change. So in conclusion, let me say that I am bullish on this relationship because I believe in the strength and vibrancy of our two countries. I know there is no challenge that we can’t address, no problem that we can’t solve when we bring our two societies together. Thank you again for this opportunity. I would be happy to take a few questions.
-
Mounting pressure on USA
“With BJP declaring Modi as its prime ministerial candidate and the nation turning in his favor; US is trying to find an escape route”, says the author.
There has been a buzz in the diplomatic circles, after sudden resignation of US Ambassador to India, Nancy Powell. It is not the first time that US Ambassador to India, has been removed. However, present incidence of the resignation of the US ambassador, cannot be considered a normal occurrence. In diplomatic circles, this resignation is being linked with the emerging situation in wake of general elections in India and the possibility of Narendra Modi taking over the charge as Prime Minister of India.
BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate Modi had been denied US Visa a number of times and India and the US have been at loggerheads over this issue in the past. Denial of US visa to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, being in the constitutional position, was considered inappropriate in diplomatic terms. However, many people believe that, now in the event of Narendra Modi becoming the Prime Minister of India, it will not be good for US to continue with this stand.
It is notable that despite denial of visa by US administration, nothing could bar Modi to address the American gatherings, he was supposed to attend; by way of video conferencing. In recent months, with the BJP announcing Modi as its candidate for prime minister, heat on this issue has multiplied. Reportedly some parliamentarians from India had written to the US President to continue with the policy of denial of US visa to Modi; however, after facing criticism for this act of taking up the matter internationally, against a person holding constitutional post of Chief Minister; they had to eat their words and some of them even denied to have signed this controversial letter to US President.
Even Congress Party led UPA government also had to contest this policy of the United States. Nancy Powell, US ambassador in India for 5 years, was regarded to be close to the current government and the Congress party. She was obviously considered linked with this episode for denial of visa to Narendra Modi. However, relations between the United States of America and the Government of India have apparently been strained for several other reasons, including diplomatic row over Devyani Khobragade issue. Clearly India’s silent support to recent takeover of Crimea by Russia would not have been liked by USA. Thus Indo-US relations have been stressful in the recent past; and USA would not like to have an adversary in the PM position.
Now, when mood of the Indian people is very much clear, USA would obviously like to buy peace with Modi. By not assigning any reason for Nancy Powell’s resignation, USA itself has given air to such speculation. It is well known that the US government has always strived to protect the business interests of companies. In this context, the recent visit of a delegation consisting of USA’s lawmakers to Gujarat was an attempt to improve relations with Modi. It is notable that America denied visa to Modi on the pretext that a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act makes any foreign government official who was responsible or “directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom” ineligible for the visa. USA did not do it alone; England had also supported her by refusing visa to Modi.
England’s resolve
However, England ended this controversy in October, 2012 and granted visa to Modi and instructed English High Commissioner to India to meet him. UK government issued a press statement and said that England has strong economic interests linked to Gujarat. Modi in return tweeted to welcome UK government’s decision. After England’s resolve to grant visa to Modi, pressure has been mounting on USA to end its Modi boycott policy; and now, BJP declaring him as its prime ministerial candidate and the mood of the nation in his favor; USA is trying to find an escape route to come out of this controversy. In February 2014, USA’s ambassador Nancy Powell visited Gujarat to meet Modi. People who used to consider Modi as a controversial personality are now praising him. With chances of new government under Modi’s leadership getting brighter, attitude of people around the world is changing fast. Those who were referring to Gujarat riots are now referring to Gujarat development model.They are also talking about Modi’s initiative to boost industry, be it land allotment for Tata’s Nano or facilitating Maruti Suzuki. American agencies are also contemplating that once Modi becomes Prime Minister, US policy of denying American visa to Modi would be unsustainable, as he would enjoy all diplomatic rights. Though, not much is known about Modi’s foreign policy; looking at the public utterances of Modi, there would not be any acceptance or lackluster approach against expansionary policy of China. China will have to keep its aggression at back burner, in order to protect its economic interests in India.
If Pak TV channels or media is any guide, it is clear that Pakistan is extremely afraid of the emergence of a strong national leadership under Modi. Pak intelligence agencies are equally under stress. Modi has publicly expressed his unhappiness over the ill treatment of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. He has publicly said that if voted to power, his government would help Hindu migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh settle in India. International and domestic agencies and defense experts have been critical of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s lame approach.
After Modi taking over the reign of power, it is expected that terrorist activities from across the border or from within would be dealt with sternly. On the one hand USA, European Countries and Japan are trying to improve ties with Modi, enemy nations are keeping a close eye on the developments in India. Although change in attitude of USA, should not surprise us, looking at its commercial interests; however US dilemma in this regard, also cannot be overlooked.
-
India abstains on human rights vote on Sri Lanka, rescues foreign policy
NEW DELHI (TIP): In a brave decision marking the reclamation of foreign policy from narrow political interests, India abstained from voting on a USsponsored resolution on human rights situation in Sri Lanka. While India had supported the resolution in 2012 and 2013, the latest resolution was much tougher, calling for an independent investigation into Sri Lanka.
The resolution passed with 23 votes for, 12 against and 12 abstentions. India’s abstention comes after MEA raised red flags about the resolution, saying it would be creating precedents that would be difficult to withstand. Sri Lanka too had mounted a strong diplomatic offensive with the Indian leadership, including long meetings with the national security adviser, Shivshankar Menon. Pakistan did its best to help Sri Lanka by proposing a separate vote on the operative paragraph 10 (deemed most offensive) hoping to remove it totally from the resolution — it failed 16 votes to 25.
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy today congratulated Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for India not supporting the resolution. “I congratulate PM Manmohan Singh for ordering the Indian delegation in UNHCR not to support the dangerous US resolution seeking international probe into the so called human rights violations during 2009 anti-LTTE war by Sri lanka,” Swamy said in a statement. In 2013, Menon and MEA failed to prevail against a determined Congress offensive led by finance minister P Chidambaram to punish Sri Lanka. Sources said this had a lot to do with the ruling UPA government’s sensitivity to Tamil parties. This time, Chidambaram is not fighting an election, and the government has been free to take a decision based on India’s foreign policy interests.
If India had voted against Sri Lanka, the government could have opened itself to the charge that it was influencing the Tamil vote. Besides, it would have dealt a body blow to relations with a neighbour that is arguably India’s closest economic and security ally in South Asia. The abstention gives India greater flexibility with Sri Lanka, greater ability to push for changes that Mahinda Rajapakse needs to undertake. Rajapakse has taken several steps in the last year like holding provincial council elections in the north which did not happen because of the HRC vote, but because of intensive Indian diplomacy. “Things will go in the right direction now,” said diplomatic sources following relations with the island nation.
If India had failed to stand with Sri Lanka at this time, it would not be able to stop Chinese influence spreading in the country. Moreover, the government has concluded that many countries pushing the resolution are being pressured by their Tamil-Lankan diaspora. India is wary of allowing its policies to be dictated by such interests, though in the past couple of years the UPA government has caved in to short-sighted tamil politics endangering India’s foreign policy. This year marks a correction in what most foreign policy analysts called a downward trajectory.
Explaining why it abstained from the vote, MEA said, “It has been India’s firm belief that adopting an intrusive approach that undermines national sovereignty and institutions is counterproductive…. any external investigative mechanism with an openended mandate to monitor national processes for protection of human rights in a country, is not reflective of the constructive approach of dialogue and cooperation envisaged by UN General Assembly resolution 60/251 that created the HRC in 2006 as well as the UNGA resolution 65/281 that reviewed the HRC in 2011.” The passage of the resolution was welcomed by human rights groups. Meenakshi Ganguly of Human Rights Watch said, “This is a welcome decision, and one that will encourage victims and activists in Sri Lanka who have strived so courageously for accountability and justice.
-
Modi’s Stance on Foreign Policy Remains a Mystery
Modi has made some stray remarks on foreign affairs, but they should be seen more as obiter dicta rather than a considered judgment.
Little interest has been shown domestically about possible new orientations in foreign policy under a Modi-led NDA government. Modi’s single-minded focus on the development agenda has dominated political and media discourse, barring, of course, the 2002 Gujarat riots. The slowdown of the economy, the negative investor sentiment, price rise, corruption, the perceived lack of leadership have been issues of public concern, not foreign policy. Modi has been a state leader, with no stint in Delhi, and hence a relatively unknown entity for foreign interlocutors except those who have traveled to Gujarat for business reasons.
Economic focus
For our foreign partners who see India’s economic rise as opening up enormous prospects for their own economies by way of trade and investment and who are disappointed by India’s lacklustre economic performance under UPA II because of slowdown of reforms, indecision and delays in implementation, Modi’s economic agenda is alluring. But they are equally interested in assessing the possible differences in foreign policy between a possible Modi-led government and the UPA governments.Modi has been a state leader, with no stint in Delhi, and hence a relatively unknown entity for foreign interlocutors except those who have traveled to Gujarat for business reasons. Moreover, because he has been politically boycotted by western countries until recently for human rights reasons, the opportunities to assess him through personal contact have been that much less available. China and Japan, who have received him in their countries, have been wiser in this regard. Modi has not been grilled on foreign policy issues either by the opposition or the media. He has made some stray remarks on foreign affairs, but they should be seen more as obiter dicta rather than a considered judgment.
His view, for instance, that the Ministry of External Affairs should focus on “trade treaties” rather than strategic issues may fit in with his “development” focus, but would get revised when faced with the reality of India’s challenges once in power at the Centre. If his meaning was that our missions should give priority to commercial/economic work, that would be unexceptionable in the context of economic performance increasingly determining a country’s international role and influence. Towards Pakistan, one hopes, Modi will not be counseled to adopt a soft face in order to attenuate his anti-Muslim image, both at home and abroad.
The economic argument should not be exaggerated though, as our most severe external challenges are driven not by economics but politics, relating to our territorial integrity, the threats to us from terrorism and religious extremism, the nuclear dangers emanating from nuclear collaboration between China and Pakistan which the West tolerates despite its readiness to take military action to stop proliferation in Pakistan’s neighborhood, and China’s attempts to politically and strategically box us in the subcontinent while simultaneously eroding our influence there by its deep incursions into our neighborhood. If China and Pakistan have been hostile to us for decades it is not on account of economic issues. India’s role in the Indian Ocean has a major strategic aspect that goes beyond ensuring the safety of the sea lanes of communication for trade flows.
Status Quo
How much the foreign policy of former Prime Minister Vajpayee, who enjoys an iconic status within and even without the BJP, will guide that of an hypothetical Modi-led government is a pertinent question. If Vajpayee’s decision to take a plunge on the nuclear question was an act of strategic defiance, he was also a man of dialogue who made major overtures to US, China and Pakistan. With a strong nuclear card in his hand, his strategy of building a relationship with the US “as a natural ally” made sense, as did his outreach to China to explore the possibility of resolving the border issue on a political basis. His conciliatory approach towards Pakistan, however, seemed based less on a cold power calculus and more on inchoate hopes and sentimentalism. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh built on Vajpayee’s policy on all these fronts, pointing to the essential continuity of our foreign policy under governments of different political complexions.The ‘Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership’ under Vajpayee led to the nuclear deal under Manmohan Singh; the Special Representatives mechanism with China set up under Vajpayee has been the principal platform for political engagement with China on the vexed border issue under his successor; the obsession to have a dialogue with Pakistan under Vajpayee continued its confusing course after him. In visiting the Arunachal border with Tibet and vowing not to yield an inch of Indian territory, Modi has sent an important signal to Beijing.Is there a major course correction in foreign policy that a Modi-led NDA government would need to make? Tough stance Not really, as our geo-political compulsions, our economic needs and our security calculus dictate our fundamental foreign policy choices, with limited wiggle room available.
We need a stable relationship with all power centers. Despite the difficulties of dealing with the US, our economic and people-to-people links with it are of key importance. The US has treated Modi with gross political ineptitude, giving him, if he becomes Prime Minister, room to extract a price for engaging him, though it is clear that his relationship with Obama will be uncomfortable. China’s Xi Jinping has already indicated his desire to visit India later this year. In visiting the Arunachal border with Tibet and vowing not to yield an inch of Indian territory, Modi has sent an important signal to Beijing. A visit to Tawang before Xi’s visit would change our psychological equation with China by boosting national morale.
Towards Pakistan, one hopes, Modi will not be counseled to adopt a soft face in order to attenuate his anti-Muslim image, both at home and abroad. Pakistan will construe this as the “taming” of Modi without cost. Because uncertainties in Afghanistan and religious radicalization sweeping Pakistan could aggravate India’s terrorism problem, the new government should be in no hurry to resume the dialogue with Pakistan even if the bait of MFN is offered as a tactical move. Whether or not a Modi-led government changes the course of our foreign policy, because of the perception that he is strong and decisive leader will be a foreign policy forcemultiplier in itself.
-
US Senate confirms Indian-American Puneet Talwar for key state department post
WASHINGTON (TIP): Puneet Talwar has been confirmed by the US Senate to a key diplomatic position, becoming the second Indian-American to join the state department. Talwar, who was a key aide of President Barack Obama on the Middle East, would now serve as the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs.
He was confirmed on thursday by voice vote. In September last year Obama nominated Talwar, who played a key role on negotiations with Iran, to this top diplomatic position in the state department. After being sworn-in, Talwar would be the second Indian- American serving as assistant secretary in the state department after Nisha Desai Biswal, who is the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia.
Talwar would provide policy direction in the areas of international security, security assistance, military operations, defence strategy and plans, and defence trade. The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs is the department of state’s principal link to the department of defence. Since 2009, Talwar has been a special assistant to the US President and senior director for Iran, Iraq, and the Gulf States on the White House National Security Staff.
Prior to this, Talwar served as a senior professional staff member on the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate (SFRC) from 2001 to 2009 and from 1997 to 1999, and was the chief adviser on the Middle East to then senator Joseph R Biden in his capacity as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He served as a member of the department of state’s policy planning staff from 1999 to 2001. From 1992 to 1995, he served as a foreign policy adviser to Representative Thomas C Sawyer, and from 1990 to 1992 as an official with the United Nations. Talwar received a BS from Cornell University and an MA from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
-
Israel gears up for possible unilateral strike on Iran
JERUSALEM (TIP): Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Moshe Ya’alon have ordered the military to continue preparations for a possible strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities during 2014, a media report here said.
The Israel Defense Forces allocated up to NIS 12 billion ($3.5 billion), nearly a fifth of its budget this year, for preparations for a possible unilateral strike on Iran, approximately the same amount invested last year, reported Xinhua citing Israeli daily Ha’aretz on March 19. The figure was presented by top officers who briefed the joint committee in January and February on the military’s plans, said the lawmakers who spoke to Ha’aretz requesting anonymity.
They said that some of their colleagues who were present at the meetings asked the officers whether it was justified to continue pouring billions into the preparations to strike Iran, citing the interim nuclear agreement inked between Tehran and the six powers last November, and the ongoing negotiations aimed at reaching a final accord. The officers replied that the military had received a “clear directive” from the political echelon, meaning Netanyahu and Ya’ alon, to continue training for a possible independent strike, the report said.
It was regardless of the diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian issue peacefully, it added. The second round of nuclear talks was launched in Vienna Tuesday, with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif in attendance. The newspaper noted that both Netanyahu and Ya’alon have strongly indicated in recent months that Israel, which views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, has not abandoned the military option.
-
Strong Indian American challenge in US Congressional election in Silicon Valley
SAN JOSE (TIP): US Congressional election in Silicon Valley this year was being seen as a two-person race between incumbent Congressman Mike Honda (Democrat) and his main challenger Rohit “Ro” Khanna (Democrat) until recently. It all changed when Dr. Vanilla Mathur Singh (Republican), a member of Hindu American Foundation (HAF), entered the race in December 2013.
The HAF first made headlines in 2005 with its failed attempt in California state to “improve 6th grade textbooks so that these books actually reflect their (Hindu) beliefs and their religious practices.” Media reports indicate that Singh was recruited to run by Shalabh “Shalli” Kumar, a Chicagobased Indian-American businessman and Republican fundraiser. Kumar is the founder of a super PAC, Indian Americans for Freedom, with close ties to Hindu Nationalists. He has been lobbying members of US Congress to help rehabilitate his “idol” Narendra Modi of India’s Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Modi has been denied US visa multiple times by the State Department because of his widely suspected role in the killing of thousands of Muslims in 2002 Gujarat riots. Singh said that she raised $100,000 in the five days after declaring her candidacy, including $25,000 of her own money. The rest, she said, came from about “20 family and friends.” Kumar’s super PAC could change the dynamics of the South Bay race if he chooses to back Singh financially. In 2002, his super PAC spent $500,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., including producing an ad set to Middle Eastern music that showed the double amputee Iraq war veteran wearing a headscarf during a visit to a local Muslim community center.
Ro Khanna, a Silicon Valley patent attorney of Indian origin, is backed by many of Silicon Valley’s top VCs and executives at Google, Facebook, Yahoo and other tech companies. Other Notables include Marc Andreessen, the Netscape cofounder; John Doerr, the venture capitalist; and Randi Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Zuckerberg Media and the sister of Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Parker, former President pf Facebook. Four months before the primary, Khanna has $1,975,000 in cash on hand, or more than triple the incumbent’s $623,000, according to campaign finance records filed last Friday as reported by the New York Times.
Khanna supporters expect him to win to push legislation in Congress to liberalize US visas for foreign workers needed to fill Silicon Valley tech jobs. He supports raising the number of H1-B visas, keeping a lid on capital gains taxes and cracking down on patent trolls while charting a progressive agenda on most social issues. Faced with the surprise new challenge from the Hindu Right, Ro Khanna has refused to denounce Narendra Modi for fear of alienating a significant chunk of the substantial pro-BJP Indian- American voters in Silicon Valley. Mike Honda, the incumbent congressman from 17th district, is a Japanese-American who was put by the United States in an internment camp as a child during World War II.
He has been a featured speaker at many Muslim- American events where he has spoken out for American Muslims’ civil rights since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. During a 2009 keynote speech at Human Development Foundation fund-raiser that I attended, Congressman Honda said the US foreign policy should have the same goals that the HDF has in Pakistan. Drawing from his experience as a US peace corps volunteer to support education and infrastructure development in Central America in the 1960s, he proposed a similar effort in restoring US credibility in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Honda praised the US emphasis on economic aid and said he supports the 80/20 rule that General Petraeus had outlined, with 80% emphasis on the political/economic effort backed by 20% military component to fight the Taliban insurgency.
Honda says he has been a strong advocate for the tech industry in Congress. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, he helped get millions of dollars in funding for BART extension to San Jose, a top priority for Valley leaders, as well as federal investment in nanotechnology research. His strong backing from organized labor and veteran Democrats reflects the decades he’s spent in public service. Honda also supports an increase in H1-B visas, although he’s also expressed concerns about its potential harm to the local labor pool.
A number of polls in 17th district so far show that Honda enjoys a healthy lead over his challenger Khanna. Honda’s lead could increase if Singh takes a significant chunk of Indian-American votes away from Khanna. In spite of a powerful tech industry funded challenge by Ro Khanna, Honda remains a favorite to win. Honda also enjoys the strong endorsement of President Obama and Democratic Party’s establishment. Singh’s entry in the race could further help Honda extend his lead and keep his seat in Congress. I intend to vote for Mike Honda based on the Congressman’s strong record of service to Silicon Valley and his unambiguous procivil rights stance
-
Iran, six big powers seek to agree on basis for final nuclear deal
VIENNA (TIP): Six world powers and Iran appeared to make some progress at a second day of talks in Vienna on Wednesday to hammer out an agenda for reaching an ambitious final settlement to the decade-old standoff over Tehran’s nuclear programme. The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany want a long-term agreement on the permissible scope of Iran’s nuclear activities to lay to rest concerns that they could be put to developing atomic bombs.
Tehran’s priority is a complete removal of damaging economic sanctions against it. The negotiations will probably extend at least over several months, and could help defuse many years of hostility between energy-exporting Iran and the West, ease the danger of a new war in the Middle East, transform the regional power balance and open up major business opportunities for Western firms. Both sides were relatively upbeat about the first meeting. “The talks are going surprisingly well. There haven’t been any real problems so far,” a senior Western diplomat said.
A European diplomat said Iran and the world powers were “committed to negotiating in good faith” and that they had discussed the schedule for future meetings and other issues. had detailed discussions on some of the key issues which would have to be part of a comprehensive settlement,” the diplomat added. A senior Iranian official, Hamid Baidinejad, told Reuters: “Talks were positive and generally (were about) the framework for the agenda for further talks.” The talks had originally been expected to run for as long as three full days but might be adjourned as early as Thursday morning due to the crisis in Ukraine, according to Western diplomats.
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who coordinates official contacts with Iran on behalf of the six, was due to attend an extraordinary meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on Ukraine on Thursday afternoon. Ashton’s deputy Helga Schmid chaired the Vienna talks during the day with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, flanked by senior diplomats from the six powers. Separately, Ashton met Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. The powers have yet to spell out their precise demands of Iran. But Western officials have signalled they want Tehran to cap enrichment of uranium at a low fissile concentration, limit research and development of new nuclear equipment, decommission a substantial portion of its centrifuges used to refine uranium, and allow more intrusive U.N. nuclear inspections.
Such steps, they believe, would help extend the time Iran would need to make enough fissile material for a bomb and make such a move easier to detect before it became a fait accompli. Tehran says its programme is peaceful and has no military aims. Graham Allison, director of Harvard University’s Belfer Center, said the aim should be to deny Iran an “exercisable nuclear weapons option”. “Our essential requirement is that the timeline between an Iranian decision to seek a bomb and success in building it is long enough, and an Iranian move in that direction is clear enough, that the United States or Israel have sufficient time to intervene to prevent Iran’s succeeding,” he said.
COMPLEX PROCESS AHEAD
Highlighting wide differences over expectations in the talks, Araqchi was cited by Iran’s English-language Press TV state television on Tuesday as saying that any dismantling of Iranian nuclear installations would not be up for negotiation. The talks could also stumble over the future of Iran’s facilities in Arak, an unfinished heavy-water reactor that Western states worry could yield plutonium for bombs, and the Fordow uranium enrichment plant, which was built deep underground to ward off any threat of air strikes. “Iran’s nuclear sites will continue their activities like before,” the official IRNA news agency quoted Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi saying.During a decade of on-and-off dialogue with world powers, Iran has rejected Western allegations that it has been seeking the means to build nuclear weapons. It says it is enriching uranium only for electricity generation and medical purposes. As part of a final deal, Iran expects the United States, the European Union and the United Nations to lift painful economic sanctions on the oil-dependent economy. But Western governments will be wary of giving up their leverage too soon. Ahead of the talks, a senior US official said getting to a deal would be a “complicated, difficult and lengthy process”.
On the eve of the Vienna round, both sides played down anticipation of early progress, with Iran’s clerical supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying he was not optimistic – but also not opposed to negotiations. The six powers hope to get a deal done by late July, when an interim accord struck in November expires. That agreement, made possible by the election of relative moderate President Hassan Rouhani on a platform of relieving Iran’s international isolation by engaging constructively with its adversaries, obliged Tehran to suspend higher-level enrichment in return for some relief from economic sanctions. Zarif, also quoted by Press TV on Tuesday, sounded an optimistic note. “It is really possible to make an agreement because of a simple overriding fact and that is that we have no other option.”
-
Strong Indian American challenge in US Congressional election in Silicon Valley
SAN JOSE (TIP): US Congressional election in Silicon Valley this year was being seen as a two-person race between incumbent Congressman Mike Honda (Democrat) and his main challenger Rohit “Ro” Khanna (Democrat) until recently. It all changed when Dr. Vanilla Mathur Singh (Republican), a member of Hindu American Foundation (HAF), entered the race in December 2013.
The HAF first made headlines in 2005 with its failed attempt in California state to “improve 6th grade textbooks so that these books actually reflect their (Hindu) beliefs and their religious practices.” Media reports indicate that Singh was recruited to run by Shalabh “Shalli” Kumar, a Chicago-based Indian-American businessman and Republican fundraiser.
Kumar is the founder of a super PAC, Indian Americans for Freedom, with close ties to Hindu Nationalists. He has been lobbying members of US Congress to help rehabilitate his “idol” Narendra Modi of India’s Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Modi has been denied US visa multiple times by the State Department because of his widely suspected role in the killing of thousands of Muslims in 2002 Gujarat riots.
Singh said that she raised $100,000 in the five days after declaring her candidacy, including $25,000 of her own money. The rest, she said, came from about “20 family and friends.” Kumar’s super PAC could change the dynamics of the South Bay race if he chooses to back Singh financially. In 2002, his super PAC spent $500,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., including producing an ad set to Middle Eastern music that showed the double amputee Iraq war veteran wearing a headscarf during a visit to a local Muslim community center.
Ro Khanna, a Silicon Valley patent attorney of Indian origin, is backed by many of Silicon Valley’s top VCs and executives at Google, Facebook, Yahoo and other tech companies. Other Notables include Marc Andreessen, the Netscape co-founder; John Doerr, the venture capitalist; and Randi Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Zuckerberg Media and the sister of Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Parker, former President pf Facebook.
Four months before the primary, Khanna has $1,975,000 in cash on hand, or more than triple the incumbent’s $623,000, according to campaign finance records filed last Friday as reported by the New York Times. Khanna supporters expect him to win to push legislation in Congress to liberalize US visas for foreign workers needed to fill Silicon Valley tech jobs. He supports raising the number of H1-B visas, keeping a lid on capital gains taxes and cracking down on patent trolls while charting a progressive agenda on most social issues.
Faced with the surprise new challenge from the Hindu Right, Ro Khanna has refused to denounce Narendra Modi for fear of alienating a significant chunk of the substantial pro-BJP Indian-American voters in Silicon Valley. Mike Honda, the incumbent congressman from 17th district, is a Japanese-American who was put by the United States in an internment camp as a child during World War II. He has been a featured speaker at many Muslim- American events where he has spoken out for American Muslims’ civil rights since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
During a 2009 keynote speech at Human Development Foundation fund-raiser that I attended, Congressman Honda said the US foreign policy should have the same goals that the HDF has in Pakistan. Drawing from his experience as a US peace corps volunteer to support education and infrastructure development in Central America in the 1960s, he proposed a similar effort in restoring US credibility in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Honda praised the US emphasis on economic aid and said he supports the 80/20 rule that General Petraeus had outlined, with 80% emphasis on the political/economic effort backed by 20% military component to fight the Taliban insurgency. Honda says he has been a strong advocate for the tech industry in Congress.
As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, he helped get millions of dollars in funding for BART extension to San Jose, a top priority for Valley leaders, as well as federal investment in nanotechnology research. His strong backing from organized labor and veteran Democrats reflects the decades he’s spent in public service. Honda also supports an increase in H1-B visas, although he’s also expressed concerns about its potential harm to the local labor pool.
A number of polls in 17th district so far show that Honda enjoys a healthy lead over his challenger Khanna. Honda’s lead could increase if Singh takes a significant chunk of Indian- American votes away from Khanna. In spite of a powerful tech industry funded challenge by Ro Khanna, Honda remains a favorite to win. Honda also enjoys the strong endorsement of President Obama and Democratic Party’s establishment. Singh’s entry in the race could further help Honda extend his lead and keep his seat in Congress. I intend to vote for Mike Honda based on the Congressman’s strong record of service to Silicon Valley and his unambiguous pro-civil rights stance.
-
Pieces from the Afghan puzzle are still missing
One major problem is fitting Afghanistan into an effective regional framework. Neither the SAARC nor the SCO nor the Istanbul Process is willing to assume a leadership role
At last count, there were some 1,365 policy papers on Afghanistan produced worldwide by recognized think-tanks and NGOs in the past five years. Here is one more, but substantially different paper, called Envisioning Afghanistan post- 2014: Joint Declaration on Regional Peace and Stability, produced by Friedrich-Ebert- Stiftung.
Why is it different? It is truly regional, emanating from policy groups and 60 experts from the neighborhood who reconcile their national interests, through compromise, in seeking consensus to arrive at a common minimum interest paper, scripted, owned and driven by the Afghans. It took 18 months to produce. It was launched in Kabul, Istanbul, Islamabad, Brussels, Berlin, New York and Washington, DC – and will be launched in Central Asia and New Delhi later this year.
The Regional Declaration seeks to make Afghanistan an asset for all, through actions at national, regional and international levels, encompassing the period of transition and transformation ending in 2025. The ultimate goal is to secure enduring neutrality for Afghanistan which it enjoyed for a 100 years, especially in the period between 1929 to 1978 which was the most prosperous. The paper on neutrality is a work-in-progress.
If neutrality is accepted by the Pakistani Army, a grand bargain could follow. Pakistan agreeing to end its support for the Afghan Taliban in return for Afghanistan accepting the Durand Line as its international border. For Pakistan and the region there are a number of other benefits including reducing security concerns from two hostile fronts to one. The Regional Declaration recognizes a serious trust deficit between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and therefore, anoints Pakistan as the pivotal player – both as a spoiler and an enabler. The recommendations call for inclusive, transparent and democratic presidential and parliamentary polls, which are the conditions set by the international community for keeping their financial commitments.
A National Transition Strategy coupled with a National Development Strategy constitutes Afghanistan’s national agenda. This agenda also includes capacity-building of Afghan National Security Forces to prevent civil war, the return of Al Qaeda and effectively combat the Afghan Taliban and other armed opposition. To put it mildly, the Declaration encourages all entities in Pakistan to genuinely cooperate in fighting cross-border threats and pursue its legitimate interests through peaceful means. It calls for the establishing of an Afghanistan-Pakistan Joint Experts’ Working Group to overcome historic bottlenecks and improve bilateral relations. Pakistan’s help is also sought for reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban in a dialogue with the High Peace Council. What emerges are two reconciliation processes: One with Pakistan, and the other with Afghan Taliban entities in Pakistan.
The importance of Pakistan implementing the Afghanistan-Pakistan Trade and Transit Agreement is emphasized, as also its extension to India. Recognizing that India and Pakistan seem to be working at crosspurposes in Afghanistan, the Declaration encourages the two to end differences and tensions, and commence dialogue on Afghanistan. It also advocates a trilateral dialogue between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. A bigger role is suggested for the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative in Afghanistan, and also the appointment of a dedicated UN Special Coordinator to assist in the peace dialogues. The Regional Declaration reminds the international community, the US and NATO in particular, of their commitment towards a responsible drawdown and to keep their pledges on funding the process of transformation.
A key pillar of the Declaration is a noninterference mechanism which includes codification of ‘interference’ – what neighbors should and should not do. This has been pledged by regional players at Bonn I and II, the Istanbul Process and Geneva but never been implemented in letter and spirit. The UN Special Envoy, with endorsement of P5 countries, is recommended to observe, monitor and investigate any breach of the Code of Conduct (most recently the UN brokered a similar ‘Good Neighborliness’ code for neighbors of the Democratic Republic of Congo). However, noninterference is not about intent, but conduct. The Regional Declaration is thin on the vital aspect of transferring responsibility from international powers to a regional compact for the purpose of preserving the gains in Afghanistan.
One of the key problems is fitting Afghanistan to an effective regional organization. Between the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Istanbul Process (which is not an organization), none is willing or able to take charge since there is no one to assume leadership. Neither China, nor Russia, nor even India is willing to bell the cat. Instead, the region has sought collective leadership based on the Istanbul Process which has Track I institutions. At the very least, Afghanistan requires an active regional coordinator to channels the regional compact.
With the US and West fast losing interest in Afghanistan, and India and Afghanistan both being in election mode, Pakistan appears to have assumed the role of a regional coordinator, at least to monitor inflow of funds and financial commitments made at Chicago, Tokyo, Brussels and by other international monetary institutions. The World Bank office in Islamabad is setting up a team, mainly of economists, to study the fallout of a shortfall in funds and drawdown of the economy in Afghanistan. Frequently, Afghans remind you of the fate suffered by President Mohammad Najibullah, after the Soviet Union switched off the money tap.
Pakistan has rightly prioritized Afghanistan as its most important foreign policy issue, and also identified ‘a peaceful neighborhood for revival of its economic agenda’. The big concern is the likely increase in the burden of refugees (already three million) inside Pakistan, in the event of anarchy and civil war. In the last six months, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif have held three meetings. President Karzai has had meetings with former Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his Director-General at the ISI on bringing the Afghan Taliban for talks to the table. Pakistan is seen as the most decisive player in the Afghan imbroglio.
How is it that 30 million Afghans with the help of 2,00,000 US and ISAF troops, 3,50,000 ANSF personnel, supported by US air and drone power as well as Indian assistance, have not been able to disarm 20,000 Afghan Taliban? The reason is that instead of Pakistan acquiring strategic depth in Afghanistan, the Taliban have secured it inside Pakistan. Only Pakistan can rein in the Afghan Taliban but it says this is beyond its means. Pakistan has to make the right choice. Returning to the Regional Declaration, prospects of regionalization do not appear bright. Finding a regional political mechanism to address reconciliation among stakeholders in Afghanistan is also not bright, in the absence of any regional leadership. The Declaration has offered some ideas like neutrality and non-interference which are do-able. But let the Afghans decide.
-
FOREIGN RELATIONS OF INDIA
India has formal diplomatic relations with most nations; it is the world’s second most populous country, the world’s mostpopulous democracy and one of the fastest growing major economies. With the world’s seventh largest military expenditure, ninth largest economy by nominal rates and third largest by purchasing power parity, India is a regional power, a nascent great power and a potential superpower.
India’s growing international influence gives it a prominent voice in global affairs. The Economist magazine argues, however, that underinvestment in diplomacy and a lack of strategic vision have minimised India’s influence in the world. India is a newly industrialised country, it has a long history of collaboration with several countries and is considered one of the leaders of the developing world along with China, Brazil, Russia and South Africa (the BRICS countries). India was one of the founding members of several international organisations, most notably the United Nations, the Asian Development Bank, G20 industrial nations and the founder of the Non-aligned movement.
India has often represented the interests of developing countries at various international platforms. Shown here is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with Dmitry Medvedev, Hu Jintao and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during BRIC summit
India has also played an important and influential role in other international organisations like East Asia Summit, World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund (IMF), G8+5 and IBSA Dialogue Forum. Regionally, India is a part of SAARC and BIMSTEC. India has taken part in several UN peacekeeping missions and in 2007, it was the secondlargest troop contributor to the United Nations.[12] India is currently seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, along with the G4 nations. India’s relations with the world have evolved since the British Raj (1857–1947), when the British Empire monopolised external and defence relations. When India gained independence in 1947, few Indians had experience in making or conducting foreign policy. However, the country’s oldest political party, the Indian National Congress, had established a small foreign department in 1925 to make overseas contacts and to publicise its freedom struggle.
From the late 1920s on, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had a longstanding interest in world affairs among independence leaders, formulated the Congress stance on international issues. As a member of the interim government in 1946, Nehru articulated India’s approach to the world. India’s international influence varied over the years after independence. Indian prestige and moral authority were high in the 1950s and facilitated the acquisition of developmental assistance from both East and West. Although the prestige stemmed from India’s nonaligned stance, the nation was unable to prevent Cold War politics from becoming intertwined with interstate relations in South Asia.
In the 1960s and 1970s India’s international position among developed and developing countries faded in the course of wars with China and Pakistan, disputes with other countries in South Asia, and India’s attempt to balance Pakistan’s support from the United States and China by signing the Indo- Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in August 1971. Although India obtained substantial Soviet military and economic aid, which helped to strengthen the nation, India’s influence was undercut regionally and internationally by the perception that its friendship with the Soviet Union prevented a more forthright condemnation of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. In the late 1980s, India improved relations with the United States, other developed countries, and China while continuing close ties with the Soviet Union. Relations with its South Asian neighbours, especially Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, occupied much of the energies of the Ministry of External Affairs.
In the 1990s, India’s economic problems and the demise of the bipolar world political system forced India to reassess its foreign policy and adjust its foreign relations. Previous policies proved inadequate to cope with the serious domestic and international problems facing India. The end of the Cold War gutted the core meaning of nonalignment and left Indian foreign policy without significant direction. The hard, pragmatic considerations of the early 1990s were still viewed within the nonaligned framework of the past, but the disintegration of the Soviet Union removed much of India’s international leverage, for which relations with Russia and the other post-Soviet states could not compensate. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, India improved its relations with the United States, Canada, France, Japan and Germany. In 1992, India established formal diplomatic relations with Israel and this relationship grew during the tenures of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government and the subsequent UPA (United Progressive Alliance) governments.
In the mid-1990s, India attracted the world attention towards the Pakistan-backed terrorism in Kashmir. The Kargil War resulted in a major diplomatic victory for India. The United States and European Union recognised the fact that Pakistani military had illegally infiltrated into Indian territory and pressured Pakistan to withdraw from Kargil. Several anti-India militant groups based in Pakistan were labeled as terrorist groups by the United States and European Union. India has often represented the interests of developing countries at various international platforms. Shown here are Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with Dmitry Medvedev, Hu Jintao and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during BRIC summit in June, 2009. In 1998, India tested nuclear weapons for the second time which resulted in several US, Japanese and European sanctions on India.
India’s then-defence minister, George Fernandes, said that India’s nuclear programme was necessary as it provided a deterrence to potential Chinese nuclear threat. Most of the sanctions imposed on India were removed by 2001. After the 11 September attacks in 2001, Indian intelligence agencies provided the U.S. with significant information on Al-Qaeda and related groups’ activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan. India’s extensive contribution to the War on Terror, coupled with a surge in its economy, has helped India’s diplomatic relations with several countries. Over the past three years, India has held numerous joint military exercises with U.S. and European nations that have resulted in a strengthened U.S.-India and E.U.-India bilateral relationship. India’s bilateral trade with Europe and United States has more than doubled in the last five years.
India has been pushing for reforms in the UN and WTO with mixed results. India’s candidature for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council is currently backed by several countries including France, Russia,[50] the United Germany, Japan, Brazil, Australia and UAE. In 2004, the United States signed a nuclear co-operation agreement with India even though the latter is not a part of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. The US argued that India’s strong nuclear non-proliferation record made it an exception, however this has not persuaded other Nuclear Suppliers Group members to sign similar deals with India. During a state visit to India in November 2010, US president Barack Obama announced US support for India’s bid for permanent membership to UN Security Council as well as India’s entry to Nuclear Suppliers Group, Wassenaar Arrangement, Australia Group and Missile Technology Control Regime.
-
The 24/7 diplomatic prodigy!
The word “prodigy” in the title of this column is used as a notable happening and an act so extraordinary as to inspire wonder.
India’s unusual tough response over the arrest of its diplomat Devyani Khobragade has forced the US to initiate an ‘inter agency review’ to look into the lapses that happened in the high profile case,” reported the Dubai-based Gulf News under the front page heading: “India’s stand over diplomat shocks US officials.” The said write-up goes further: “In a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that there was a ‘judgmental error’ in handling this case, sources said the inter-agency team led by the State Department is ‘working 24/7’ to get it resolved as quickly as possible.”
Earlier, India had invoked “the law of strict reciprocity” that governs diplomatic relations between countries in the contemporary nationstate system under the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention for Consular Relations and recalled “the identity cards of all US consulate personal and their families based in India, withdrew all airport passes for consulates and embassy vehicles,” said a press report. In addition, Indian External Affairs Ministry has sought information on salaries paid to all Indian staff employed in the US missions (to check if the US law on minimum wages has been violated) and bank account details of all American nationals working at the American School to find out if they pay income tax. India’s tit-for-tat diplomacy has resulted in the withdrawal of all extra privileges enjoyed by American Ambassador Nancy Powell and other diplomats. Indian fury over the Khobragade affair is unprecedented, highly vocal and expressed with powerful diplomatic political acts of retribution against the US.
New Delhi has demanded an unconditional apology from the US. There appears to be national unity throughout the Indian political establishment on the issue. Information Minister Manish Tewari said, “America cannot behave ‘atrociously’ and get away with it.” “Earlier, Lok Sabha speaker Meira Kumar, federal home minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, the ruling Congress party vice president Rahul Gandhi and principal opposition Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi cancelled their prescheduled meetings with a visiting delegation of US Congressmen to register their protests.” Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath said, “they should tender a clear apology.We will not accept this conduct against India under any circumstances… The US has to understand that the world has changed, times have changed and India has changed.”
India, Pakistan’s arch enemy, historical adversary and unmistakable political nemesis (the word is used as a cause of endless frustration) must be given credit when it is due. The fact of the matter is that India in the Khobragade affair has forced imperialist US to rethink its historically appalling diplomatic and political conduct as the world’s policeman towards non-Western nations. Hats off to the Indian Prime Minister, politicians of the Left, Right and Center, the whole of the political establishment and the entire nation for standing in absolute unity and challenging a Super Power for its obvious diplomatic-political misconduct. It is not a victory for India only, but for the rest of the emerging Third World in an attempt to transform a global system in which the US, as a leader of the Western imperialist block, has been dictating its will by fair and foul means since early last century, by an inhumane ideological pretext that “all means justify the end”.
India, at last, has said “enough is enough.” It is a political, diplomatic, philosophical and ideological struggle to change the contemporary global system for which the Pakistani nation must applaud the Indian political leadership. This is how sovereign, self-reliant, selfrespecting, democratic and free nations behave and ought to conduct themselves. There are lessons to be learned from Indian political behavior in its recent diplomatic row with the US and forcing America to rethink its police-state mindset towards lesser powerful nations. India has instigated a new ideological balance of power equilibrium in the nation state global system. It, in itself, is a fundamental development towards a balanced and peaceful world. However the vital questions are:Will India treat Pakistan with the same kind of respect and diplomatic equality that it is demanding from the US? Will there be a glaring Indian behavioral contradiction when it comes to dealing with Pakistan? Islamabad, with its relentless pro Indiancentric foreign policy focus, appears to be conducting itself under US dictates and IMF pressures.
The irony is that Pakistan’s political establishment and leadership does not seem to have an understanding of the contemporary Indian mindset, its emerging independent and political (artful, strategic, calculating, judicious and shrewd) political behavior and its manifest objectives. India will continue to treat Pakistan as a political military adversary for the foreseeable future because, in doing so, India is likely to promote its strategic regional and global objectives. Unless Pakistani political leadership becomes logically able to comprehend India’s political mindset and its future regional plans, Islamabad will continue to flaw in its political discourse towards New Delhi, as it has been doing endlessly and most specifically recently under the PML-N stewardship. Look from an Indian perspective, for example, at Islamabad’s recent over-zealousness in promoting Indo-Pak friendship. India knows that Pakistan and India are not in a state of war (or are we?).
It also knows that a limited or an all-out military conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations is an absolutely remote possibility. India is also aware that Pakistan is economically nearly bankrupt and its Right-wing government is dependent on the IMF and US financial assistance; consequently, it is under US and IMF dictates in its domestic and foreign policy options – specifically when it comes to Indo-Pak relations. The Indian political leadership is fully cognizant that Pakistan is faced with serious domestic problems of law and order, regional insurgency (in which RAW is involved) and other massive economic and political problems. India is absolutely clear that Pakistan has no domestic or diplomatic leverage to conduct its relations with India (or for that matter with other nations) from a position of strength. It is also fully informed that the recent Indo-Pak friendship mantra from Islamabad’s political leadership is a tactical and rhetorical approach to divert public attention from domestic failures and growing economic problematics.
Hence, the question is: why would India offer the kind of friendship that the PML-N leadership in Islamabad is seeking from it at the zenith of its diplomatic and strategic global glory? Let us be rational: Present-day India is in the business of conducting its “Politics” with an eye on its emerging global role and merciless Realpolitik. It is not going to be involved in handing out a freebie to its historical adversary no matter how humbly and persistently the Pakistani Prime Minister continues to ask for it – that is, if we think rationally. Indeed, Pakistan and India must live in peaceful coexistence. But will India compromise its regional hegemonic ambitions for the sake of its immediate neighbor’s friendship? We would be foolish to believe so. We all know perfectly well that even massive trade cooperation with India cannot and will not resolve Pakistan’s economic problems, unemployment and its domestic socio-economic problematics.
The fact of the matter is that Pak- India friendship is not a remedy to Pakistan’s growing domestic problems nor should it be Islamabad’s top national priority. Islamabad’s Indian diplomacy can wait – the sky will not fall on us. But the magical approach for Pakistan’s survival and development is: Our political leadership’s diligent and relentless 24/7 engagement in setting national priorities correctly, finding head-on “out-of -the-box” resolutions of common citizens’ problems, issues, and deprivations, and serving the nation faithfully, honestly and tirelessly. Islamabad needs to switch off its Indian friendship mantra and switch on a 24/7 formula as a fresh political initiative to save this country. The vital question is:Will Islamabad consider this proposal and agree to it? That remains to be seen.
“Hats off to the Indian Prime Minister, politicians of the Left, Right and Center, the whole of the political establishment and the entire nation for standing in absolute unity and challenging a Super Power for its obvious diplomatic-political misconduct. It is not a victory for India only, but for the rest of the emerging Third World in an attempt to transform a global system in which the US, as a leader of the Western imperialist block, has been dictating its will by fair and foul means since early last century, by an inhumane ideological pretext that “all means justify the end”, says the author.
