Chaudhry America

[muse]

A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round
As one great Furnace flam'd, yet from those flames
No light, but rather darkness visible
Serv'd onely to discover sights of woe...

Chaudhry America
By A.G. Noorani | From the Newspaper
(14 hours ago) Today

PRIME MINISTER Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani’s remarks on the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s views on a leadership role for India are understandable: “We do not want any chaudhry,” in the region.

But India’s response to her plaudits was subdued. India neither aspires, nor has the clout, to perform such a role; least of all under a power of attorney from the US.

It was, however, a major policy speech which Hillary Clinton delivered on July 20 at Chennai. Analysed carefully, it confirms the impression that the only chaudhry that struts about the region is the United States of America. It presumes to decide, for instance, what kind of relations other countries should have with Iran, a regional player of consequence.

Flattering rhetoric (“India’s growing leadership role in the world”) is followed by prescriptions for a subordinate role. “And what does it mean for the relationship between the two of us?” What indeed? “For starters, it means that we can work more productively together on today’s most complex global challenges.” Precisely, “in the Middle East and North Africa”, India’s dissent on Libya regardless. Next, “first our work together in the Asia-Pacific [read: on China] and, second, our shared interests in South and Central Asia [read: on Afghanistan]”. Then there are “the waters from the Indian to the Pacific Ocean” where India “is, with us, a steward of these waterways”. This is sheer nonsense. India has a vital stake in the freedom of the seas. It has never claimed, nor has the might to assert, a stewardship role. The US recently intervened in the disputes on maritime boundaries in Southeast Asia.

These were some bricks in “the regional architecture for the Asia-Pacific” region which she ambitiously sketched. The East Asia Summit is envisaged as “Asia-Pacific’s premier forum for dealing with political and security issues”. Since President Barack Obama will participate in the summit, due to be held later in the year in Indonesia, Clinton’s speech provides a clue to the policies he will then unfold.

The proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to India, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, is lauded. The US has exerted every venue to block a pipeline from Iran to India, through Pakistan. While trying to create barriers between Iran and the countries of the region, a grand scenario is painted “Let’s work together to create a new Silk Road because some day, that entrepreneur here in Chennai should be able to put her products on a track — on a truck or a train that travels unimpeded, quickly, and cheaply through Pakistan, through Afghanistan, to the doorstep of her customer in Kazakhstan. A Pakistani businessman should be able to open a branch in Bangalore. An Afghan farmer should be able to sell pomegranates in Islamabad before he drives on to New Delhi. Or as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh put it so beautifully, ‘I dream of a day, while retaining our respective identities, one can have breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore and dinner in Kabul. That is how my forefathers lived. That is how I want our grandchildren to live’.”

But, Dr Manmohan Singh’s vision encompassed a political settlement between India and Pakistan on which he has set his heart ever since he became prime minister in May 2004. Clinton’s plan has three fatal flaws. It is divisive. Iran and China are unilaterally excluded. It lacks the underpinning of political rapport; and it rests on the dream of a Pax Americana in the Asia-Pacific region.

America’s consistent support to dictators did not inhibit her from asking India to prod the junta in Myanmar towards democracy. Obama loftily lectured to India on this in New Delhi last November.

He would do well to reflect on the fate of a similar scheme drawn up by the Soviet prime minister Alexei Kosygin in May 1969.

It was for an Asian highway between the Soviet Union and India through Afghanistan and Pakistan, besides other countries.

Kosygin had first made it as a mediator between Pakistan and India at Tashkent in January 1966. It was revived in 1969 as part of Brezhnev’s Plan for Asian Security which he propounded soon after on June 7, 1969.

Both were aimed at sidelining China. India rejected it despite its strained relations with China and close links to the Soviet Union. President Yahya Khan rejected both the Kosygin and the Brezhnev plans during his trip to Moscow in June 1970.

The US, likewise, faces a trust deficit. It views China’s rise with alarm. As a correspondent reported on July 15 at the end of the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm Mike Mullen’s visit to China: “One might never have suspected that each side bases its military planning on the prospect that the other might be the enemy.”

But on two occasions, the US and China presumed to oversee the course of relations between Pakistan and India; on June 27, 1998 after their nuclear tests and on Nov 17, 2009 when Obama and Hu Jintao agreed in Beijing to “cooperate” on “bringing about more stable relations in all of South Asia”.

Chaudhries get ideas when villagers squabble among themselves. Riaz Mohammad Khan is a rare diplomat with a capacity for sober reflection. His book Afghanistan and Pakistan is not only an able work of scholarship, it is also thoughtful and objective in the policy prescriptions it offers. Both India and Pakistan must overcome the “intellectual crisis”, settle Kashmir and forge a common stand on a peace process in Afghanistan.




The writer is an author and a lawyer.

 

[Perceptron]

First of all , it does not behove a Pakistani to comment on America's role in the South Asian region, forget about the Middle East or Africa. It was Pakistan which gave a toehold to American interests in South Asia when it joined the MD Agreement with US, as also signing the Manila Pact and the Baghdad Pact. India had been a part of the NAM and even though siding with the Soviets on the issue of the Hungary, it still was distant enough from either parties to have an independent policy. Now that the relationship between Pakistan and America is souring, the GHQ through its military mouthpieces is crying unabashedly about the American hegemony in the region.

Pakistan should have long thought of the influence of American "chaudhrism" before dilly-dallying for its own interests. If peace in South Asia is of prime importance to all parties concerned, let the ISI cut off all links with the Afghan Taliban, let it stop promoting cross-border terrorism through non-state actors (oh, how much Chidambaram loves that word), and let Kashmir be put in the back-burner, and the LoC be made a dormant border (an International border for a period of say 50 years) and let trade flow through Kashmir. Let Pakistan give India the MFN status.

The other parts of the article are mere mumbo-jumbo without substance or active action for establishing peace and trade in South Asia.

 

[muse]

Unfortunately, not only are Pakistanis slow learners, but there is also an entire infrastructure that feed off the crumbs the US throws it's way. We have argued for a while that anybody who thinks the US wants to see normal relations between Pakistan and India, need to get their head examined. The US imagines that it can do what the English once did, I don't mean the empire stuff but rather the focus on business the English maintained - the US simply cannot do this, not only is she not trusted because she seeks to further conflict in the region, but also because she is simply not acculturated in the globalized world she helped create.

Regardless of the whole "imperialist" narrative, the US was once thought of as a force for good in the world and it is with great resistance that once must concede that there is now good reason to reconsider that proposition.

Can Pakistan transition successfully to country more concerned with bettering the material lives of her citizens than Jihad? Jury is out that one - Structural changes, primarily in the economy, will go a long way in attenuating the dissonance society may experience as the state, over a reasonable amount of time, reorients itself.

 

[Manas]

Some people wont accept it , but America sees India as rising power with democracy and 1.2 Billion populated market . India's inherent qualities makes it partner than rival power. India will only grow bigger and stronger in terms of economic and military power along in the coming years.

The neighboring countries of India should accept this scenario as fact of life . In spite of feuding history Countries in Europe and America have joined hands for greater cooperation that meant welfare theirs citizens . Even in case of china , Taiwan is its biggest investor despite of resolution of disputes

Today's time International relations aren't zero sum game . You need n't loose ,but your Opponent wins . There are immense scope win win situations where both parties benefits.

But unfortunately in south Asia , economic prosperity of common citizen is usually of low priority , they are still stuck in the strategic mindset of the past centuries.

However, sources told Dawn that Pakistan would not proceed with the offer because doing so could lend legitimacy to the Indian power projects in occupied Kashmir

Indian offer to sell electricity likely to be ignored | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

 

[muse]

No one is arguing that India are not doing well or that the US see it as a regional chuadry -- however, if read the piece, it's clear that the Indians are much better negotiators and have a far reaching vision of the region and their role - it's clear that the Indian is in no hurry to sacrifice any advantages that may accrue to it, just so it can play Chaudry to the US.

India can potentially do more business with China than it can with the US and it sees little reason to sacrifice the well being of her citizenry so that US policy makers may be appeased - I do wish Pakistani policy makers had a coherent vision and the will to sustain that vision to success.

 

[Jihad]

Some people wont accept it , but America sees India as rising power with democracy and 1.2 Billion populated market . India's inherent qualities makes it partner than rival power. India will only grow bigger and stronger in terms of economic and military power along in the coming years.

The neighboring countries of India should accept this scenario as fact of life . In spite of feuding history Countries in Europe and America have joined hands for greater cooperation that meant welfare theirs citizens . Even in case of china , Taiwan is its biggest investor despite of resolution of disputes

Today's time International relations aren't zero sum game . You need n't loose ,but your Opponent wins . There are immense scope win win situations where both parties benefits.

But unfortunately in south Asia , economic prosperity of common citizen is usually of low priority , they are still stuck in the strategic mindset of the past centuries.



Indian offer to sell electricity likely to be ignored | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

It's a good written piece. One must be extremely careful when it comes to the U.S. and their "wellwillingness" to help out other countries in the world.
They're always playing double games.
Like muse has rightly said, America was viewed as the savior in the past (WWII) for instance.
However, after they emerged as the only superpower, since the fall of the Soviet Union, and Europe in tatters, they American war machine has been waging wars every 15 year or so.

One cannot predict if the course of the world would be totally different had the U.S. not interfered in so many areas around the world.

@Manas: "some people" don't accept the fact that alot of Indians think they're riding with the big boys already.
However, I think almost everyone agrees that India is growing at a considerable pace, and with its population size and economy it's well on its way of becoming a regional power.
Another fact is that China still is lightyears ahead of India in terms of growth and development, and with such a huge neighbour, it's going to be pretty tough for India to get into a more "leadership role".

The U.S. took a leadership role mainly because there were no competitors back then, and they utilised this role to the max.
The future looks different though, there will be multiple countries who will balance each other out.

Perhaps that's a good prospect, instead of 1 sole power dominating the world stage.

 

[AAtish]

Some people wont accept it , but America sees India as rising power with democracy and 1.2 Billion populated market . India's inherent qualities makes it partner than rival power. India will only grow bigger and stronger in terms of economic and military power along in the coming years.

The neighboring countries of India should accept this scenario as fact of life . In spite of feuding history Countries in Europe and America have joined hands for greater cooperation that meant welfare theirs citizens . Even in case of china , Taiwan is its biggest investor despite of resolution of disputes

Today's time International relations aren't zero sum game . You need n't loose ,but your Opponent wins . There are immense scope win win situations where both parties benefits.

But unfortunately in south Asia , economic prosperity of common citizen is usually of low priority , they are still stuck in the strategic mindset of the past centuries.



Indian offer to sell electricity likely to be ignored | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

Indians are making the biggest mistake of their life if they think this.. USA merely sees India as a puppet to keep its rising rival China in check. Just like it saw Pakistan as a 'close ally' when USSR was there.

 

[Perceptron]

Indians are making the biggest mistake of their life if they think this.. USA merely sees India as a puppet to keep its rising rival China in check. Just like it saw Pakistan as a 'close ally' when USSR was there.

Don't you worry about it ; When India, a nation bankrupt during its inception, fresh from the horrible wounds of partition, without any real say in the post -WW2 world, can still come out with a Non-Aligned foreign policy, the Panchsheel policy of coexistence, and a democratic secular constitution, India with its economic clout in the modern world is pragmatic enough to still not side with any single power. India has leaders and people and above all a robust system to not lean towards any single direction, but take advantages of every single nuance in realpolitik to make its own headway in foreign policy. You should be worried about sucking up to China, which is the next power wishing to chew you up and spit you whole out, if u lean too much towards it.