Iraq At The Crossroad

This year is ending by ushering some remarkable changes, especially, across Middle East and Africa. Besides the inauguration of “Arab Spring”, many occupied Middle Eastern countries started to cut loose from their occupier.  The US has called it a day for Iraq by declaring the drawdown of all forces from there. This decision has attracted mixed reactions from different types of experts. Some praised while some scolded Obama’s policy. In the declaration ceremony Mr. Barak Obama said that Iraq had become democratic and had an independent judicial system. This statement has surprised many Iraqis including me from Bangladesh.  I wish the Iraqis had all these!

After the US withdrawal of troops from Iraq scholars have produced innumerable articles regarding this issue. Here I shall try to touch those untouched areas of analysis that are very much important. Occupation of Iraq is a continuation of classical norm of western imperialism. Initially western powers occupy a foreign land physically by waging wars. Then the occupier makes an opportune ambiance for their vernacular companies to do business. And finally they leave it by substituting with an obedient leader selecting from the occupied country. In Iraq there was nothing exceptional. Now Nuri al-Maliki is serving the exact purpose. Just after the last US convoy has left Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki issued an open invitation for US firms to help rebuild Iraq Tuesday, as his oil-rich nation closes the door on a nearly nine-year American military presence. Hailing a new stage in the country's history, Maliki declared his war-scarred nation was ready to construct a new economy, one that holds "limitless" opportunities for US firms. In near future Iraq would be transformed into an economically occupied country from physical occupation.

Now let us look into socio-political aspects of Iraq. Since we know that the prominence of religious values in Iraq, none can ignore those components while trying an overhauling process there in. During Saddam, a Sunni  by origin, reign it was Shiite group who was exploited, deprived and destroyed with mass killing. Now Maliki, a Shiite, in power looming a similar fate for Sunnis.  Now there is already an open rift between Maliki and vice precedent Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni by origin.  Just days after US forces left the country and on the eve of the national unity government's first anniversary, Iraq's fragile political truce already looked to be unraveling. Authorities have issued a warrant for Vice President to arrest.  That sparked fears that Iraq's fragile year-old unity government could fall apart, shortly after the last US soldiers left the country. Fighting between Sunnis and Shii left thousands dead in the tit-for-tat attacks of 2006-2007. Who knows what will happen next! But my assumption is weighing on “two Iraqs solution” as an eminent future of this country.

Now let me end my article with short discussion on strategic matter related with troops pulling out. Analysts have been claiming, since the declaration of Afghanistan drawdown that  the US is making a strategic shift from the Middle East to the Asia pacific focusing, mainly, to set off China. After Iraq pull out the speculation has got stronger support. Many Middle East experts are speculating that it will empower Iran to bully in this region.  But still the US has five military bases in Middle East and a few of them surround Iran. Moreover, in the era of ICBM and other state-of-the-art technology that the US is possessing, would not allow Iran to destabilize Middle East, if Iran ever wants at all.

At last what I am afraid of to say that Iraq may turn into another breeding ground of insurgency, militancy like Afghanistan, already there is hidden but growing dissents among the Iraqis against the government and the US. The Shiite and Sunni rift may erupt into a civil war which may finally lead to a process destabilization in the whole Middle East. I am not a problem solving expert and I have no panacea to all these problems. Only policy makers can show us way. So let us look forward.

An edited version of this article was published on same date in the Daily Star.

Why The US Needs A Base In Australia?

South China Sea (SCS) dispute has become an epicenter for many reshuffles in strategic thinking and regional politics. This dispute has been continuing to be a dominating factor in defining intra and inter regional relationship between South Asia and South East Asian nations, for couple of months. The US has forwarded its hands of assistance towards the SCS littoral states in opposition to China. India’s involvement with direct governmental presence in that region has added a new dimension. Now it is widely assumed that China’s supremacy, not only as a regional but also as a global power, will be tested with that dispute. Recent move from Washington to establish an air base in North Australia, in the name securing the US’s interest in Pacific region, can be taken as a clear act of provocation against China. The deployment will start in mid-2012, company-size rotations of 200 to 250 Marines near Darwin in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. President Barack Obama has announced an enhanced security agreement with Australia providing up to 2,500 military personnel to be stationed in the country in the coming years. At the same time, in the Philippines, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a declaration reaffirming a longstanding mutual defense treaty between the two countries. China has already questioned the value of Washington's plan to strengthen military cooperation with Australia and updating its defense treaty with the Philippines. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin called for discussions about the boosting of American troop deployment in East Asia, questioning just how cooperation would benefit the international community.

Now let us look back. Just few months ago, US president declared to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan in a gradual process. The timeline for the withdrawal are- 10,000 troops by end-2011, 33,000 by mid-2012 and the bulk of the remaining 70,000 troops at a “steady pace” through 2013-14. And there in Australia it has a plan to increase deployment from 250 in 2011 to 2500 in 2012. In one of my published articles, ‘Afghanistan troops pull out and South China Sea dispute’, I told that there was a invisible link between US decision of pulling out troops from Afghanistan and strategic developments in greater Asia. US strategists are finding it more useful to concentrate elsewhere than Afghanistan. Mark Thompson wrote in ‘Time’ magazine that like a geopolitical seesaw, the U.S. military is tilting its forces away from Europe to the Pacific, where they will serve to calm regional fears about China's growing military might. Beijing has been poking around the South China Sea in recent years. More than $6 trillion in goods ships through the sea annually, and the U.S. and its allies want to ensure its hold on open navigation rather than letting it a Chinese lake. So now it is very much apparent that US’s security paradigm is revolving around ‘China strategy’. In my article I claimed that strategists of the US might find it more important to make strong foothold in South Asia or South East Asia to dissolve China’s prowess in that region and utilizing present turmoil centering the SCS. In the present context we have seen that the US’s decision to establish a new marine base in Northern Australia is a deliberate decision to offset China’s hegemony in the Asia Pacific. This decision has given US an opportunity to explain it in multidimensional ways. Though the Obama administration is proclaiming that the decision is taken for their security purpose but, in fact, at the end, this base would be built with a clear intention against China.

But Chinas strategists did not misinterpret the situations. China knows it very well that though it is a leader in global economy but still lagging much far behind from the US as per as military capability is concerned. The US move to Australia would prompt China to concentrate in the region of Asia Pacific. Probably this time China would try to upgrade its naval power more, than any other military options. Because it is highly assumed that Chinese navy is substandard in comparison to that of the US, Russia or even India. And as per as SCS dispute is concerned naval power is going to be one of the crucial factors. So as a ‘would be supper power’ it is highly expected that China will concentrate in that particular area for upgrading.

An edited version of this article was published in the Daily Star on this day.

Palestinian bid: The harsh realities

In the twenty first century international relations, one truth has become more phenomenal -- states are getting divided into smaller parts in the quest of gaining the right of self determination and self independence. In many aspects ‘two states solution’ has become an automatic choice. This truth, in the recent past, is apparent for South Sudan and now many leaders are considering for ‘New Libya’ and Iraq to bring an end to protracted inter-ethnic conflicts. Now ‘two states solution’ will turn into remarkable ‘panacea’ if Palestine gets recognition of statehood in the ongoing UN summit. Senior members of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) went to the Security Council. Senior members of the PLO said that they would go to the Security Council beside General Assembly to achieve their goal. The bid was opposed by Israel and the United States, with the latter threatening to veto any bid for full UN membership of Palestine.

Background of this bid

Why this bold step was taken this time, though belatedly? Many regional developments which were weakening Israel’s position and support in Middle East might have encouraged Palestine to go for the bid. Israel’s one of the most valuable friends in Europe and Middle East, Turkey has shown its back side. In recent past, both countries’ relationship status downgraded to the lowest rung. Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador, just a few weeks back. Turkish Premier Recap Tayyip Erdogan gave a rousing speech to Arab foreign ministers in Cairo last week, declaring support for Palestinian state. On the other hand, recent Middle East developments have placed the US in an acid test like situation. In this circumstance, the US could not play double role. If the US does not support Palestine cause, it will worsen more its ever bad image in the Middle East. So, Palestine authority was expecting that there could be a miracle in its way. But the reality is totally different as we know the strong Israeli lobby within America would never allow letting it. But many prominent citizens within Europe and even the US have also spoken up. Former Finnish President and Nobel Laureate Martti Ahtisaari and the European Commission’s former foreign policy Chief Javier Solana published an article on ten reasons why European countries should vote in favour of the Palestinians in the UN.

Harsh realities

This Palestinian move has raised a range of questions from optimism to skepticism. Many are skeptical of the move, and several questions remain unanswered. Will it bring an end to the Israeli occupation? Will it alter the US’ diplomatic role in the region? Will it get Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table? Or will it inspire a grassroots Palestinian mobilisation? Experts on international affairs and legal affairs have found many potholes in this move. Noura Erakat, human rights attorney and writer in the US, says that one of the greatest concerns and the reason that the statehood bid has created polarisation in the Palestinian community has been that it is not clear what the objective of the statehood bid by the PLO is. There was no PLO meeting to go to the UN; it was just an executive decision by the president to go through with statehood. Hassan Jabareen, a legal expert of Palestinian citizens in Israel, denoted the legal side. He found the inevitable and impending conflict between the recent bid for one state solution and the previous UN Resolution 181 of 1947 which asked for two state solutions. Despite the fact that the Arabs were against the resolution, it formed the legal basis for Israel as a sovereign state. Now Palestine would seek the demarcation according to 1967 resolution.

Going to the UN, by the Palestinians would make more sense as step one in a multi-pronged strategy to bring about a national achievement. The only viable Palestinian path to full UN membership is via the Security Council, and that route is blocked by the certainty of a US veto. Failure at the Security Council may itself be a drawn-out process. The bid for statehood is not changing anything on the ground, but in the international arena. It will change the terms of the debate and tilt the balance of power internationally against Israel and in favour of Palestinians. It is mainly a symbolic act. It will change the dynamics in a very symbolic way.

So it is clear that the realities are very much cruel for the Palestinians. The biggest obstacle is that it does not have any reliable friend in the permanent Security Council. But the helpless Palestinians can hope for some political gains, at least. If it could manage the US by hook or by crook, the result could have been positive. But at the end I think this decision of going UN is a bold step and will work as a moral boost for its future gain.

The writer is a member of fairbd.net group.

India Looks Beyond South Asia

“India's leadership has the potential to positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific... and we encourage you not just to look east, but continue to engage and act east as well."

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State, USA

US-India Strategic Dialogue, 2oth July, 2011, Chennai, India.

This year, Hillary Clinton made some high remarks regarding India’s leadership in South Asia and beyond during her last India tour. At a strategic dialogue between India and the US, held in Chennai, Hillary made a clear indication that her country wants to see India as a leader within a vast region, ranging from South Asia to Asia pacific including Central Asia.  In recent past, some significant developments in South Asia and South East Asian strategic landscapes are now proving that Hillary’s speech has far reaching impacts. Developments in the regional politics include the recent visits of the heads of the governments from Vietnam and Myanmar to India; India’s footprint in, probably, the most sensitive area in the world at this moment- South China Sea (SCS). All these developments placed us in a situation where we get an opportunity to explore the possible unseen links between Hillary’s speech and regional political developments.

Last month, Vietnamese president Trung Tan Sang paid four-day visit to India, aimed at deepening ties between two countries. Six agreements were signed after Sang met Indian premier Manmohan Singh. Among those agreements the most noteworthy of which regards oil and gas exploration by an Indian state owned company, ONGC Vindesh, in waters disputed by Vietnam and China in the SCS. Chinese criticism regarding the Indian exploration plans, already voiced last August this year, when Indian external minister SM Krishna visited Hanoi and announced that India would go ahead with operations notwithstanding China’s opposition. It is relevant here to mention that Vietnam and India enjoy mutual strategic interests as per as common threat perception from China is concerned.  

In the same month, Myanmar’s president, retired General Thien Sien, also visited New Delhi for four days in a bid to increase trade and cooperation, especially in energy sector. Since Myanmar has important energy resources in abundance, both India and China have been eyeing to buy those to meet their growing domestic energy demands. In the immediate pasts Myanmar’s energy resources had been under China’s sole occupation. Presuming Myanmar’s strategic importances, India started to develop relationship with that authoritarian country in the first half of 1990s.  Policy towards Myanmar was initiated under India’s broader policy towards South East Asia- “Look East Policy”. Though India is the largest democracy in the world, but it doesn’t hesitate to establish relationship with the world’s most repressive-captive-despotic state, Myanmar. India’s this contradictory stance is termed as ‘U-turn from idealism to realism’. Relations between Myanmar and India have been growing in the past few years. Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam visited Myanmar in 2006 and two years later, Vice-President Shri M.Hamid Ansari paid an official visit to the country in 2009. Reciprocally, Myanmar's former leader Senior-General Than Shwe, and many high officials visited India between 2008 and 2010. Myanmar-India bilateral trade reached 1.071 billion U.S. dollars in 2010-11 and India stood as Myanmar's fourth largest trading partner after Thailand, Singapore and China, according to official statistics. This year India promised Myanmar that it would lend $500 million in credit for a variety of infrastructure projects. Moreover, both countries discussed border security issues, a major concern for New Delhi, as insurgents groups from its northeast have set up camps along the frontier with Myanmar.

The recent developments can be analyzed in two dichotomized perspectives. One perspective claims that those regional developments mainly taking place because of concerted effort from India and USA.  But another point of view claims that South East Asian states are anchoring on Indian shore because they are tormented by China’s belligerent policies. If we enter deeper into those incidences then we will see that there is a ‘balancing game’ working in whole regional politics. Focusing primarily on the economic ties in the beginning, India and its South East Asian counterparts have increasingly expended the scope of cooperation to include other issues, such as defense and security. For South Asian states, an eastward looking India provides an array of opportunities, and is especially useful for balancing Chinese influence in the political, economic and defense realm in the region. For example- in the aspect of Myanmar, the seesaw is characterizing Myanmar's relations with its principal ally, China. During Thein Sein's visit to Beijing in May, the two countries decided to proclaim "a comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership". Recently, however, Myanmar's decision to suspend the construction of the Myistone dam in the northern Kachin state, a project meant to supply electricity to China which was being executed by a Chinese corporation with massive Chinese investment, has caused substantial tensions. For Vietnam, she is upset with China’s illegal claims in SCS. Now these states are optioning India to replace China, as much as possible.

Another thing- the existing bonhomie relationship between two global powers, US and India, is instigating South East Asian states to strengthen more their existing relationship with India. So it is very much apparent that many political developments in South East Asia are coming on India’s way. Now retrospect the Hillary’s last India tour and remember her ambitions concerning India. Now the US wants to fish in the troubled water of SCS. Probably India will give the proxy for the US. And Vietnam will be the stronghold for the US in South East Asia which it assumes as much as good friend as England in Europe. On the question of SCS dispute the US is giving strong support to many SCS littoral states including Vietnam with both moral and materials. India’s approval of off-shore exploration for oil and gas in SCS by its state owned company, a clear defiance against China, was mainly propelled by the US. Now in the South East Asia and SCS region China has to face India first before the US.         

This article was first appeared on the Daily Star on 12th November, 2011.

Sino-Bangla relations: A time-honoured friendship

“Bengalees do not tell lies and they do not cheat anyone.”

An assertion by a Chinese envoy during the 15th Century.

We have come to know this great matter, about how the foreign envoys used to perceive Bengalee nation in the 15th century, from a speech given by the great historian of our time, Prof. Dr. Syed Anwar Husain. Prof. Dr. Husain’s statement affirms that the relationship between China and Bangladesh is not a matter of recent past but dates centuries before when Gias Uddin Ajam Shah was in power in Bengal.

People to people contacts had been maintained since the 4th century BC (approx.) through the third Silk route which was built during that time between the then Bengal and China. First Chinese monk, Fa Xian from China’s Eastern Jin dynasty, visited Bengal in 399 AD. And Atish Dipankar from Bengal was invited to Tibet to introduce Buddah’s teachings in 1038AD. So it is reasonably understandable that the present bonhomie between Bangladesh and China has its origin in thousand years before.

State to state diplomatic relationship between Bangladesh and China started not before 2nd October, 1975, though Bangladesh achieved its independence on 26th March, 1971. During that time mainly mistrust and misperception kept two friends apart. But since that historic year of establishment of diplomatic relationship, two great nations didn’t need to look back. Now both the states are time-honoured friends, both at regional and international levels. Bangladesh firmly supports China’s ‘one China policy’ and China shows utmost respect to Bangladesh’s sovereignty as an independent state.

Change of regime in Bangladesh brings no effect upon policy towards China. But it is highly perceived that Bangladesh’s nationalist Party (BNP) is on a slant towards China whereas Bangladesh Awami League towards India. These particular party positions must not be viewed in skewed eyes. These stances have logical background in historical developments. In 1977, Ziaur Rahman’s visit to China established solid basis in Sino-Bangla diplomatic relationship. In 1991, when Khaleda Zia came to power, she made her first visit to China. And Khaleda’s most recent tenure was marked by ‘Look East Policy’ which mainly focused China and other eastern countries including Japan, South Korea etc. The present regime, Awami League led Grand Alliance, didn’t bring major shift in policy towards China. Hasina made her trip to China, just after visiting India in January, 2010. Hasina sought China’s assistance to build deep sea port in Chittagong but couldn’t hold up the momentum of procedure which finally resulted in China’s sloth response. But this year the government of Bangladesh again has beefed up their activities to implement it. Bangladesh’s military build up is really owed to China’s consistent assistance since 1977. Now China is our second largest trading partner in terms of goods. Bangladesh’s central bank has decided to trade with China in Yuan, the Chinese currency, replacing US dollar. This is a great move from Bangladesh’s central Bank, to boost economic relationship with China. Before Bangladesh, this currency was being used for trade settlements in Myanmar and Nepal. Sri Lanka is also allowing the RMB for international transactions. Pakistan is expected to be the next in line.

China’s ‘non-interference policy’, indoctrinated within its global policy, made it a widely acceptable global power in the world. In Bangladesh, China is also popular because of its policy of non-interference. In a rare incident, `meet the press’ hosted by National press club on 26th September this year, Chinese ambassador Zhang Xianyi stated that China supports connectivity between Bangladesh and India as well as other countries in the region for mutual economic benefit. And on the very next day he said in a roundtable at Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies (BIISS), Dhaka that Beijing will not unilaterally divert waters of the Brahmaputra River which supplies 60 percent of Bangladesh’s water flows. “We will consult with the downstream countries if they are in any way affected by what we are doing. This is our commitment,” he assured. Diplomatic observers say China’s probable water diversion plan has prompted New Delhi, which has been withdrawing water from the upstream affecting Bangladesh, to accept Dhaka’s idea of basin-wise management of the common rivers after decades. India for the first time, during the visit of Manmohan Singh’s Dhaka tour, agreed to go for basin-wise management of the trans-boundary rivers.

Xianyi expressed that China wants to establish links with Bangladesh via Myanmar, a road and a rail link. This direct link will create an opportunity to increase exports to China and thus reducing the existing trade gap between the two countries. Chinese companies are involved in various developments in Bangladesh including power plants, river dredging, bridge constructions. Decision makers in Bangladesh should come up with some possibilities to utilize this existing warm relationship with China. Bangladesh may strengthen its relationship with Myanmar and may ask China to create pressure upon Myanmar to refrain it from aggressive activities within Bangladesh’s maritime boundaries. India is importing gas from Myanmar. Bangladesh, also, should consider this matter as the country is suffering from huge paucity of gas and frequent power outage.

This year Sino-Bangla relationship is celebrating its thirty sixth anniversaries. With the progress of time both nations are moving toward stronger ties. It is expected that good relationship between these two great nations will create a balanced and stable South Asia.

This article was published on 13th October, 2011 in daily sun.

Edward Said: A trembler of Western discourse

As the Palestinian authority seeks recognition of its statehood in the UN, the global community commemorates the eighth anniversary of the passing of Edward Said, who Robert Fisk characterized as Palestine's most influential political figure. Said was a staunch advocate of the 'one-state solution'. In 1979, he authored 'The Question of Palestine'. Said's political trajectory transitioned from that of a disinterested observer to an active participant, culminating with the Israeli-Arab War of 1967. From 1977 to 1991, he served as an autonomous member of the Palestine National Council. In 1991, he resigned from the council and continued his advocacy for Palestine as an independent critic. His most powerful tool was his ability to articulate his thoughts and ideas. Dialogue is a crucial and unavoidable component of Palestine's pursuit and endeavour for statehood. On this momentous day of the Palestinian bid, we are commemorating Said.

 

Edward W. Said, a Palestinian-American, was born in Jerusalem on November 1, 1935, and passed away on September 25, at the age of 67, in New York. In the year of Said's death, I encountered my initial encounter with him through an article penned by Prof. Dr. Sirajul Islam Chowdhury in the literary supplement of a Bengali newspaper. Only then did I discover Said's identity as an English literary character rather than being associated with any one language or nation? One year after his demise, I became acquainted with his revolutionary publication 'Orientalism' (1978) for the first time during my first year at the University of Dhaka. Unexpectedly, my pals, including Mujibor Rahman, who is pursuing an M. Phil degree at Delhi University, stumbled into a discreet admirer of Said-Foej Alom, a poet and postcolonial intellectual in Bengali literature.

 

Poet Alom demonstrated his determination to translate Said's highly influential work, 'Orientalism', into Bengali to communicate Said's ideas to audiences in Bangladesh. Following this release, the practices and studies of Said's literature established a strong foundation in this country.

 

Allow me to explain the significance of Said, regardless of any specific language or nation. Said is regarded as a trailblazer in postcolonial thought. Postcolonial philosophy encompasses more than just literature. This philosophical perspective is relevant to various fields of study, such as language, sociology, physics, history, painting, architecture, agriculture, and more. Postcolonial ideology motivates us to thrive based on our cultural heritage. It encourages individuals to overcome the long-standing effects of colonialism. It enables you to ascertain the authenticity of your tradition, literature, culture, and prevailing mindset throughout the pre-colonial era. It reveals how the colonialists caused significant distortions in these areas during colonial control. Postcolonial philosophy emphasizes the need to reclaim and preserve one's traditions from the influence of colonial distortions. Post-colonialism emerged after the publication of Said's 'Orientalism'. This movement delivered another significant impact following the disruption caused by Postmodernism in Western epistemology. However, numerous postcolonial philosophers argue that Said's work 'Orientalism' initiated the initial epistemic rupture in Western discourse.

 

Ngugi wa Thiong'o and Chinua Achebe, both hailing from Africa, as well as Ashis Nandy, Ranajit Guha, and Partha Chatterjee from India, along with Benedict Anderson, Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin from Europe, made significant contributions to the field of post-colonialism based on their perspectives and expertise. In Bangladesh, Foej Alom, Saymon Jakaria, Selim Al Deen, and S M Sultan were highly conscious in their use of post-colonialism in poetry, play, and painting, respectively.

 

Said's second significant publication is 'Covering Islam' (1981). This book examines the deliberate portrayal of Islam as a religion associated with terrorism by Western media. This is how Western media portrays Islam. This book also highlights the prevailing friction between the Eastern and Western regions about Islam, fundamental terrorism, and related matters.

 

Said's initial publication, Joseph Conrad and the Fiction of Autobiography (Harvard University Press, 1966), focused on an author with whom he perceived a sense of affinity. Originally from Poland, Conrad embarked on global travels and acquired proficiency in English later in life. In the subsequent year, Israel emerged victorious over the collective military of many Arab nations in the Six-Day War, which catalyzed Said's burgeoning political awareness. His literary works comprise 'The World, the Text, and the Critic' (1983) and 'Culture and Imperialism' (1992). He was said to have expressed strong support for the independence of Palestinians. He has authored several subsequent works on the topic of Palestinians' right to self-determination, including 'The Question of Palestine' (1979), 'The Politics of Dispossession: The Struggle for Palestinian Self-Determination' (1994), and 'End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After' (2000). He expressed strong disapproval of the former US foreign policy towards the Middle East, particularly the policy of 'war on terror'. He was referred to as the 'professor of terror' by a US-based magazine for assuming this role. Explosive devices were deliberately aimed at his office at the institution. Fortunately, Said was able to avoid the situation by being absent. Said exemplifies the archetype of a public intellectual. He authored a book and actively engaged in numerous civic endeavours. On the occasion of the eighth anniversary of his passing, I offer my sincerest homage.

This article was appeared on 26th September, 2011 in the Daily Sun. 

India's leadership and its implication for South Asia

India's leadership is much talked about now a days in South Asian politics. There has been a persistent and sharp contrast between South Asian states, as a whole, and India. Where a number of South Asian states are in a strained relationship with the West, India on the contrary is enjoying a bonhomie relationship. For last few months it has been receiving many world leaders at home with success. 'Incredible India', is truly proving its diplomatic professionalism in dealing with other states, even USA, to keep its national interest intact.


'Bandwagoning- Balancing'
The present India's foreign policy appears to be, to borrow a phrase from Robert Kaplan, 'Monsoon: Indian Ocean and Future of American Power', published in 2010, an 'ultimate paradox'. How does it constitute a paradox? Yogesh Joshi explained it well. He said that the Indian foreign policy is the perfect example of fusion of 'Bandwagoning- Balancing'. It is bandwagoning with the US for its national interest but, at the same time, balancing American power by professing its slant towards a multipolar world. India successfully convinced Mr. Obama to support its causes. During Obama's visit to Delhi he openly supported, for the first time, India's bid for permanent membership in United Nations Security Council. On India's persistence, it also agreed to help India obtain the membership of four important instruments of the non-proliferation regime -- the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group.

How is India balancing against global powers? May be India is piggybacking on the US to reach global power status but she is not blind to the pitfalls of too much dependence. She may support the US leadership but, very much logically, not the US centered unipolar world. India strongly supports the idea of a multi-polar world order, most evident in the proceedings of multilateral settings such as the BRICS. India's warm relationship with the US does not, necessarily, mean that she will listen to the every exhortation placed by Mr. Obama. For example, India did not consider the bids of two US aviation giants for providing the Medium Multiple-Role Combat Aircraft to the Indian Air Force, though Mr. Obama exhorted India on this bid. We have seen how India was silent on United Nations Resolution 1973, brought against the Libyan government. India has been maintaining relationship with Iran at significant level. She supported Syria, the worst human rights abuser, in its candidature for the United Nations Human Rights Council. But it is relevant here to note that both Iran and Syria are at a draggers-drawn with the US. That's how India is 'bandwagoning' with the US but at the same time, 'balancing' against the US leverage.


Leadership in South Asia?
Hillary Clinton during her last visit to India in July, 2011, reiterated the ever increasing importance of India to the world and, of course, to the US. She said, "I can tell you that we are, in fact, betting on India's future. We understand that much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia, and that much of the future of Asia will be shaped by, most importantly, by the 1.3 billion people who live in this country." In that Chennai speech Ms. Clinton had some real gestures towards India besides some 'tall talks'. But why Washington is so enthusiastic about India? To this common question there is popular answer- because Washington wants to offset against China in Asia. In fact Washington seeks to create a bigger circle, Washington-Delhi-Tokyo, which may be extended with the inclusion of Seoul and Manila in near future.

But India's leadership in South Asia, as Ms. Clinton indicated, will be a tough call. Leadership in a region calls for some components. The aspirant state is expected to have good relationship with its neighbors. Does India have any trustworthy friend in South Asia? India has 'neighborly problems'. She has two nuclear armed, hostile states on two sides. One of her neighbors is war depleted and a breeding ground of insurgency. Bangladesh, another neighbor, changes its status with India with the change of governments. India also has `adequate' suspicion about Bangladesh. On the other, Nepal and Bhutan are the only two neighbors, upon whom India has more or less influence.

Ms. Clinton talked about the 'neighborly problems'. She expressed her anticipations that India would emerge among her neighbors as a 'benevolent leader'. She said, "…opening of India's markets to the world will produce a more prosperous India and a more prosperous South Asia. It will also spill over into Central Asia and beyond into the Asia Pacific region." At present, India is enjoying an economy of steady GDP growth ranging from 8 to 8.5. But does it really spill on her neighbors? From the perspective of Bangladesh, there are still many barriers including tariff and non-tariff barriers in trade between Bangladesh and India. In an updated statistics it is found that the trade gap between India and Bangladesh rose to $3.80 billion in 2010-11 fiscal year from $2.90 in the year before. Trade officials and businessmen talk about the standardisation of Bangladesh's exportable items by Indian authorities still remains a key. New Delhi is yet to make any tangible arrangement for removing the non-tariff barriers to trade that restrict exports of good number of items from Bangladesh to India despite, repeated assurances.

Besides trade issues, there are many other historically prolonged- unresolved issues between India and Bangladesh. Ms. Clinton didn't deny this grave concerns which are equally important for both sides. In her Chennai speech she said, "India also has a great commitment to improving relations with Bangladesh, and that is important because regional solutions will be necessary on energy shortages, water-sharing, and the fight against terrorists."

This has been the continued state of affairs between India and Bangladesh. This scenario does not differ very much in the aspects of India's relations with other neighboring states, with a couple of exceptions. India's leadership in South Asia requires resolving those issues first. India may enjoy a comprehensive economic and military power but that doesn't mean an easy and unabated leadership for her in South Asia. Many scholars opined that the problem is rooted in India's mindset. India's foreign policy is still revolving around Kautilyan discourse. India can bring a shift in her foreign policy and brighten the possibilities of leadership in South Asia.

This article as first appeared in the Daily Star on 10 September, 2011. 

Afghanistan troops pull out and South China Sea dispute

Recently President Barrack Obama declared that the US will start a process of pulling out troops from Afghan soil. This declaration has come out with no surprise as this was being assumed from the past gestures. But what is significant is timing. It has to be observed along with many other incidents took place around that time. I shall discuss those coincidences later. The declaration has some logical backdrops. It was given in the backdrop of the end of Laden era which was followed by the clandestine negotiation continued between Taliban and Obama administrations. Experts on US policy are adding up more delicate backdrops related to this declaration. They are claiming that the Obama government is no more able to wage war against terrorism in Afghanistan with its continued overburdened economy. During war against Libya, in a speech, Obama told that necessarily it did not mean that the US would go to wage war everywhere on earth. He indicated that the war against terrorism is a common interest and other powers have to come for the greater interest of the world. But who will concur to through their troops in a ‘ordeal’?

The timeline for the drawdown are- 10,000 troops by end-2011, 33,000 by mid-2012 and the bulk of the remaining 70,000 troops at a “steady pace” through 2013-14. The stunning geopolitical reality is that US is barely avoiding defeat and is making its way out of the HinduKush in an organised retreat as claimed by an ex-Indian diplomat M. K. Bhadrakumar. The Taliban responded to Mr. Obama’s announcement saying – “The solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately”. Again, Obama appears to be optimistic about the Kabul government’s ability to assume the responsibility of security by 2014. This ‘optimism’ is far from reality as per as the present Afghan situation is concerned. The retreat of the US from Afghanistan as anticipated by Bhadrakumar was not baseless. But the realities behind the ‘retreat’ are two pronged- one reality is that the US is really finding it tough with rare possibility to win the war in Afghanistan. She is under pressure at home to withdraw troops and bring them back to home. Second thing the US strategists are finding it more useful to concentrate elsewhere than Afghanistan. May be they are finding it more important to make strong foothold in South Asia or South East Asia to dissolve China’s prowess in that region and utilising present turmoil centring the South China Sea.

Now let me talk about those coincidences that I have not mentioned in the first. There have been some important developments for months in South Asia and Far East Asia which might force or worry the US strategist to reshape their strategic landscape in Asia. On 29 March 2011, the Army of Nepal made out a fresh proposal for integration/rehabilitation of PLA (People’s Liberation Army, China) combatants that appears to have had a positive response not only from the Maoist leadership but also from the Nepali Congress. In a response to Chinese offer US has recently proposed for establishing a military base camp in Nepal with substantial military and economic assistance to the landlocked impoverished Himalayan country with the objective to free Tibet from China. In this year China’s proposal to Nepal came first and was followed by US’s one. Peoples Review, a daily of Kathmandu, revealed on 9 June that the US government has submitted a draft of military pact with Nepal along with demand for allowing the military base.

Another development has been taking place, for a few days, in the South China Sea encircling the Spratly Islands and its resources among the self declared owners. China’s expansive sovereignty claims on of the South China Sea, including the Spratly and Paracel islets, putting Beijing directly in conflict with the sovereignty claims and security of five Southeast Asian states and ASEAN members -- Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia and outside them -- Taiwan.

In the South China Sea, US has only one permanent military base which is located Luzon Island, the Philippines. To hold back China’s military prowess US needs more strongholds in the off shore of the South China Sea. The present face to face situation among the neighbouring countries is the high time for the US to interfere. Hillary Clinton has already offered the Philippines to give arms to withstand China. US’s action irritated China and China rebuked US’s role as an act of interference. For China, the South China Sea is the security zone and important for maintaining economic pace and political supremacy in this region. To challenge US’s role in the Pacific Ocean, China needs to modernise its naval abilities. And China’s present economic power is inspiring it to continue this modernisation process. On the other hand, to stave off China US needs to concentrate more on this area. Probably this intention is going to bring change in US’s strategic landscape in Asia. Pulling out troops from Afghanistan may help to build up other countries in Asia. It may be a country or countries from South East Asia or may be even Nepal. Only future can be the best answer to know the upcoming changes. So let us look forward!

This article was appeared first in the Daily Sun on 13th August 2011.