| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| To stabilize Pakistan, U.S. needs to rethink India policy |
| 2008-01-06 |
| Kaveh L. Afrasiabi Pakistan's political crisis, triggered by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the ensuing violence sweeping the country, is a worrisome development in South Asia and beyond. Without a doubt, Pakistan's political decay will affect its neighbors, including Afghanistan, just as Pakistan itself for decades has been impacted by conflict spilling over from beyond its (contested) borders. Indeed, a good deal of Pakistan's turmoil can be traced to the regional sources of instability that have acted as the breeding ground for the military government that has shaped Pakistan since the country's independence in 1947. From the Indo-Pakistan conflict, which has led to a nuclear arms race, to the internationalized conflict in Afghanistan, to the armed uprising in the disputed territory of Kashmir, Pakistan is today ensconced in a fragile political environment that will likely remain that way for a generation. This unstable political situation will be compounded by numerous internal conflicts, such as ethnic separatism in Baluchistan and Sindh provinces and the recent uprising in the Federally Administrated Tribal Area (FATA) bordering Afghanistan, each of them requiring a distinct political solution. With Bhutto's assassination, it will be more difficult for Pakistan to transition to a democratic government. More modest domestic political gains from its elections, now postponed until February, should be expected. Certainly, Pakistan's future hinges on whether control of the country will remain with the army or transition back to a civilian government. Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf is here to stay and the United States now needs to rethink its policy toward Pakistan. A clue to his staying power is his pragmatic and delicate handling of foreign policy, particularly with respect to the strategic development of the U.S.-India nuclear pact, widely interpreted in Pakistan as the United States' intention to insure that Pakistan's arch-enemy, India, is the leading power in South Asia. Under Musharraf, Pakistan has steered an independent foreign policy while maintaining an alliance with the United States, by strengthening ties with Russia, China, Iran and other regional players weary of the "American agenda." Case in point: The United States has not welcomed any warming of tied between Iran and Pakistan, and Musharraf has defied the United States' call to shelve the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, a proposed $7 billion pipeline to deliver natural gas from Iran to India and Pakistan. Bhutto went out of her way to show herself aligned with Bush's war on terrorism. Bhutto never criticized U.S. policy that seemed to elevate India in the region, thus many in the Pakistani military elite saw her in a negative light. So now, how does the United States harmonize regional security imperatives with democratic politics in Pakistan? Should these imperatives be recast in favor of a new Pakistan policy that takes into consideration Pakistan's national security worries, which only partially coincide with those of the United States and thus limit full democratization of Pakistan? Hectoring Pakistan's civil-military elite about democracy has clearly backfired. Bhutto's assassination has tipped the scales in favor of the ruling politico-military elite focused on national (security) interests. The latter's overriding concern now is to have some breathing space domestically. It would be a major U.S. foreign policy blunder to indulge Musharraf in bashing Bhutto's internal detractors. The United States needs to seriously consider recasting its India policy in favor of a more balanced approach, while steering clear of Pakistan's domestic politics. Otherwise, the United States risks further alienation of Pakistan's political elite. Kaveh L. Afrasiabi is a professor of international relations at Bentley College. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #15 JF: Companies like Bechtel, IBM, Intel, HP, Microsoft all have design and development centers in India. If they are comfortable with their intellectual property being developed there, despite the sleaziness, low wage assembly and manufacture would not really be a problem. And they have similar centers in China. But how much cutting edge, bet the company development do they have in either country? And as far as I can tell, they have more capital equipment in China than in India. The Chinese might be light-fingered, but the Indians are even more light-fingered. The attitude in both countries seems to be su equipment es mi equipment. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-01-06 22:31 |
| #14 JF: When was this? During Indira Gandhi's tenure. A former Indian Army officer said his dad's field ambulance unit was all primed to go when orders were given to stand down. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-01-06 22:26 |
| #13 g: Zhang never stops amazing me. C'mon - why don't you launch into one of your classic anti-American tirades again, and remind us why it was a good idea to come to Israel's rescue in 1973? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-01-06 22:20 |
| #12 #11 I don't believe Pakistan can be stabilized. Posted by: Deacon Blues *heh* they said the same thing about Arafat. Soon enough, he was stable |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-01-06 14:54 |
| #11 I don't believe Pakistan can be stabilized. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-01-06 14:45 |
| #10 There's a reason few corporations manufacture in India - sleazy as the Chinese are, the Indians are sleazier. Actually it is the poor state of Indian infrastructure (roads, rail, ports, power, water) that really hobbles export oriented manufacture. Companies like Bechtel, IBM, Intel, HP, Microsoft all have design and development centers in India. If they are comfortable with their intellectual property being developed there, despite the sleaziness, low wage assembly and manufacture would not really be a problem. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-01-06 14:02 |
| #9 Why arm a country that almost launched an attack on Diego Garcia? When was this? |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-01-06 13:24 |
| #8 Zhang never stops amazing me. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-01-06 13:12 |
| #7 Did he crib it, mutatis mutandis, from one of the articles blaming all USA woes on you know who? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-01-06 13:11 |
| #6 Interesting observations ZF. As for Excalibur's comments, is 100,000 feet correct? Wouldn't 40,000 be more appropriate? What is the most effective ceiling for a B-52? |
| Posted by: Chusong Grundy6409 2008-01-06 12:18 |
| #5 I have, of course, taken Arm India to the teeth to mean doing this on Indian terms, which is to provide them the latest technology to make the weaponry, and to sell the weaponry to them at cost (which may have been why the Russians are raising prices). The traditional expression for driving a hard bargain is to Jew someone down. A more apt expression would be to Indian (or to Chinese) someone down. Remember that it was the Indians who took Enron for a ride that cost Enron $1b. There's a reason few corporations manufacture in India - sleazy as the Chinese are, the Indians are sleazier. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-01-06 12:07 |
| #4 I have no problem with any part of Excalibur's proposal except Arm India to the teeth. Why arm a country that almost launched an attack on Diego Garcia? Note that I'm not saying that an attack on Diego Garcia would have been wrong (or right, for that matter) - only that it would have been against our national interests. Ironically, Indian irredentism in the form of the conquest of Goa (conquered by the Portuguese) may have touched off Chinese irredentism in the form of the Chinese invasion of India's border areas (conquered by the British). I think we need to understand that India has its own national interests, and for most of the India state's existence (since 1948), they have been contrary to ours. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-01-06 11:52 |
| #3 Right on Excal ! Pakland is an infection like gangrene. If it isn't removed it spreads and detroys the host(Indian subcontinent). |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2907 2008-01-06 10:19 |
| #2 Sounds about right, Excalibur... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-01-06 08:47 |
| #1 It would be a major U.S. foreign policy blunder to indulge Musharraf in bashing Bhutto's internal detractors. The United States needs to seriously consider recasting its India policy in favor of a more balanced approach, while steering clear of Pakistan's domestic politics. Otherwise, the United States risks further alienation of Pakistan's political elite. How did I know this was coming? I have a better idea. Arm India to the teeth, cut off all funding and military aid to "Pakistan", occupy all Pak nuke sites and destroy/remove everything of value, treat the tribal areas as the enemy ground they are and enact a policy of sterilization from 100 thousand feet. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-01-06 08:03 |