The age of the midnight knock

Within the space of three years after September 11, 2001, the US had set up its National Counter Terrorism Centre when the Congress enacted the "Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act" on December 17, 2004. The Act also created the office of the Director National Intelligence (DNI) to supervise and coordinate the functioning of the various intelligence organisations in the US and also advise the President. The NCTC is a part of the office of the DNI but independent of other intelligence organisations. It operates in partnership with the CIA, FBI, Departments of State, Defence and Homeland Security and with agencies abroad. It is the principal adviser to the DNI on intelligence operations and analysis relating to counterterrorism.

The British Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre is slightly different but like the US NCTC, is not empowered to have any operational activity, seize and arrest, as has been wrongly claimed by some in authority here. The CIA, however, continues to maintain its own Counter terror centre for operations abroad. In India, the R&AW does not have a counter terror centre for operations abroad.

No one is safe: Fears of a secret agency being empowered to arrest,
search and interrogate are real and are an anathema to a democratic
dispensation
Our proposed NCTC, after more than 60 years of terrorism, is the creation of an executive diktat without any parliamentary debate or legislation. It is a successor to the Multi Agency Centre, which never really took off because of turf rivalries. This new centre, which will be subordinate to the Intelligence Bureau, will have indirect powers to arrest, search and interrogate. The caveat that the suspect would have to be produced without any unnecessary delay is an elastic concept.

Arrests and detentions on the basis of suspicion under the supervision of an intelligence agency run the risk of misuse and overuse especially when our data banks about individuals are still inadequate. At the same time, the high powered and state-of-the-art NCTC will have to continue to rely on inexact human intelligence provided by ill trained and under manned forces in the field. The IB and not the NCTC, thus becomes ultimately responsible for follow up action. This would include action relating to international terrorism or acting purely on its own intelligence at other times. Thus, nearly four years after the Mumbai 2008 terrorist attacks, we are not sure when and what kind of NCTC we will have.

The NCTC is meant to be a service agency feeding the government as an interface and coordinating intelligence efforts without running those operations. Logically, the proposed NCTC should not become a super intelligence agency and following from this, take over the operational role of intelligence organisations. On the other hand, intelligence agencies should not become part of the NCTC or even subordinate to it. This would not only hamper intelligence effort that extends beyond intelligence on terrorism, and even warp results, which is far more dangerous.

Modern terrorism transcends multiple frontiers, languages and religions. Counter-terrorism needs human intelligence derived from a high level of multiple skills and expertise. This would mean skills in languages Indian and foreign, cyber and communication skills, knowledge about international banking, use of WMDs and CBW.

Countering modern day terrorism needs more than just guns and bullets or fancy trappings. The urge and, at times, the need to curb freedoms in the name of security is always there although we should accept that there would have to be some limits to liberties in this ruthless war.

Intelligence agencies are not human rights organisations. Their game is ruthless, requires a high level of deviousness, tenacity and the ability to subvert by whatever means. It is always dangerous to give such agencies the power to arrest and seize. Fears of a secret agency being empowered to arrest search and interrogate are real and are anathema to a democratic dispensation. It is not enough to declare that the present government does not have any authoritarian ambitions but the system proposed must have permanent inbuilt safeguards. Finally, the proposed NCTC should not be located in any of the Ministries or its departments.
Perhaps the NSCS under the NSA would be the best location.

One would shudder to think of all the possible misuses that this provision in the executive order allows. 'The dark age of the midnight knock' and 'enforced disappearances' would have arrived.

Source : Mid-Day Mumbai , 29th February 2012 ,Vikram Sood , a former chief of Resesrach and Analysis Wing (RAW)

Hope and Reality of India-Pakistan Relations

New Delhi, Feb.29 (ANI): Old shibboleths and half truths take a long time to wither away. Pakistan still likes to believe or, at least its leadership does, that India is determined to undo the partition and grab Pakistan.



It is essential that Pakistan be convinced through force of logic and reality, and not by hopeful pacification bordering on appeasement, that India is simply not interested no matter what state Pakistan is in.

This is more so, when it is in the present state of economic destitution and political isolation, because of its own international misdemeanours. As soon as Pakistani leaders understand this, as soon as its military jihadi complex that has made hate India its USP, understands this, the sooner peace will break out.

It is true that that there many sane voices in Pakistan today who speak of the need to normalize relations with India and feel confident in their own nationality that they can be true Pakistanis without hating their neighbour. Their numbers are small, their voice limited largely to the English speaking class, and the Pakistani middle class, the country's ruling class and the feudal, who control the levers of power are dependent upon the Army for their survival and even prosperity.

The voice of reason is unfortunately drowned in the voice of hatred and fear; bolstered by an education system that inculcates obscurantism and hatred for non-believers. Worrying that this may be, it should be equally worrying that our text books too are rewriting history that is sectarian.

In our dealings with Pakistan, our first step should be to stop treating Pakistan exclusively as a Muslim nation. They believed in the two-nation theory, we did not and do not. That is why they became two in 1971 and we have continued as we were - perhaps a little muddled and disorganised, but still together.

There is therefore, no need to be obsessive about Pakistan's religion which forces us to be reflexive about our own Muslims. We do not treat the US, the UK or France on the basis of these countries major religion. There are no Christian republics in the world and if Pakistan wants to maintain itself as an Islamic republic it is its choice.

There is no need for us to keep assuming that we have to make electoral promises in India, concede anything or have to be friendly with Pakistan simply because this would affect vote banks of political parties.

This is not only faulty reasoning but in this day and age doubts the integrity and loyalty of our Muslims. Indian Muslims have the same problems as the rest of us, sometimes a little more, granted but they have the same hopes and aspirations as the rest of the country.

Everyone realises that Pakistan has killed more Muslims in the name of religion than any other country in modern history. It lost its claim to being the home for the subcontinent's Muslims in 1971 and has today become a safe haven for radical Islamic terrorists out to destroy the world.

Religion was never a basis for nationality or nations. Had that been so we would have had only half a dozen major countries in the world. Christians have fought Christians in the two of the bloodiest wars of the last century and for hundreds of years before that. Muslims are fighting Muslims all over today. Neither peace nor wars, prosperity or destitution are determined by or are dependent upon religion. These are false choices political and religious leaders sometimes force on their people.

That being so, we should treat Pakistan as just another nation on our borders with whom relations remain difficult and may not improve very much very quickly. We should not be reading too much into vague signals from Pakistan, we have bitten too often in the past and so many other interests are still at work in that country. We should wait for Pakistanis to sort out Pakistan before showing a misplaced eagerness to do business with them in the name of CBMs without matching CBMs from them.

We have to wait for the day when Pakistan does a genuine cost benefit analysis to understand that it stands to gain enormously by trading with India and allowing investment in Pakistan. Its leaders must decide whether its people should pay the heavy price of underdevelopment and economic ruin for continued hostility with India.

Of course this will not be easy or immediate but Pakistan must make the first move on this. It is Pakistan that must evaluate whether it will be gain economically if India had transit rights across Pakistan to Afghanistan; whether it will gain from a peaceful Afghanistan or an unstable Afghanistan at war with itself and with Pakistan.

As the smaller country and economy dealing with the bigger country and bigger economy it is the former that usually stands to derive the greater benefit.

Nations of this century will stand or wither away depending upon how much good governance their governments provide, how much prosperity they can bring to their people and how much security they can provide to the average man woman and child. Religious exultation is hardly likely to provide any of these three but if allowed to propagate its obscurantism, then it threatens to engulf the majority or those who hold moderate beliefs.

A great deal will depend upon how the military business establishment sees its future; whether items a greater benefit from the war dividend or from the peace dividend. No one but the Pakistanis can convince their rulers about this. Till then, we should temper our hopes with some realism.(ANI)

Source : The views expressed in the above article are that of Mr. Vikram Sood , former Secretary, R and AW, Government of India.

Islands in the sun , under a cloud

The attempted coup in the Maldives in 1988 by a group of Tamil militants in the early hours of November 3 to assist some local Maldivians had brought an immediate response to President Gayoom's call for assistance. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi responded and within 12 hours an India Air Force IL-76 landed in the Maldives with a Para regiment on board. The Indian Navy's frigates Godavari and Betwa intercepted the hijacked freighter and the mercenaries on board were captured. It was an exemplary display of a quick decision followed by coordinated tri-service responses.

This attempted coup was an intervention by outsiders to overthrow a government by force and India's swift reaction was the appropriate one. Nevertheless, many in India wondered why India's response this time to the overthrow the young President Mohammed Nasheed has been so tardy and diffident. Surely India's capacity to intervene swiftly would have increased manifold in the 35 years since the last action in the Maldives. Nasheed is down he may not be out.

Snubbed: US Asst Secretary of State Robert Blake's visit to Male,
Colombo and Dhaka did not include New Delhi, which could be a message
to New Delhi that it is either irrelevant in South Asia or merely becoming
an irritant over Iran

The present crisis is not just an entirely domestic affair and the usual anodyne statement that India was watching the situation closely is inadequate. Our haste in congratulating the new President without assessing that Nasheed also had considerable popular support was an example of how inadequately prepared we were to handle this situation.

That is all very well. India should have been watching the situation not just in February but should have in all these years. Events in Male last week were not a sudden unexplained eruption like an allergic reaction. The situation has been simmering for some time now. So while we prevaricated, the US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake was airborne for Male. A seeming retreat by India leaves the theatre open to interference by other countries less well disposed toward India. Significantly, Blake's itinerary during his visit to Male, Colombo and Dhaka did not include New Delhi. It could be a message to New Delhi that it is either irrelevant in South Asia or merely becoming an irritant over Iran.

Maldives is new to democracy and the learning curve would have to last longer than the three years since the last multiparty democratic elections. Nasheed has been a liberal Muslim in a largely moderate Sunni country but there have been worrying signs in recent times. Perhaps it was his youthful exuberance, inexperience or impatience that led him to autocratic behaviour when he had the chief judge of the criminal court arrested and had taken action against a colonel of the Maldivian National Defence Forces creating resentment in these sections.

Surely after 1988 New Delhi was aware that there could be a repeat of this needing intervention of some kind in the archipelago. There have been reports of greater contacts between Maldivian youth and the Pakistani ultra radical terrorist organisation Lashkar e Tayyaba as well as an increasing presence of West Asian Salafists since 2007. Former President Gayoom, whom the ousted President suspects has been behind the upsurge against him, had used Islam as a political weapon in his time. The writing was on the wall.

Somali piracy, at times in collusion with the Shahbab terrorists from southern Somalia and the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba of Pakistan, has been coming dangerously close to the Indian shores. In January and March 2011, there were two piracy attempts close to the Lakshadweep islands. Surely there could be a repeat with the Maldives as the target or one of its 1000 islands as the base against India. A terrorist affected country such as ours does have any room for complacency or indecision.

We live in a very tough neighbourhood, which can convulse at any time given the various kinds of political fragilities. The region needs periodic repairs. The paradox is that while we are accused of being the Big Brother we are also accused of neglecting the neighbourhood as we adjust to the mantle of international greatness being thrust upon us. We do not have the luxury of lowering our vigil 24/7 or vacillation in times of crisis. We need to be generous with the smaller neighbours provided they do not cross our security red lines. That is how Big Brothers behave and inter-state relations are no popularity contests.

Source : Mid Day , Mumbai 16th February 2012

Closing the Gulf

Syria is not about democracy. It is about controlling Iran by weakening an obdurate ally. Iran is not so much about bombing the country before it gets the Bomb, but more to bring about a regime change that will be amenable. There is considerable war rhetoric on both sides of the fence. There are discussions on the respective strengths and weaknesses, attacks and counterattacks, strategies and tactics and their chances of success and failure. This makes it obvious that most of this is intended to be an elaborate ‘psywar’ campaign through the media and thinktanks. The only problem with such high-decibel war cry is that they develop a logic and momentum of their own.

There is a periodic urge in the West to fix Iran. Syria and Iran had been listed on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list for decades even before September 11, 2001. In 2002, George Bush described Iran as a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’. Despite all this, there were talks of negotiations.

A certain section at the US State Department, which included the then secretary of State Colin Powell, wanted to work on a new policy on Iran, including negotiations on nuclear issues. The Iranian regime had offered to negotiate in 2003 but the group that favoured the belief that the Ayatollahs were out to destroy Israel won the argument. The neo-cons set about creating a ‘new reality’ in West Asia beginning with Iraq. Condoleezza Rice also did make some overtures in 2006 to Iran but by then the US was too deep into its war on terror with Iran as the second main target, to make any reasonable negotiation possible.

In a way, all the three participants in the game — the US, Israel and Iran — are hyperventilating today the same way they did a few years ago. US defence secretary Leon Panetta is worried about a pre-emptive unilateral strike by Israel in the next few months. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey has also told the Israelis that the US would not participate in a war started by Israel. James Clapper, director, National Intelligence, told a Senate hearing on February 1 that “we do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons”. The US is apprehensive of being caught in the middle of a messy situation because an Israeli attack on Iran would definitely mean a full blown war. Instead, it is pursuing the sanctions route against Iran.

However, the Israelis think and say otherwise. prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Ehud Barak are convinced that Iran is on its way to making the Bomb but also add that no decision on a deadline has been taken yet. Former Mossad chief Mier Dagan and former chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi believe that Iran is still some way away from the Bomb and a military strike could be catastrophic. However, Israelis are convinced that Iran has taken a strategic decision to wipe out Israel and no one else but Israelis can defend their country.

Barak and other political leaders believe that the window for carrying out a surgical strike is closing fast. They feel Iran will move its facilities to safer areas and that will make it more difficult to target, despite the new munitions from the US. The assessment is that Israel has the ability to severely damage Iranian nuclear sites, Israel will eventually have tacit US support and there is no other option left.

Iran, on the other hand, has also done its bit of sabre-rattling. In an unusual speech recently, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that threats to Iran would be detrimental to the US and that the war itself would be 10 times more detrimental to the US. The Iranians live in a region that is predominantly Sunni and Arab and they are known to be hostile towards them. They also have the huge armada of the US Central Command forces staring down at them.

The Iranians do feel surrounded but with the support they have extended to the Hamas and the Hezbollah all these years, they themselves are no angels.

Despite all this talk about Iran, the present scene of action is Syria that harbours Hamas. Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy recently wrote in the New York Times that Syria is becoming Iran’s Achilles’ heel. “Ensuring that Iran is evicted from its regional hub in Damascus would cut off Iran’s access to its proxies (Hezbollah in the Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) ... This would be a safer and more rewarding option than the military one,” he wrote. For this, Russia, which essentially wants access to Syria’s Mediterranean ports in Tartus and Lataki, must be taken on board.

It is difficult to say how India should react to the developing situation in Syria and Iran. American and Indian interests in the area are limited to Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons. The tactics of forcing deeper sanctions are more likely to lead to more stiff resistance by the Iranian leadership. India imports 12% of its oil requirement from Iran. India’s access to Afghanistan and Central Asia is through Iran given that Pakistan remains intransigent on such issues. Iran is our neighbour, and Israel and India have a developing partnership. We can and must push for a negotiated settlement because sanctions are not desirable as they are ineffective and sometimes counterproductive.

Source : Hindustan Times , 14th February 2012,

Pakistan -US relations in a trough , but only for now

Towards the end of his last State of the Union address on January 24 President Obama said "One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the Seal Team took with them on the mission to get Bin Laden. On it are each of their names." This was viewed quite differently in Pakistan where the attack that killed Osama bin Laden took place a few miles away from the Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul.

In fact, all of 2011 has been marked by incidents that have pushed US-Pakistan relations into an ever deepening trough.

The year started on a tense note when Raymond Davis, a former US Army soldier but employed in Pakistan with a private contractor and also with CIA, shot dead two supposedly unarmed men and one more died in January. This led to a furore that refused to die away despite interventions even by President Obama. Eventually Davis was released and flew home on March 16 after payment of US $ 2.4 million as blood money (diyya).

One day after Davis' release US resumed its drone attacks and 40 persons died in this attack in Datta Khel North Waziristan. This was on March 17. The Pakistan Army Chief, Gen Pervez Kayani reacted very strongly describing this action as intolerable and unjustified. More retaliations were to follow. In April 2011 Pakistan suspended supplies for three days through Pakistan for NATO forces in Afghanistan.
The US announcement on May 2 that Osama bin Laden had been killed in Abbottabad and that US had not been informed of OBL's whereabouts brought forward a multitude of reactions. The Pak Army notably was embarrassed, the civilian government showed its ineptitude and lack of control on the State, while the right wing was up in arms with a new display of virulent anti-Americanism. Meanwhile the Doctor who had assisted the US to help find Osama was taken into custody by the Pakistani authorities for being in touch with foreign intelligence agencies.

The terrorist attack on PNS Mehran Karachi (May 26) which destroyed two US AWCs was a retaliation of US action that killed Osama bin Laden. This was a setback to US-Pak relations and another embarrassment for the Pak Army.

Probably reacting to Pakistani attitudes and belligerence, Admiral Mullen reacted on 2 June saying that there would be a substantial cut in US forces in Pakistan followed by the US announcement on July 10 about the suspension, of military aid worth US $ 800 million.

September 11 - there was a massive truck bomb explosion on the outskirts of Kabul that injured 77 US soldiers and killed five Afghans. Two days later the US Embassy and NATO were both attacked by Taliban insurgents. Seven persons died along with 19 injured. This attack as a show of strength against the symbols of US and NATO power. On September 22, one week before he was to demit office, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff accused Pakistan of supporting Haqqani Network militant group in Afghanistan; from its bases in Pakistan. As expected Pakistan denied this.

In October, the by now famous or notorious Memogate that cost Pakistan Ambassador Haqqani his job in Washington surfaced, thanks to leaks by a US citizen of Pakistani origin, Mansoor Ijaz. The memo was supposed to have been delivered to Admiral Mullen earlier in May General Pasha the ISI chief had specially flown to London for a secret rendezvous with Ijaz and it appeared that there was an intelligence overhang to this.

At least 24 Pakistan troops killed when NATO forces fire over the border hitting an army check post in on November 26 in the Mohmand agency of FATA. In retaliation, General Kayani ordered that intruding drones be shot down and asked the US forces to vacate the Shamsi drone base in Balochistan, within a fortnight.

All this had left the Pakistan Army badly bruised. Its ego had been hit and it needed to take an apparently strident position against an increasingly impatient and even imperious US. In the US there were increasing signs of a re-evaluation of its relations with Pakistan with several think tanks discussing the best way of Pakistan and predicting a dismal future. But if one asks whether this will mark a permanent breach in relations between the two countries, then the answer has to be, No.

Over the years, obsessed with India and the desire to seek equality with India, Pakistan's leaders had perfected the art of handling the US, preserving and furthering its core interests, essentially by using the advantages that geography has provided. The Pakistan-US romance began in the tense years of the Cold War. Since then, though the ardour has cooled at times, it has renewed with fervour periodically.

While Pakistan has been consistently useful to the US in the protection of its global interests, the US has not minded if Pakistan occasionally had pot shots at its pro-Soviet neighbour. US and British diplomats and emissaries went out of their way in the 1960s to push India to a deal with Pakistan on Kashmir that was designed to favour its ally.

In the 1970s there was US anger during the 1971 war and again after the 1974 nuclear test without understanding Indian interests. The 1980s were the years of the Afghan jihad, during which period the US President repeatedly certified to Congress that Pakistan was not making the nuclear bomb. The 1990s were essentially Clinton years a period of indifference as far as the Americans were concerned while Pakistan had got its nuclear black market well organised.

Post Kargil, Pakistan was in trouble but only till September 11, 2001. Thereafter, once again, as in the case, recent sins were forgiven and Pakistan quickly became a stalwart ally of the allies. The relationship is at present at its lowest ebb in many years. This may not last long simply because Pakistan too has many limitations and despite the present bravado cannot do without the US.

The latest leaked US military and NATO report that the Taliban backed by Pakistan was poised to take charge of Afghanistan once foreign forces withdraw has other aspects to it. It mentions that Pakistan was aware that senior Taliban representatives, like Nasiruddin Haqqani lived in the vicinity of ISI headquarters in Islamabad. The report also adds that 27000 interrogations of more than 400 captured Taliban, Al Qaeda and other terrorists establishes a clear link between the ISI and the Taliban. This may be the first authoritative revelation.

Sooner or later, Pakistan will make moves to seek normalcy with the US. Pakistan has for decades boxed above its weight by trying to militarily (including sub-conventional jihadi options) take on a larger, stronger India with a greater depth, militarily, economically and geographically. During the Cold War the US was willing to underwrite this confrontation. These kind of military oriented regimes and romances survive only so long as there is military congruity between the two powers.
Post 2001 and post economic reforms in India this equation has changed between Washington and Islamabad and between Washington and New Delhi.

Today Pakistan's economy is in a mess and it has few friends who will be able to take on the burden, not even China. Saudi Arabia too may not provide gratis assistance.his time around, Pakistani Generals may have overplayed their hand. In the last year, the US has been able to reduce its dependence on Pakistan for logistic support to NATO that was routed through Pakistan. It has also seen Pakistani double dealing and intransigence with regard to the US-led War on Terror. This is happening, at a time when Pakistan's chief USP was its willingness and ability to assist the US effort. The blackmail has gone too far and this will have to stop but it is election year in the US. This means that the US too will need to accommodate some of Pakistan's positions.

In fact, drone attacks have resumed and these are early signs. The US Pakistan relationship may not have a great future and may remain an arrangement of convenience.

This was written for ANI New Delhi, 2nd february 2012

Talking to the enemy

Who runs Pakistan?

The US hopes that the proposed direct talks with the Taliban in Qatar will enable it an honourable exit from Afghanistan. Both sides are negotiating preconditions.

The Taliban wants that some inmates from the Guantanamo prison, including Mullah Fazal, the butcher of Shias at Mazar-e-Sharif, be released for the talks.

The US wants the Taliban to give up violence and lay down arms. The US has kept Afghanistan out of these discussions leaving Karzai peeved but it has been impossible to keep Pakistan out. The Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network are both beholden to Pakistani authorities not just for weapons, shelter and finances but also that the families of the Taliban have taken shelter in Pakistan.

Reconciliation: By proposing direct talks with the Taliban, the US still
expects to be trusted by the Afghan leadership and others in the region

The Taliban presumably feel that they owe Pakistan both a debt of gratitude and that their families are hostages to the situation. Pakistan had made it quite clear to the US that negotiations without their approval were impossible when in February 2010 they arrested Mullah Omar's deputy and co founder of the Taliban, Mullah Biradar, who was negotiating with Kabul.

The assassinations of Wali Karzai and Burhanuddin Rabbani are suspected to have been a revenge for their attempts to open lines with the Taliban. The US however has few trumps in its hand. The grand coalition in Afghanistan is no longer so grand despite the surge in 2010, the billions spent and the casualties. Its chances of success in the fight against Taliban are minimal. The Taliban have extended their control to newer regions beyond the southern and eastern Pushtoon belts.

The US position has other weaknesses. Having announced prematurely that the US would withdraw in 2011, efforts at backtracking have only meant that the locals and their Pakistani masters believe that it is a matter of time before the US and NATO will leave.

Subsequent American announcements that there would only be a minor draw down of troops by 2014, has left the Taliban unimpressed. Islamabad would however be concerned that a US withdrawal would also mean a lack of interest in the region as in the 1990s and reduce the money/aid inflows. Besides, attempts at subduing the Taliban militarily having failed, the hope now to convert them into respectable parliamentary democrats has little prospects of success.

An excessive and unrealistic US reliance on Pakistan to deliver has been a major disadvantage. Pakistani attitude at the sheltering of Osama bin Laden last May and official reaction to his killing displayed a total disregard of any alliance obligations. Another major weakness in US attempts has been the desire to keep Iran (which has a 900 km border with Afghanistan) out of any attempts that the US makes in solving the problem.

Most Afghans do not see the Taliban as deliverers of some nationalist freedom but as religious zealots influenced by Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan, says Abbas Daiyar, an Afghan commentator. The other truth that the liberators of 2001 are today seen as an occupation force. US whimsicality has been a problem.

First, they installed their chosen man to head the government in Kabul and protected him, then announced a date of withdrawal without consulting the local leadership, then Karzai, fell from favour and finally, the US began negotiations with those who are not only Karzai's sworn enemies but who have a global agenda that includes the US. It does not do much for US credibility that negotiations with insurgents have been begun by it, as an outside power, while keeping the legitimate government out of the discussions. The US still expects to be trusted by the Afghan leadership and others in the region.

So long as the likes of Hafiz Saeed and extreme right wing religious groups like Difa-e-Pakistan, continue to be belligerent, there are natural misgivings about Pakistan's intentions. On the other hand, in recent months after the India-Afghanistan strategic agreement, Indian involvement including training Afghan police and army, apart from this economic and infrastructure assistance will increase.

India can, however, reciprocate gestures of good will and good intentions that Pakistan may want to make to India. Introspection will reveal to Pakistan that it would be far easier to deal with a democratic secular economically strong India than a turbulent Talibanised Afghanistan with a global agenda.

Source : Mid Day , Mumbai , 2nd February 2012, Vikram Sood is a former chief of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)

In unstable Fields

When the Ottoman Empire crumbled after World War 1, Europe took control of West Asia and redefined the boundaries. The British diplomat Sir Mark Sykes and the Frenchman Francois Picot drew lines on the sands of Arabia and conjured up Iraq and Jordan; boundaries between Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait were defined by the British; the frontiers between the Muslims and Christians by the French in Syria-Lebanon and the Russians defined borders between Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan. But the European control over the region, and elsewhere, crumbled after the end of World War 2. The Americans wasted no time in being successors to the Europeans, especially Britain. President Theodore Roosevelt met the Saudi monarch King Abdul Aziz aboard USS Quincy in the Suez Canal in May 1945 and the two worked out a treaty of blood and oil that has strengthened with time, though it seems to be under some strain at present.

The Great Game that began in the 19th century continues today. The players may be different with the Russians temporarily confined to the bench and the Chinese present in strength in Pakistan, where the US has fundamental problems with its ally. China has a growing presence in Afghanistan, which the US seeks to vacate with as much honour intact as possible. In Iran the Chinese have considerable economic and geo-strategic interests but the US is absent. Afghanistan is where the next massive resource war for its huge and vital mineral deposits worth a trillion dollars will be fought.

Further afield, the quest to control and then conform the Arab world to their governance systems based on nationalism and democracy continues as earlier attempts of the Europeans and then the Americans failed. This was partly because the religious factor has remained strong and organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies remained intact in the Arab world, and partly because Cold War compulsions of dominance required that dictators and monarchs were acceptable if they were my dictators and monarchs. The incongruities and inconsistencies of that time have only magnified with time. Life was generally wonderful and the world under control till 9/11 exploded many delusions. Strategies had to be reworked and forces realigned. According to some, the world was seen as having a ‘functioning core’ integrating into the world of globalisation that included India, China, Japan, Russia, the EU, North America, and a few others. The rest of the world — the entire Islamic world, Africa, parts of Latin America and Central Asia — was seen as a ‘non-integrating gap’, disconnected from the rest of the world and unstable. This had to be rectified to ensure lasting peace.

This disconnect could be cured through deconstruction and reconstruction of some countries. It was William Pfaff who disclosed in the July 4, 2005, issue of The American Conservative that, “A new Bureau of Reconstruction and Stabilisation in the State Department is charged with organising the reconstruction of countries where the United States has deemed it necessary to intervene in order to make them into market democracies. The bureau has 25 countries under surveillance as possible candidates for Defence Department deconstruction and State Department reconstruction. The bureau’s director is recruiting ‘rapid-reaction forces’ of official, non-governmental, and corporate business specialists. He hopes to develop the capacity for three full-scale, simultaneous reconstruction operations in different countries.”

The point is not whether this is feasible or serious but that such schemes are actually being thought about and worked at. Add to this the policy of regionalism enunciated by Condoleezza Rice. In January 2006, she spoke of promoting democracy and greater US engagement in the emerging power centres in Asia, Africa, South America and West Asia but spared “good partners like Pakistan and Jordan”, neither of which were democracies. The gaps between intentions and practice, and between the dilemmas and achievements, continue.

The US foreign policy of ‘transformational diplomacy’ began trying to transform nation-States into US clones. Post-conflict multinational reconstruction and stability teams consisting of lawyers, engineers and economists were deployed. Arab analysts pointed out some years ago out that US embassy officials began to monitor development projects sponsored and funded by US aid agencies. Soon there were whispers that American directives to local government agencies on purely sovereign concerns were becoming more frequent.

Attempts to encourage an Arab Spring in Egypt and Libya threaten to go awry with the Muslim Brotherhood and its variations taking control of the Egyptian Parliament. Libya remains unsettled with a strong Islamic content in its protests; Iraq is a country in ruins with sectarian violence and suspicions; and we have the rather incongruous situation where the Arab League, a body that has monarchs and dictators as members, has been advising Syria to accept democratic practices. The Saudis have pulled out of the Arab League delegation yet they want outside intervention. Amid all this profound talk of liberation, attainment of demands and democracy, Kurds, the world’s largest minority (27-36 million) spread over four countries don’t have a nation of their own, and they are not even allowed to protest peacefully or, like the Baloch, fight their lonely and bloody battle.

The entire region from Morocco to Pakistan is likely to remain unsettled and prone to upheavals — hopefully peaceful but most likely violent — in the decades ahead. Closer home, the Great Game will be played in the unstable fields of Ayatollahs’ Iran, a Talibanised Afghanistan, whose leaders have their own world view, and a Sunni radicalised nuclearised Pakistan. The main contestants will be China and the US and our strategic planners may have to start planning for an uncertain future.


Source : Hindustan Times , 31st January 2012 , Vikram Sood is former Secretary, Research & Analysis Wing