Pakistan often makes rhetorical statements that are contradictory to its actions -- which is not the way to make long-term, sustainable progress on the security issues of most concern to Pakistan, its neighbors and its partners. The problem is that the rest of us are not doing enough to put an end to that duplicity. It’s time to change course.
Over the years, Islamabad has successfully convinced the United States that it is a willing and cooperative partner in the U.S. campaign against terrorism in the region -- while simultaneously fostering, either directly or indirectly, the growth of terrorist and insurgent networks on its soil. It has convinced India that it is ready to return to the negotiating table to develop confidence-building measures between the two nuclear-armed countries -- but in the meantime is increasing the rate at which it is expanding its nuclear arsenal.
And perhaps most alarmingly, Pakistan seems to have convinced itself that its nuclear weapons are safe. Yet increasingly frequent and credible reports are corroborating long-standing suspicions that the integrity of the Pakistani military and intelligence services has been compromised by extremist elements, which have the potential to facilitate a successful attack on a Pakistani nuclear installation.
To make matters worse, the rest of us have fallen for Pakistan’s maneuvers. The United States provides billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan, much of it for security and internal stability -- but it is questionable how effective those dollars have been. India has exercised tremendous restraint in its reaction to terrorist attacks that emanated, one way or another, from Pakistan over the past decade. Of course, this restraint is quite commendable, but New Delhi may not be so reserved if and when another attack occurs on its soil -- and that would cause long-term and compounded problems for all involved.
So how can we break this cycle?
There is some good news: Just this weekend, the Obama administration announced that it would withhold $800 million, or nearly one-third, of the $2.7 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Pakistan. This move indicates a serious reassessment of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, and creates space for a few options going forward.
The first option is to give up and completely disengage from Pakistan. Realistically, however, this is unacceptable, particularly at a time when the United States is trying to withdraw from Afghanistan without creating a governance and security vacuum in the region. To disconnect now altogether would be catastrophic.
The second option is to maintain the status quo. Even though we are fully aware of how disastrous the outcome could be in the end, it seems we are generally more afraid of pursuing an alternate path. But our "business-as-usual" approach is not prudent either, since it has produced little tangible progress.
The third and smartest option is to stop going any further down this path. Along with other regional partners, the United States can accept and publicly acknowledge the difficult truth -- that in the current scenario we have made little progress. Although this admission would take time and effort, just working towards that point would create space for fresh engagement amongst all parties under a different set of understandings and assumptions.
The Obama administration’s decision this weekend is a step in this direction, and hopefully will prompt a frank reevaluation on both sides of how to strengthen Pakistan’s relationship with the U.S. in a mutually beneficial and sustainable manner.
Ultimately, while Pakistan indeed faces very serious challenges, it can work with the United States on strengthening internal and external security, if it can learn to trust Washington again. Similarly, Pakistan can normalize its relations with India. Indeed, it must -- any other path will lead to destabilization and conflict.
Most importantly, Pakistan can work towards increasing security on the subcontinent without having to rely so heavily on its nuclear weapons -- for example, through collaboration and confidence-building measures with India on both nuclear and non-nuclear issues, and through similar dialogue and initiatives with the United States.
The bottom line is that the starting point for all of these challenges is a new conversation, not a continuation of the status quo. It’s time for all of us to start anew.
-------
Originally published on the Ploughshares Fund website.
7.13.2011
Praying For Restraint Again
This will be a constantly updated document.
Explosions in Mumbai again today. Three blasts: One in Zaveri Bazaar, one in Dadar, and one in Opera House.
There absolutely will be calls for PM Singh to respond, perhaps even to retaliate -- but against whom? No one has taken credit yet for the attacks. Part of India's challenge in 2008 was responding to that attack in a timely manner, because attribution took so long.
In the meantime, Pakistan wasted no time in issuing a statement (updated 7/14/2011 1:35PM EDT) condemning the attacks and expressing sympathy and support for India:
I'm praying that this is not the case.
-----
UPDATE 7/13/2011, 5:30PM EDT: Adding some details from the following Time blog post, which makes a good point -- this attack seems more like the 2006 and 1993 bombings, not the 2008 attack, in a couple of respects. First, its lifespan was just a few minutes, not a three-day siege. This indicates a lower level of coordination and logistical sophistication.
Second, the locations where the explosions occurred indicate the targets were local Mumbaikers, not foreigners or the wealthy.
Not 100% sure what this means, but if I've learned anything through my terrorism studies, it is that a terrorist organization tends to stick to a certain vision and MO. The first point, regarding coordination and sophistication, is less salient here, but the second -- that the targets were completely different from 2008 -- just might indicate that LeT isn't behind this one.
No guarantees though. More updates as they come in.
-----
UPDATE 7/13/2011, 5:45PM EDT: Daniel Markey at the Council on Foreign Relations had written last year about the next terrorist attack in India post-11/26. His conclusion was that even in the wake of another attack, India and Pakistan's tensions would not be exacerbated to the point of nuclear exchange. Certainly an interesting read, but as much as I'd like to believe it in my heart, I'm not completely convinced. Fingers still crossed.
-----
UPDATE 7/14/2011, 1:28PM EDT: It slipped my mind, in yesterday's frenzy of activity, that in the article I had written about India-Pakistan just two days ago, I included the following line:
On a separate note, the latest reports put the number of casualties at 21, with well over 100 injured / hospitalized. Apparently some security analysts are starting to make some guesses as to who is behind the attacks, but nothing concrete has been determined yet, so I'm not going to spin the rumor mill.
More to come ...
-----
UPDATE 7/15/2011, 2:30PM EDT: This Reuters article indicates that the explosives used were not simple crude devices, but somewhat sophisticated. This Times of India piece says the devices used a mix of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. These two details, if and when confirmed, may suggest prior training. PM Singh and local Mumbai authorities are still sorting out the damage to determine who is behind the attack.
Nothing conclusive yet.
-----
UPDATE 7/17/2011, 10:30PM EDT: In this article from Pakistan source The News, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao says it is too early to blame any country for last week's attacks.
So it seems the authorities are still sifting through the rubble and piecing together all the clues in this puzzle. Apparently, India-Pakistan relations haven't been derailed for now.
-----
UPDATE 7/18/2011, 12:12PM EDT: This Hindustan Times article confirms that the detonation devices used ammonium nitrate fuel oil as the primary explosive, and adds that ball bearings were a part of the package as well. The detonators were timed, but investigations continue into what specific type of timers was used.
Also, the consensus in the media seems to be that the death toll rests at 19, and that the number of people injured is 129.
Explosions in Mumbai again today. Three blasts: One in Zaveri Bazaar, one in Dadar, and one in Opera House.
There absolutely will be calls for PM Singh to respond, perhaps even to retaliate -- but against whom? No one has taken credit yet for the attacks. Part of India's challenge in 2008 was responding to that attack in a timely manner, because attribution took so long.
In the meantime, Pakistan wasted no time in issuing a statement (updated 7/14/2011 1:35PM EDT) condemning the attacks and expressing sympathy and support for India:
President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, the Government and the people of Pakistan, have condemned the blasts in Mumbai and expressed distress on the loss of lives and injuries. The President and the Prime Minister have expressed their deepest sympathies to the Indian leadership on the loss of lives, injuries and damage to property in Mumbai.I don't hope for a long attribution period -- someone clearly is responsible for these coordinated attacks, and they must be held accountable. But if -- just if -- the attackers are linked somehow to Pakistan, this may be the last straw.
I'm praying that this is not the case.
-----
UPDATE 7/13/2011, 5:30PM EDT: Adding some details from the following Time blog post, which makes a good point -- this attack seems more like the 2006 and 1993 bombings, not the 2008 attack, in a couple of respects. First, its lifespan was just a few minutes, not a three-day siege. This indicates a lower level of coordination and logistical sophistication.
Second, the locations where the explosions occurred indicate the targets were local Mumbaikers, not foreigners or the wealthy.
Not 100% sure what this means, but if I've learned anything through my terrorism studies, it is that a terrorist organization tends to stick to a certain vision and MO. The first point, regarding coordination and sophistication, is less salient here, but the second -- that the targets were completely different from 2008 -- just might indicate that LeT isn't behind this one.
No guarantees though. More updates as they come in.
-----
UPDATE 7/13/2011, 5:45PM EDT: Daniel Markey at the Council on Foreign Relations had written last year about the next terrorist attack in India post-11/26. His conclusion was that even in the wake of another attack, India and Pakistan's tensions would not be exacerbated to the point of nuclear exchange. Certainly an interesting read, but as much as I'd like to believe it in my heart, I'm not completely convinced. Fingers still crossed.
-----
UPDATE 7/14/2011, 1:28PM EDT: It slipped my mind, in yesterday's frenzy of activity, that in the article I had written about India-Pakistan just two days ago, I included the following line:
New Delhi may not be so reserved if and when another attack occurs on its soil.My intent is not to sound sensationalist or to engage in fear-mongering -- if anything, the one thing from which we all would benefit right now is a level-headed approach to what is going on. But there is a serious concern that each time any attack occurs on Indian soil, India and Pakistan will come closer to armed conflict -- whether Pakistan is complicit in the attack or not.
On a separate note, the latest reports put the number of casualties at 21, with well over 100 injured / hospitalized. Apparently some security analysts are starting to make some guesses as to who is behind the attacks, but nothing concrete has been determined yet, so I'm not going to spin the rumor mill.
More to come ...
-----
UPDATE 7/15/2011, 2:30PM EDT: This Reuters article indicates that the explosives used were not simple crude devices, but somewhat sophisticated. This Times of India piece says the devices used a mix of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. These two details, if and when confirmed, may suggest prior training. PM Singh and local Mumbai authorities are still sorting out the damage to determine who is behind the attack.
Nothing conclusive yet.
-----
UPDATE 7/17/2011, 10:30PM EDT: In this article from Pakistan source The News, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao says it is too early to blame any country for last week's attacks.
So it seems the authorities are still sifting through the rubble and piecing together all the clues in this puzzle. Apparently, India-Pakistan relations haven't been derailed for now.
-----
UPDATE 7/18/2011, 12:12PM EDT: This Hindustan Times article confirms that the detonation devices used ammonium nitrate fuel oil as the primary explosive, and adds that ball bearings were a part of the package as well. The detonators were timed, but investigations continue into what specific type of timers was used.
Also, the consensus in the media seems to be that the death toll rests at 19, and that the number of people injured is 129.
7.12.2011
Time For a New Conversation With Pakistan
Pakistan often makes rhetorical statements that are contradictory to its actions – which is not the way to make long-term, sustainable progress on the security issues of most concern to Pakistan, its neighbors and its partners. The problem is that the rest of us are not doing enough to put an end to that duplicity. It’s time to change course.
Over the years, Islamabad has successfully convinced the United States that it is a willing and cooperative partner in the U.S. campaign against terrorism in the region – while simultaneously fostering, either directly or indirectly, the growth of terrorist and insurgent networks on its soil. It has convinced India that it is ready to return to the negotiating table to develop confidence-building measures between the two nuclear-armed countries – but in the meantime is increasing the rate at which it is expanding its nuclear arsenal.
And perhaps most alarmingly, Pakistan seems to have convinced itself that its nuclear weapons are safe. Yet increasingly frequent and credible reports are corroborating long-standing suspicions that the integrity of the Pakistani military and intelligence services has been compromised by extremist elements, which have the potential to facilitate a successful attack on a Pakistani nuclear installation.
To make matters worse, the rest of us have fallen for Pakistan’s maneuvers. The United States provides billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan, much of it for security and internal stability – but it is questionable how effective those dollars have been. India has exercised tremendous restraint in its reaction to terrorist attacks that emanated, one way or another, from Pakistan over the past decade. Of course, this restraint is quite commendable, but New Delhi may not be so reserved if and when another attack occurs on its soil – and that would cause long-term and compounded problems for all involved.
So how can we break this cycle?
There is some good news: Just this weekend, the Obama administration announced that it would withhold $800 million, or nearly one-third, of the $2.7 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Pakistan. This move indicates a serious reassessment of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, and creates space for a few options going forward.
The first option is to give up and completely disengage from Pakistan. Realistically, however, this is unacceptable, particularly at a time when the United States is trying to withdraw from Afghanistan without creating a governance and security vacuum in the region. To disconnect now altogether would be catastrophic.
The second option is to maintain the status quo. Even though we are fully aware of how disastrous the outcome could be in the end, it seems we are generally more afraid of pursuing an alternate path. But our "business-as-usual" approach is not prudent either, since it has produced little tangible progress.
The third and smartest option is to stop going any further down this path. Along with other regional partners, the United States can accept and publicly acknowledge the difficult truth – that in the current scenario we have made little progress. Although this admission would take time and effort, just working towards that point would create space for fresh engagement amongst all parties under a different set of understandings and assumptions.
The Obama administration’s decision this weekend is a step in this direction, and hopefully will prompt a frank reevaluation on both sides of how to strengthen Pakistan’s relationship with the U.S. in a mutually beneficial and sustainable manner.
Ultimately, while Pakistan indeed faces very serious challenges, it can work with the United States on strengthening internal and external security, if it can learn to trust Washington again. Similarly, Pakistan can normalize its relations with India. Indeed, it must – any other path will lead to destabilization and conflict.
Most importantly, Pakistan can work towards increasing security on the subcontinent without having to rely so heavily on its nuclear weapons – for example, through collaboration and confidence-building measures with India on both nuclear and non-nuclear issues, and through similar dialogue and initiatives with the United States.
The bottom line is that the starting point for all of these challenges is a new conversation, not a continuation of the status quo. It’s time for all of us to start anew.
-------
Originally published on the Ploughshares Fund website.
Over the years, Islamabad has successfully convinced the United States that it is a willing and cooperative partner in the U.S. campaign against terrorism in the region – while simultaneously fostering, either directly or indirectly, the growth of terrorist and insurgent networks on its soil. It has convinced India that it is ready to return to the negotiating table to develop confidence-building measures between the two nuclear-armed countries – but in the meantime is increasing the rate at which it is expanding its nuclear arsenal.
And perhaps most alarmingly, Pakistan seems to have convinced itself that its nuclear weapons are safe. Yet increasingly frequent and credible reports are corroborating long-standing suspicions that the integrity of the Pakistani military and intelligence services has been compromised by extremist elements, which have the potential to facilitate a successful attack on a Pakistani nuclear installation.
To make matters worse, the rest of us have fallen for Pakistan’s maneuvers. The United States provides billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan, much of it for security and internal stability – but it is questionable how effective those dollars have been. India has exercised tremendous restraint in its reaction to terrorist attacks that emanated, one way or another, from Pakistan over the past decade. Of course, this restraint is quite commendable, but New Delhi may not be so reserved if and when another attack occurs on its soil – and that would cause long-term and compounded problems for all involved.
So how can we break this cycle?
There is some good news: Just this weekend, the Obama administration announced that it would withhold $800 million, or nearly one-third, of the $2.7 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Pakistan. This move indicates a serious reassessment of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, and creates space for a few options going forward.
The first option is to give up and completely disengage from Pakistan. Realistically, however, this is unacceptable, particularly at a time when the United States is trying to withdraw from Afghanistan without creating a governance and security vacuum in the region. To disconnect now altogether would be catastrophic.
The second option is to maintain the status quo. Even though we are fully aware of how disastrous the outcome could be in the end, it seems we are generally more afraid of pursuing an alternate path. But our "business-as-usual" approach is not prudent either, since it has produced little tangible progress.
The third and smartest option is to stop going any further down this path. Along with other regional partners, the United States can accept and publicly acknowledge the difficult truth – that in the current scenario we have made little progress. Although this admission would take time and effort, just working towards that point would create space for fresh engagement amongst all parties under a different set of understandings and assumptions.
The Obama administration’s decision this weekend is a step in this direction, and hopefully will prompt a frank reevaluation on both sides of how to strengthen Pakistan’s relationship with the U.S. in a mutually beneficial and sustainable manner.
Ultimately, while Pakistan indeed faces very serious challenges, it can work with the United States on strengthening internal and external security, if it can learn to trust Washington again. Similarly, Pakistan can normalize its relations with India. Indeed, it must – any other path will lead to destabilization and conflict.
Most importantly, Pakistan can work towards increasing security on the subcontinent without having to rely so heavily on its nuclear weapons – for example, through collaboration and confidence-building measures with India on both nuclear and non-nuclear issues, and through similar dialogue and initiatives with the United States.
The bottom line is that the starting point for all of these challenges is a new conversation, not a continuation of the status quo. It’s time for all of us to start anew.
-------
Originally published on the Ploughshares Fund website.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
