rediff.com
Hi Guest
Log in | Sign up
Skip to content

Syria through the looking glass

Top Syrian officials have confided to a visiting team of Russian experts that Chinese Deputy Foreign Foreign Minister Zhai Jun’s visit as special envoy to Damascus last weekend “made clear that Beijing, like Moscow, does not intend to abandon President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.” China maintains that Zhai’s consultations with the Syrian government and opposition show it is not “taking sides” in the crisis. 

The latest Chinese commentaries make the points that — Western strategy toward Syria is geopolitical; Syria and Iran form  templates of one US strategy; Western media reports of the Syrian situation are at variance with actual ground realities; Syrian opposition is divided and the regime still enjoys substantial support; reform is an imperative need in Syria but reforms cannot move forward in a climate of violence; and lastly, foreign intervention is unacceptable under any pretext.  (People’s Daily, Xinhua, People’s Daily,)    
However, Beijing is yet to signal its stance on the “Friends of Syria” meet in Tunis on Friday. It will be a litmus test of the degree of coordination between Beijing and Moscow. The Russian rejection of the FOS’ invitation came early, almost instantaneously, on Monday — while Beijing is taking time. Xinhua, though, reported on Moscow’s rejection of FOS. 
Syria would have figured, most certainly, in the discussions of Vice-President Xi Jinping during the recent tour of Washington. Xi’s host Joe Biden claimed he clocked 20 hours of conversation.  
Russia has a whole brigade of platinum grade Arabists, thanks to the great tradition of oriental studies in the Soviet Academy of Sciences. The best report on Syria — and the most authoritative so far that I’ve come across — appeared on Novosti yesterday. It is a very insightful tour report after interacting with top Syrian officials — including Vice-President Najah al-Attar and Deputy FM Faisal Mekdad, amongst others — authored by a leading Russian academic and Arabist, Prof. Alexey Pilko. Read it here. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 23, 2012


India isn’t a ‘Friend of Syria’

The ‘Friends of Syria’ [FOS] grouping, sponsored by the Western powers and their Arab allies, is scheduled to have its first session on Friday. By a clever political ploy, Tunis has been chosen as the venue of the meeting, as the Mediterranean capital invokes the fragrance of the Arab Spring. Although, Syria’s crisis is more geopolitical than a whiff of Arab Spring, which is itself in great distress today. 

Seventy countries have been invited to the Tunis meet. India qualifies for FOS membership, arguably, since it voted not once but twice in favour of the Arab League resolutions on Syria — in the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. Whether or not, or at what level, India proposes to attend the Tunis meeting — that is, whether India is willing to be a part of the FOS — will be keenly watched. 
Equally, it is not yet known where China stands apropos FOS. Vice-President Xi Jinping was in Ankara yesterday and the Turks are openly enthusiastic about the FOS. (By the way, Turkish government allowed an Uighur demonstration to be staged near Xi’s hotel, which suggests a lot about Turkey-China partnership.) 
Xinhua news agency has come down heavily on the western powers over Syria. In a commentary today with Beijing dateline, It just stops short of warning the FOS against taking any decision to arm the Syrian opposition. It repeats that the western strategy in the Middle East remains geopolitical and Syria, Lebanon and Iran are inter-connected theatres. (Lebanon refuses to attend the FOS meeting.) 
The most important part of the Xinhua commentary is its support for the reform programme of President Bashar Al-Assad. 
On the other hand, Russia’s rejection of the FOS meeting doesn’t come as surprise. But what merits attention is Moscow’s comprehensive rejection of the western move and the warning that FOS bears similarity to the infamous Libya Contact Group that provided the platform for the NATO military intervention to over throw the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. 
The Russians have put forward a new proposal that the UN secretary-general Ban KI-Moon should depute a special envoy to Damascus with a view to negotiate with the government and the opposition the modalities of rendering humanitarian assistance. This move pre-empts the FOS seeking a pretext for proposing  ’humanitarian intervention’ in Syria. 
From the high-level participation by the western countries in the FOS meeting — US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is travelling to Tunis — it must be surmised that a further push for accelerating a regime change in Syria is in the offing. But Washington is not yet ready to announce the policy shift to commence direct American military assistance for the Syrian opposition, although it could be fast nearing that point. 
All in all, therefore, Delhi’s stance apropos the FOS will signify a defining moment for India’s West Asia policy. Some Indian pundits have simplistically sketched the Syrian crisis as posing a dilemma for Delhi to choose between Riyadh and Tehran. This is a limited perspective of Middle East through the prism of Sunni-Shi’ite discord, which doesn’t tell the whole story. Whereas, there are many dimensions to the Syrian situation. 
To begin with, the analogy of Libya ought to worry Delhi. Syria’s descent into anarchy is bound to destabilize the entire region. Beyond that lies the precedent of unilateral military interventions in selective theatres to bring about regime changes. It has grave implications for international security in general. 
Delhi also cannot be oblivious to the double standards. The most important aspect of the West Asian regional upheaval could be the resurgence of radical islamist groups. Even senior US officials have acknowledged the presence of al-Qaeda in Syria. As a country in the ‘extended neighbourhood’ of West Asia, India becomes a stakeholder. Any association with FOS is undesirable at this stage. India should remain a mere unpretentious friend of Syria.   

Posted in Politics.

Tagged with , , , , , , .

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 22, 2012


Church and the state in Kerala

The Church has waded into the snowballing diplomatic (and political) row between India and Italy over the killing of the two fishermen and the subsequent arrest and detention of two Italian Marines. The Catholic news agency Fides in Rome has quoted the Kochi-based Cardinal Mar George Alencherry as revealing that he has “urged” the Congress-led Kerala government headed by chief minister Oommen Chandy “not to act precipitately”. 

To my mind, the revered Cardinal’s prompt intervention was timely. (See my earlier post.) But it raises some serious issues, too. Conceivably, the Cardinal could not have voiced a personal opinion so publicly to Fides. Fides is also the organ of the Vatican. The heart of the matter is that Alencherry made the remark while in Rome. 
Actually, only four days back Alencherry was consecrated as a Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI at the St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. If the Vatican has in any way been associated with the Cardinal’s sensational remarks, the diplomatic row between India and Italy assumes another controversial dimension. The western public opinion comes into the picture. In such situations, western opinion usually consolidates. The Cold War history is replete with instances of the West pitting the Vatican against the Kremlin. 
But the secular Indian public opinion is sure to firmly reject the Vatican’s locus standii in the matter. However, far more important, in Kerala itself, the bombshell by Alencherry is going to play out differently — and, perhaps, explosively. For one thing, the Church in Kerala is not a monolithic institution. From the animated web ‘chat’, it appears that the Cardinal’s intervention has provoked animosity even among people with distinctly Christian names. 
The fishing communities in the coastal regions of Kerala who are particularly agitated about the current issue of the Italian Marines’ resort to summary killing, do not subscribe to the Syro-Malabar Church. In sociological terms, the latter consider themselves to be the ‘aristocrats’ of Kerala’s Christian society with an extremely eclectic culture (which could be the envy of any religion). They are a prosperous community led by ’status quoists’ and conservatives, unsurprisingly. 
On the contrary, the teeming christian communities of the ‘working class’ milieu in the coastal belt of Kerala are militant and restive, imbued with shades of “liberation theology”. (The Communist Party of India (Marxist) during its recent party congress in Thiruvananthapuram hailed on its red banners Jesus Christ as a liberator.)  
Last year in May, Alencherry was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the entire Eastern Catholic Syro-Malabar Church and according to the Syro-Malabar tradition, he claims the title of “Patriarch of Mar Thoma Nasranis and the Gate of All India”. It added to Alencherry’s influential role in Kerala’s society and politics. 
But the issue is how far his halo appeals to the teeming fishing villages of Kerala and Alencherry would probably infuriate them today. The paradox is that while the Mar Thoma Church in Kerala holds hardly any sway among the Christian communities of Kerala’s coastal belt, it is an immensely powerful voice in Kerala politics today. And Chandy’s government came into being thanks to the huge support from the Church of Kerala. 
Alencherry may have spoken with an eye more on the forthcoming Piravom state assembly by-election on March 18 (on which the fortunes of Chandy’s government hangs by a thin thread) rather than the future of India-Italy strategic partnership in the multipolar world or the death of a poor fisherman at the hands of the Italian Marines, who all three happened to be christians.
Of course, Chandy’s government will be greatly embarassed by Alencherry’s remarks. Chandy himself takes pride in being a staunchly secular-minded political leader and he is indeed a charismatic figure in Kerala politics today, Alencherry has done a disservice by exposing Chandy to an unsavoury impression that he is a mere helpless captive of the Christian religious establishment and communal politics. 
Chandy has become inexplicably silent on the issue itself and has let the Italian affair be a matter of ‘due process of law’, which would lend credence to the feeling that Alencherry’s magic worked, after all. Simply put, Chandy doesn’t look good in this quagmire. The night of the long knives may be beginning within the faction-ridden Congress unit in Kerala. 
All this raises some serious issues about Kerala politics today. The heart of the matter is that despite a high literacy level, the average Malayali is highly susceptible to caste and communal politics. To my mind, this and this alone — Congress party’s vulnerability to communal politics in the Piravom bypoll — has tied the hands of South Block in Delhi from handling the present issue optimally at the diplomatic level with a view to find a rational, mutually acceptable and swift solution to this curious Indo-Italian fracas instead of letting it degenerate into the stuff of the bazaar of Congress politics. External Affairs Minister S.M.Krishna should be given a free hand to talk with his Italian counterpart Guilio Terzi who is expected in Delhi next Tuesday. 

Posted in Uncategorized.

Tagged with , , , , , , .

4 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 22, 2012


Italy steps up pressure on Delhi

Italy is stepping up its demarche that the two Italian Marines should be allowed to leave India. The deputy foreign minister Staffan De Mistura has arrived in Delhi to raise the matter at the political level. Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi is expected in Delhi early next week. 

The Italians are firmly insisting that the crime of the killing of the two Indian fishermen took place in international waters and the UN regulations on the law of the sea will prevail, which means trial in Italy. They refuse to accept Delhi’s stance that Indian laws will prevail. 
It stands to reason the Italians are in possession of evidence backing up their case — or else the foreign minister wouldn’t stake his political prestige in the matter. If so, a first class diplomatic row is erupting and the denouement may not be pleasant. 
The big question is whether the way South Block went about handling this issue was the best way or the only way. EAM S.M.Krishna has said, “the law of the land will have to take its own course, we have advised the Italians to cooperate with the Kerala law agencies to achieve an amicable solution.” This is a contradictory stance. An “amicable solution” implies a negotiated, mutually acceptable, equitable solution. Whereas, ‘due process of law’ is an entirely different process, which is non-negotiable. 
The accent of the Kerala chief minister Oommen Chandy is on “strict legal action” on the “cold-blooded murder”, which is a third way. Interestingly, following his phone conversation with EAM Krishna on Monday, Terzi linked the Indian stance to the Piravom by-election to the Kerala state assembly on March 18, which could seal the fate of the Congress-led government. Tersi observed wryly, “Complicating an already complex situation are the elections being held in Kerala that are without doubt influencing the feelings of the citizens and as a consequence risk influencing the investigation.” 

Posted in Diplomacy.

Tagged with , , , , .

6 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 21, 2012


Taliban tirade against Pak military

Consider the following. Iranian media featuring an interview with a Taliban leader operating in the tribal areas on Pak-Afghan border, who is strongly critical of the Pakistani military’s subservience to the United States. 

The fiasco of the trilateral summit of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran in Islamabad on Feb 16-17 just got over, with Pakistan dragging its feet on the Iran gas pipeline and Washington reportedly pressuring Islamabad to grant permission to open intelligence outposts in Baluchistan province bordering Iran. 
Wali-ur-Rehman Mehsud, formerly spokesman for later Baitullah Mehsud, is no ordinary guy. The interview is a recent one, as there are references to the Taliban’s peace talks in Qatar and the false American claim of the killing of Hakimullah Mehsud in a drone strike on January 12..  
Surely, Iran’s networking with Afghan groups continue to be terrific, including with Taliban sanctuaries on the Afghan-Pakistan border region, to which foreigners have no easy access. The interview brings out the strong bonding between Mullah Omar and the Pakistani Taliban and the latter’s extreme hostility toward the Pakistani establishment (civilian and military). 
The Taliban sense that the US-Pakistani rift is a shadow play with the two sides jockeying for advantageous positions. Equally, they are expanding in Baluchistan, but independent of Baluchi separatists. They share Iran’s perspective on Arab Spring as Islamic awakening, which the West is desperately trying to finesse.  
Rehman stresses that the Pakistani army and intelligence have lost control of the tribal regions. He repeatedly flags that Taliban are disenchanted with the Pakistani military leadership, which they see as serving American masters. The transcript of the interview is here.

Posted in Uncategorized.

1 comment

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 21, 2012


China on the geopolitics of Syria crisis

In the first Chinese commentary after the weekend visit by Deputy Foreign Minister Zhai Jun to Damascus as president Hu Jintao’s special envoy, Beijing has ‘hardened’ its stance on Syria. The commentary appeared in today’s China Daily. The salients are as follows: 

1. China’s and Russia’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution and the rejection of the subsequent UN GA resolution factored in that they might pave the way for outside intervention in Syria. The veto doesn’t mean China is favoring the Syrian government or that it is indifferent to the violence. But the priority is to ensure Syria doesn’t “end up on the same disastrous road as Libya.”
2. National sovereignty is a core principle for China. And the human rights issue is used by the West as pretext to pursue global or regional strategic interests. 
3. The West’s “furious response” to the Chinese and Russian veto exposes its intention to dominate the Middle East and “monopolise” the UN. 
4. The “intense and sharp contradictions in the Arab world” are also to be traced to the West’s ‘divide-and-conquer’ approach to the Middle East region.
5.. The Syrian crisis is not an issue of human rights alone. “The West wants to topple the Syrian government and replace it with a pro-Western one. Syria is considered a problem in the West’s Middle East strategy because of its close relations with Iran and Lebanon, which are hostile to the United States.”
6. The Arab League is playing second fiddle to the West’s Middle East strategy. The West’s “next target, no doubt, will be Iran.”
7. The Cold-War paradigm of western powers aligning against the “non-western world” continues and the “balance of power” between the US and the “non-western world” needs a “counterweight”. 
8. Washington’s “hysterical reaction” to China’s veto shows it has not “adapted to China’s change”. China’s development will continue and China will be assertive as one of the P-5. 
Once again, China has bracketed its veto with Russia’s. The reference to the ‘counterweight’ echoes the Global Times commentary on January 20 regarding a China-Russia alliance. The China Daily commentary is here. 

Posted in Politics.

Tagged with , , , , .

1 comment

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 20, 2012


Italy digs in regarding navy men

Almost all major English newspapers in the West uniformly carried the AP dispatch on the arrest of the two Italian sailors by the Kerala Police, which is based on the Italian viewpoint that the Indian laws cannot prevail and that Rome and Delhi disagree. 

Meanwhile, the Italians have begun a probe of their own and will demand that the Indians must conduct their probe in Italy itself. The Shipping Minister G K vasan parried when asked specifically and pointedly whether the trial would take place in India. All he would say was that what happened was an ‘unpardonable crime’ and “Punishment should be given to the guilty.” 
From all appearance, the probe will continue in Italy itself. The Italian foreign ministry has issued a strong statement, which suggests it might even raise the issue in the UN. The diplomatic row is deepening. 
The two Italian navy men belong to the highly-decorated San Marco Regiment (which was raised in 1713) and Rome can be expected to do all it can to insist that they enjoy immunity. For the present, Delhi has allowed the Kerala Police to arrest the Italians, which has been essentially a political decision to save the face of the Congress-led government in Kerala. 
Politics now takes over – at least until the Piravom bypoll for Kerala assembly, due on March 18, gets over. It is a closely contested by-election on which the survival of the Congress-led government depends to a great extent. 
For the present, Congress can do grandstanding that the UPA government didn’t blink in the light of Italian pressure. But Italy will not acquiesce with the trial of its Marines in an Indian court and in all likelihood, the snowballing controversy would have far-reaching implications for both Kerala politics and India-Italy relations. These are early days. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , .

3 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 20, 2012


Chandy has nothing to fear but fear itself

Taking part in a discussion on a leading Malayalam TV channel Reporter last night about the incident of the killing of two fishermen by sailors on board an Italian tanker, what struck me most was that the present state government led by chief minister Oommen Chandy lives on razor’s edge. 

This is the second time Chandy tried to ride the wave of rhetoric — the Mullaperiyar gaffe hasn’t yet got over —  and the only way it can be justified is that he is grandstanding by playing on the people’s emotions so that someone else doesn’t do that. Yet, he runs a government. Presumably, since the government survives on a wafer-thin majority, he has no choice. Every issue assumes larger-than-life political meaning within minutes. 
I can’t understand on what basis Chandy could be so categorical that the Italians will be tried for murder in the Kochi court. Even more preposterous was the state DGP’s assertion that no matter where the incident took place — territorial waters or international waters — Indian laws will prevail. 
There seems to be a total disconnect between Delhi and Thiruvanathapuram. The cautious wording of the MEA statement on the phone conversation between EAM S.M.Krishna and his Italian counterpart Guilio Maria Terzi di Sant’Agata went almost unnoticed in Thiruvanathapuram. Evidently, much transpired between Delhi and Rome on the diplomatic track. 
Belatedly, the realisation is dawning that so little is known definitively about where actually the crime took place. Everything depends on that, if one may so, as to where the killing occured. India has no jurisdiction over the international waters. The responsibility vests with the so-called ‘flag state’, which is Italy. 
To my mind, the Italian side has behaved with exemplary restraint. They allowed themselves to be escorted into the Kochi port without creating a ruckus. They have since proposed an amicable, mutually acceptable diplomatic solution. Their FM took the initiative to talk to Delhi. They have offered a joint probe into the incident. If the latest reports are accurate, they allowed their ship’s personnel to be questioned by Kerala Police. 
Now, if we remain adamant that the hare we caught has two horns no matter what the world thinks, and if the Italians are pushed against the wall, it won’t help matters. Italy has its sovereign rights, too. It is a full member of the United Nations - like India. Additionally, it is also a member of the European Union. This could needlessly turn into a diplomatic row where Delhi can find itself at the receiving end. India can do without all that. 
Terzi’s offer for a joint probe was eminently reasonable and should have been accepted. Krishna faltered. He got it wrong: there is no need for Congress Party to be defensive. The Indian nation is mature enough to discern the grain from the chaff. 
As a first step, the folks in Thiruvananthapuram should be asked to keep their trap shut. It is Mullaperiyar all over again — working up mass frenzy for political ends. Chandy could take a leaf from Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalaithaa. Boy, with what aplomb is she wrapping up the endgame over Kudankulam! Chandy is an agitator par excellence, no doubt. But today he is also expected to be a ruler. 
Finally, there is food for thought for the Hindutva brigade too, which is gleefully taunting the government. I am sure they will start fulminating ‘Bharat Mata ki jay’ if an Indian ship were to be caught up in similar unhappy circumstances off Thailand. I suppose they would then say that since India is the ‘flag state’, the ship should be returned and the sailors would be tried in our courts. Doublespeak has its limits when it borders on hypocrisy. The very thought is disgusting — making politics out of a corpse.

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , , .

12 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 19, 2012


China steps up Iran oil imports

The western speculations that China might cut down oil imports from Iran against the backdrop of the sanctions by the United States can now be conclusively buried. The National Iranian oil Company [NIOC] reached an agreement with China’s UNIPEC to increase Iranian oil exports to China to 500000 barrels per day. The last year’s contract between NIOC and UNIPEC provided for only 220000 bpd of crude and 60000 bpd of gas condensate. Evidently, a substantial increase in Chinese imports from Iran is envisaged this year.  

The NIOC-UNIPEC deal indicates three things: a) the drop in China’s import of Iranian oil in January was due to commercial reasons pending the negotiation of the present agreement; b) China is ignoring the US sanctions against Iran; c) China has independent policies toward Iran and the GCC states.  
Iran’s deputy oil minister visited Beijing this week to negotiate the new crude supply contract and other projects in the oil, gas and petrochemical sector. This is in line with the statement by China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai’s during a briefing in Washington on Vice-President Xi Jinping’s visit to the US that Beijing intends to pursue its “legitimate economic interests” with Tehran. Cui was dismissive about the US sanctions against Iran. 
Again, Chinese Vice FM Zhai Jun arrived in Damascus on Friday as a special envoy and met President Bashar Al-Assad today. Following the meeting, Zhai extended China’s support for Bashar’s reform programme, especially the constitutional referendum planned for next Sunday. Zhai underscored that only in a peaceful enviornment can reform be implemented in Syria. Zhai also met representatives of Syrian opposition in Damascus who are against foreign intervention in Syria. 
Significantly, People’s Daily featured a commentary drawing similarities in the situations around Iran and Syria and China’s “constructive” role. It rejected “arbitrary judgment” by the West regarding the regimes in Iran and Syria, which is used as justification for “traditional tough measures such as the economic sanction and military intervention.” 
The message from the UNIPEC-NIOC deal and Zhai’s mission to Damascus — both coinciding with Vice-President Xi Jinping’s tour of the US — is that much as China recognised the need to resolve the Iran nuclear issue and to reform the Syrian political system, it won’t cave in to western pressure. 
China’s Middle East policies are indeed shifting gear. The Global Times in a commentary mocked at the “lack of confidence… [and] unease of some Chinese” regarding western criticism and asserted that “China must act confidently and proactively” and should have the courage to calmly stand its ground to secure national interests on the world stage. It was applauding China’s vote in the UN GA on Syria on Thursday. GT editorial is here. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , .

2 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 18, 2012


Afghan-Pak spar mars Islamabad summit

By design or by sheer coincidence, Washington took Thursday as the day of the drones — even as Pakistan was hosting the trilateral summit meeting with Afghanistan and Iran. The political symbolism couldn’t have been lost on the protagonists. Twenty-one people were killed on Thursday, which was the highest since the drone attacks resumed last month. Drones kept hovering above the skies of North Waziristan the whole day. 

Curiously, there has not been a word of criticism by the Pakistani leadership, civilian or military. Not even by Imran Khan. The Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad would have certainly wondered there is something very strange going on between Washington and Islamabad they are not privy to. The trilateral summit took place amidst thick political fog surrounding Pakistan’s gameplan. 
Thus, a summit that was long postponed and although not expected to produce any big results but could still have been a moderate success, actually ended in a whimper. If the Pakistani hope was to fire from the Afghan and Iranian shoulders and create some negotiating space for itself by the time the chief of US Central Command Gen. James Mattis arrived in Islamabad next week , the end result is that Washington has been the winner out of the trilateral summit.
Pakistan took care not to ruffle US feathers and held back from giving any firm commitments on the implementation of the gas pipeline project with Iran. The project is the litmus test of Pakistan’s willingness to move forward in relations with Iran. 
From the Iranian statements, it appears Tehran kept the expectations low — and stuck to generalities and goodwill statements. What matters most to Tehran today is that Pakistan doesn’t have a relapse and resumes the bad old habit of harboring Iranian terrorists belonging to Jundullah who used to indulge in covert trans-border operations from their Pakistani sanctuaries. Iran has been enjoying a respite from trans-boder terrorism for an year. Iran has its own approach to the Afghan problem and much as it would like to harmonise with Pakistan, it also has a the capacity to safeguard its interests and draws on a long historical memory over the Pakistani policies of ’strategic depth’. 
Ahmedinejad repeated the Iranian position on the hegemonistic ambitions of extra-regional powers and left things at that. The trilateral summit failed to come up with any initiatives on the Afghan problem. And, the main ‘outcome’ of the event, ironically, turns out to be that Afghan-Pakistani ties nosedived. 
Karzai apparently came with a resolute mind to call a spade a spade. From various accounts, he didn’t mince words in his meeting with the Pakistani leadership and demanded that Pakistan should summon Mullah Omar from the attic of its house in Rawalpindi and get him to talk. 
The tough demand apparently shocked the Pakistani hosts and the meeting broke up in disarray.No sooner than the trilateral summit concluded, Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar got back at Karzai in some needlessly harsh language. 
Evidently, Pakistan is taunting Karzai with insulting remarks. What happens now? It’s apparently ‘Advantage Mattis’. But such eruption of Afghan-Pakistani discord also creates problems for the US as it hopes to shepherd all relevant parties into one coherent journey before the NATO summit is held in Chicago in May. Maybe, Washington could learn from Moscow how it reconciled with Zia ul-Haq’s  delaying tactic at the Geneva talks. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , , .

2 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 17, 2012