Indian Punchline

The Road to Pakistan may lead somewhere

M K Bhadrakumar — Sat, 18 May 2013 05:20:36 +0000

This is what I wrote, more in sorrow than in anger, in today’s Deccan Herald newspaper: “An entrenched mindset in India senses the existence of an entrenched mindset in Pakistan and insists there are no real prospects of a significant rapprochement with Pakistan. It implies that the ebb and flow of life in the upcoming Sharif era will remain as it used to be. It may well be so, but the stakes are so high it is worthwhile to verify. No harm done, after all, to the country’s vital interests. The point is, we are in a grey zone today and to keep a closed mind means not taking note of what is happening around us.”

READ MORE >>>>

Obama annoys allies over Syria talks

M K Bhadrakumar — Fri, 17 May 2013 20:11:38 +0000

The Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan’s visit to Washington on Thursday was expected to put pressure on the Obama administration to take a tougher stance against the Syrian regime. Erdogan was quoted as seeking the imposition of a US-led ‘no-fly-zone’ in Syria and increased arms supplies to the rebel fighters. In the event, however, Obama stood his ground and insisted there is no “magic formula” to resolve the crisis. Of course, he couched the rebuff in extravagant diplomatic niceties during the joint press conference in the White House, but it was a rebuff nonetheless.

Simply put, Obama is unwilling to let the US be drawn into an Iraq-like quagmire. Regime change is the objective alright, but there must be a negotiated transition, as he said, “in which the institutions inside of Syria are still functioning, but we have a representative, multiethnic, multi-religious body that can bring about democracy and peace inside of Syria.”

Elsewhere Obama added, it should be a Syria that is “intact and inclusive of all ethnic and religious groups; and that’s a source of stability, not extremism.”

A good thing to come out of the press conference was that Obama reverted to the idea of a peace conference in Geneva. He said, “I do think that the prospects of talks in Geneva involving the Russians and representatives about a serious political transition that all the parties can buy into may yield results.”

But, what about the chemical weapons and the “red line”? This is what Obama had to say: “This is an international problem. It is very much my hope to continue to work with all the parties involved, to find a solution that brings peace to Syria, stabilizes the region, stabilizes those chemical weapons. But it’s not going to be something that the United States does by itself.”

The video clipping showed an uncharacteristically subdued Erdogan standing in the rain the Rose Garden, while Obama dictated the terms of peace in Syria. Erdogan politely listened, but then, later on at the Brookings, he was his usual self and took off on a tangent and hit back his own way where it hurts the US interests — by insisting that Hamas is a legitimate participant in the Middle East peace talks.

He disclosed that he is heading for Russia and the Gulf countries soon for Syria talks “to assess the situation there.” Erdogan has further reiterated his intention to visit Gaza next month.

Erdogan isn’t the only one who feels let down. The Saudis are livid, too. The government-owned Asharq Al-Awsat tore into the US’ policy on Syria in an opinion piece entitled “Obama’s Betrayal” under the byline of the daily’s managing editor Eyad Abu Shakra (here).

The daily says: “Obama has given in to the Russian interpretation… Washington has accepted the reality of Bashar Al-Assad remaining at the helm in Syria until the end of his presidential term next year, exactly as Russia and Iran wanted.”

The Saudis apprehend that they are “losing” Syria and in the bargain may also be losing ground to the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Significantly, Saudi foreign minister held a 2-hour meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Jeddah last week.

According to the israeli media network DEBKAfile, here, the meeting in Jeddah signified that the Saudis are opening a line to Iran bypassing the Russian-US initiative on Syria.

At any rate, Iran has since announced its intention to hold a conference of foreign ministers and senior officials in Tehran on May 29 to “set out a framework for resolving the Syrian crisis.” Don’t be surprised if Turkey and Egypt attend it. Will Saudis, too?

Meanwhile, the ‘Friends of Syria’ countries propose to meet in Jordan next week to deliberate on the US-Russia initiative regarding peace talks. The meet, if it takes place, will be one helluva meeting. The FOS were supposed to evict Bashar Al-Assad from power. Now, in effect, Obama says he can contest the election and be part of a ‘democratic Syria.”

Unsurprisingly, Russia is keeping its fingers crossed. As the Moscow-based strategic analyst Fyodor Lukyanov noted in an opinion piece in the official Novosti news agency, it is indeed a situation where things could go either way — “a critical moment, with advocates and opponents of a negotiated settlement in Syria at each other’s throats.” But Lukyanov knows, the Kremlin knows, Russia holds a winning hand. It has blasted a hole through the doctrine of (humanitarian) interventionism through which an elephant can walk through.

Indeed, what Russia can do for the present is to make sure that any western adventurist enterprise to ratchet up the current level of military intervention in Syria proves costly and unacceptable.” According to the Reuters dispatch, here, Russia is very much on the ball.

To my mind, Jeffrey Laurenti of the Century Foundation is probably right that Obama may have earned his Nobel on Syria. I have only this caveat: Obama shouldn’t keep the Nobel to himself, but should share it with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. It’s only natural justice.

Democracy lessons from the Maldives

M K Bhadrakumar — Thu, 16 May 2013 12:55:38 +0000

The Maldives is putting Indian pundits to shame. Not only there is no democracy deficit in the archipelago of 2.4 lakhs voters but the twists and turns of politics there in the run-up to the September 7 presidential elections are becoming intricate and highly competitive.

Indeed, the islanders have taken to coalition politics with a gusto that will give Mulayam Singh Yadav or M. Karunanidhi one or two bright ideas for the future.

So, after all, President Mohamed Waheed is not only not, in actuality, a protege of former ‘dictator’ Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, but they have become political adversaries today and their parties have locked horns.

Equally, we were wrong to assume Gayoom is the kingmaker calling the shots in the current regime that came into power in February last year in controversial circumstances. In fact, Gayoom is barely keeping his head above the waterline of Maldivian politics.

Nor is Waheed anyone’s rubber stamp. He is also an ambitious politician who sees a role for himself as the country’s next elected president. And he also has a panache for conspiring, backstabbing, building self-serving alliances and so on.

Again, Gayoom and former president Mohamed Nasheed aren’t necessarily eternal enemies they were considered to be. In fact, a degree of warmth and proximity could be developing between them in their common desire to spoil Waheed’s prospects to win the September 7 poll.

According to Indian pundits, Gayoom is hand in glove with the Islamists, but the plain truth is it is Waheed who got the Islamists on board in his electoral alliance, who clamour for Shariah law. Yet, Waheed espouses religious tolerance and won’t clamp down on the fun and frolic that goes on in resorts where foreigners come for merrymaking.

By the way, there is no Al-Qaeda guy fishing in troubled waters in the Maldives or lurking behind the coconut trees there, as our security analysts have been prophesying for years.

Clearly, we overlooked that these islanders are a far better educated people than us Indians — 100% literate, in fact. Perhaps, we could learn some new things from them about ”inclusive” democracy. Of course, we all owe a decent apology to Dnyaneshwar Mulay, our man in Male till recently whom we tormented and humiliated and exiled to New York as a mere consul-general.

The importance of being Nawaz Sharif

M K Bhadrakumar — Thu, 16 May 2013 06:42:30 +0000

There is immense goodwill for the Pakistani leader Nawaz Sharif among the Indian elites. However, Delhi faces a foreign policy challenge in holding Sharif’s hands and responding to his overtures (which it will) while at the same time factoring in the undercurrents in Pakistani politics and the complexities of the geopolitics of the region. Read my article titled The travails of Pakistan’s Sharif, featured in the Moscow-based think tank Strategic Culture Foundation.

All bets are off in Iran’s election

M K Bhadrakumar — Wed, 15 May 2013 17:19:01 +0000

The candidacy of Iran’s former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the upcoming presidential race has sent shock waves across the political spectrum in the country. The “Shark” (which was how Rafsanjani used to be known for good reason) kept his thoughts to himself and filed his nomination papers just a few minutes before the deadline.

Even close confidantes were taken by surprise. For the establishment, it came as a nasty surprise. In a jiffy, the best-laid plans for the presidential election on June 14 go awry.

The absurd petition by one-thrid of the Majlis members to the Guardian Council demanding that Rafsanjani be disqualified from contesting the election betrays nervousness and disarray within the establishment.

There has been a 2-way split within the establishment already between the conservatives who swear allegiance to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the populist pro-government faction identified with President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Now, Rafsanjani has stepped out of the religious establishment to mobilize a third platform, which could turn out to be a seamless coalition of pro-reform and centrist politicians, middle class and the ‘Bazaaris’. Former reformist president Mohammed Khatami has voiced support for Rafsanjani.

The ‘unknown unknown’ is that being an experienced coalition builder, Rafsanjani could inspire sections within the religious establishment who could be called the regime’s ‘internal opposition’ to come alongside, apart from attracting vast sections of the society that are disenchanted with the regime for one reason or another.

But political prognosis at this point is like putting the cart before the horse. The Guardian Council needs to first approve the list of candidates after which only the battle lines become clear. The GC’s verdict is expected next week.

For the present, what can be said is that this was not the sort of election that the regime was probably banking on. All bets are off — and that in itself is saying a lot for such a high-stakes election which impacts on regional and international security. Read an excellent resume of the state of play by FT’s Roula Khalaf, here.

US backtracks on Syria peace meet

M K Bhadrakumar — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:38:13 +0000

The Russian-American idea of convening an international conference on Syria is nosediving within a week of its uncertain takeoff last Tuesday when US secretary of state John Kerry paid a ‘working visit’ to Moscow.

The strategic community and the Cold Warriors are up in arms in the US at the prospect of a US-Russia concord on Syria. The nasty interview given by the old war horse from the Council of Foreign Relations Stephen Sestanovich suggests that the Obama administration is caving into the pressure to revert to its blueprint for regime change in Syria.

Sestanovich underlines that there is nothing really there to discuss on Syria except the exit of President Bashar al-Assad. “The real issue is whether the Russians are prepared to tell Assad and his supporters that the jig is really up for their regime.” Period.

The Sestanovich line seems authentic and the CFR can’t be out of sync with the spirit of the times on US-Russia ties.

Interestingly, both US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron virtually repeated what Sestanovich maintained, namely, that the non-negotiable bottom line is that Assad should exit.

At a joint press conference in Washington on Monday, the two statesmen reverted to the ancient line of argument that the support for the Syrian opposition will be stepped up. Regime change is back in vogue.

While Obama raked up the chemical weapons issue and flaunted it as the sword of Damocles hanging over Assad’s neck, Cameron pledged to get the European Union embargo on arms supplies to the Syrian rebel fighters lifted.

Obama also took a swipe at Moscow doubting Russia’s capacity to influence now that “the Furies have been unleashed” in Syria and where Iran and Hezbollah also happen to be players. He subtly warned Russia that it could as well be affected by spillover from Syria just as Turkey or Jordan have been.

Cameron lost no time to distance himself from the bonhomie displayed at his weekend visit to Sochi and insists now that what he actually had with President Vladimir Putin was a “very frank conversation” regarding Syria– which in diplomatic idiom means the two leaders sharply disagreed to the point of quarreling.

Clearly, it appears that Kerry’s feedback to Obama following his “working visit” to Moscow has not exactly been in glowing terms. In fact, now it transpires that while Kerry was in town, the Russian intelligence was apparently moving in to entrap an American diplomat in Moscow who was allegedly involved in cold-war era espionage.

The diplomat has since been declared persona non grata. At any rate, Moscow is not going to like the tone of the Obama-Cameron press conference (here), and all of this of course could only suggest that the US-Russia ties continue to remain in doldrums with hardly a month to go for the Obama-Putin meeting on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

The French have an uncanny sense of dark forebodings. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned on Tuesday that the planned peace conference on Syria is hard to organize.

Rain, wind and ‘comfort women’

M K Bhadrakumar — Tue, 14 May 2013 05:46:43 +0000

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Japan two weeks from now comes at a time of great turbulence in the politics of the Far East. We in India somehow think of that region almost entirely in terms of the United States’ ‘rebalancing’ strategy. Considering ourselves, as always, to be the centre of the universe, some of us even naively interpret that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s visit has been timed precisely to poison our gullible PM’s mind about Japan.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has let loose the demons of Japanese nationalism and it is touching raw nerves in the region. A confidante of PM Abe assures us that the latter “disagrees” with the findings of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

Another Japanese politician Toru Hashimoto now justifies the horrendous practice of the “comfort women” during World War II. “In the circumstances in which bullets are flying like rain and wind, the soldiers are running around at the risk of losing their lives. If you want them to have a rest in such a situation, a comfort women system is necessary, anyone can understand that.”

Really? No, Toru, they will never understand what you just said (here) — out there in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines and Indonesia. Toru, do you have daughters?

To be sure, alarm bells are ringing. Abe is a rare topic where NYT, WaPo and FT ran identical editorials focusing on the revulsion that Japanese nationalism evokes. And, surely, a political backlash is forming.

The new South Korean president Park Geun-hye may choose China as her second overseas trip after visiting Washington. Of course, Park is snubbing Tokyo. This has never happened before — a South Korean leader skipping Japan and proceeding to China first.

Obviously, feelings are running high. But, how does this affect the US’ rebalancing strategy? Both Japan and South Korea are, after all, key allies and if they are not pulling along together, things could get messy.

Maybe, Premier Li should visit Seoul first — before arriving in New Delhi next Monday? No, that won’t happen. Li chose Delhi carefully for well-thought out, weighty reasons and the decision stands, as today’s Xinhua report highlights.

Britain salvages Syria parleys

M K Bhadrakumar — Sun, 12 May 2013 03:47:42 +0000

The British prime minister David Cameron’s weekend visit to Sochi and his meeting with President Vladimir Putin evidently injects new vitality into the Russian-American diplomacy over Syria earlier in the week when the US secretary of state John Kerry paid a “working visit” to Moscow.

Kerry’s talks in Moscow left things hanging in the air and the disquieting signs were that the common ground reached in the talks with the Russian leadership would get eroded.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are plainly unhappy that the Obama administration could be shifting its stance apropos of the Russian argument that the Syrian dialogue should be “inclusive” and the regime headed by President Bashar al-Assad should be part of it.

There is criticism back home as well that Kerry conceded ground in the Moscow talks. Critics had some harsh things to say.

Enter Cameron. Of course, no one can question Britain’s historical legacy in the Asia Minor, having godfathered the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. But Cameron came for a different purpose than picking up the thread of the imperial legacy, but playing a contemporaneous role over the Syrian crisis. He stepped in to hold the baby for the US. And he apparently did it with elan.

Despite the chill in Russia-UK ties, Putin warmed up to him. From Sochi Cameron headed for Washington to talk things over with Obama. Obama, Cameron and Kerry would put their heads together on Monday and come up with ideas on the modalities of shepherding the Syrian parties to the conference table.

The Kremlin expects a phone call from the White House early next week. Moscow is pleased that there is traction in the consultations. Indeed, when three out of five permanent members of the UN security council set their hearts on something, a new dynamics could develop even in a multipolar world.

But then, do not completely overlook the grit of the Turks, Saudis and Qataris (and the Iranians). After all, they didn’t jump into the Syrian problem for the fun of it. They are stakeholders too and may not like to be treated as sidekicks.

Meanwhile, Cameron seized the good atmospherics in Sochi to canvass some business for the British energy companies. Putin announced the constitution of a joint working group on energy. To be sure, Cameron is looking for upstream business in the Russian energy sector and Moscow may accommodate British companies. BP already holds a 20% stake in Rosneft. The geopolitics of Syria, by the way, is also about the vast untapped energy reserves of the Eastern Mediterranean.

A spy who came to Delhi for the night

M K Bhadrakumar — Sat, 11 May 2013 06:59:40 +0000

The news on Thursday that Ali Fallahian, Iran’s former spy chief, filed his nomination papers for Iran’s presidential election (slated for June 14) raised eyebrows in the international community. But why should it? George H.W. Bush also used to be a spy chief.

Nonetheless, I felt amused for two reasons. One, in the last election in 2009 too AF stood as a candidate — only to poll less than 1% vote. He should have known that he isn’t exactly a popular guy. But then, politicians are tenacious folks and you never really know when Fortuna — Greeks call her Goddess Tyche — chooses to smile or frown.

AF is today a member of the powerful 86-member Assembly of Experts, which appoints Iran’s Supreme Leader and is credited with the responsibility to monitor his performance.

Whenever I find AF’s name mentioned, it brings back memories of his one and only visit to Delhi when he used to be the cabinet minister in President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s government. By then, AF was already on the ‘wanted list’ of western powers (and Israel, of course).

AF seldom, if ever, travelled abroad because there was such great demand in the West for his scalp — dead or alive.

Those were times when India and Iran were “strategic partners” and we didn’t care what the West thought of AF (or Iran). We focused diligently on exploring newer and newer ways to sort out the terrorists operating out of Pakistan.

AF came in a special aircraft (as all spy masters do), but the ticklish problem was where to put him up. Most certainly, Mossad and the CIA were closely monitoring his movements and there had been assassination attempts on his life.

The Delhi hotels were simply out of the question. Thus was born the brilliant idea to put him up in Rashtrapati Bhavan.

At any rate, before the crack of dawn, before President Shankar Dayal Sharma probably got to know, AF was gone. And as his executive jet tore into the starlit skies spiriting him away to safety, I told myself I’d never again get to see this extraordinary man who came in from the cold.

Actually, Thursday’s news report reminded me that he was after all a portly Persian cleric with a great sense of humour. Why else would he want to be Iran’s president — and, potentially, Barack Obama’s interlocutor? Read an old Newsweek interview with AF here.

Putin focuses on Afghan situation

M K Bhadrakumar — Thu, 09 May 2013 17:42:45 +0000

The negotiations over the Status of Forces Agreement [SOFA] between the United States and Afghanistan have entered the final stage. The Afghan President Hamid Karzai in his characteristic way signalled this by his open “offer” on Thursday in a public speech in Kabul that the US could have 9 military bases in Afghanistan.

The impression so far was that the US is demanding four or five military bases in Afghanistan. Karzai simply doubled the number to the actual figure - 9 bases. He is a shrewd politician.

The US bases (apropos which Washington, funnily, is still in denial mode) is a sensitive issue in Afghanistan. So, Karzai is “filibustering” — to borrow from the US political idiom.

Karzai recently ratcheted up Afghan-Pakistan tensions, which helped him to whip up Afghan nationalism and xenophobia. And, riding the wave of public anger against Pakistan, he has now introduced the raison d’etre for his decision to allow diplomatic immunity for the US troops (which has been a non-negotiable condition set by Washington).

Karzai is projecting that in the event of a Pakistani aggression across the Durand Line, Kabul would expect American military protection and by implication, he is telling the Afghan people that the SOFA is in the vital interests of national defence.

The sophistry is unlikely to be challenged in the Afghan bazaar. In the prevailing “anti-Pakistan” popular opinion, SOFA will sail through like a dream.

Most of the erstwhile Northern Alliance leaders also fall in line since that is what is expected of them by their American mentors and financiers.

It stands to reason that Washington also counts on Pakistani army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani not to raise dust. Interestingly, the SOFA is being rushed through before a new elected government government takes shape in Islamabad. The US apprehends the high probability of a government led by Nawaz Sharif.

Which means that the establishment of the US military bases in Afghanistan is now a foregone conclusion. To be sure, the geopolitics of Central Asia (and South Asia) will never be the same again.

Therefore, the special meeting of Russia’s National Security Council that President Vladimir Putin took in the Kremlin on Wednesday to discuss the situation in Central Asia and Afghanistan needs to be seen in perspective. Russia’s core interests will be affected by the long-term US and NATO military presence in the region.

Putin described the Afghan situation as “a matter of direct concern” to Russia’s national security and predicted that 2014 “will not be easy” for Afghanistan. He doubted the capability of the Afghan armed forces.

Putin came down hard on the US and NATO. There been no real turnaround in the war on terror, but the terrorist and radical groups have become “increasingly more active of late.” Putin warned that “upcoming period will bring further complications” in the Afghan situation.

He said: “International terrorist and radical groups make no secret of their plans to export instability and will probably attempt to shift their subversive activities to neighboring states’ soil. This kind of turn of events has serious dangers for Russia too.”

Russia proposes to devise “a clear action strategy” to meet the exigencies of the situation. Significantly, Putin also signed on Wednesday the law on ratification of the October 2012 agreement with Dushanbe regarding the extension of the military base in Tajikistan for a term of 49 years.

The overall Russian thrust is two-fold: to be the provider of security for the Central Asian states and to accelerate the Eurasian Union project.

On the other hand, deep-rooted suspicions exist in Moscow regarding the US intentions in establishing the military bases in Afghanistan. The meeting in the Kremlin followed closely on the heels of the “working visit” by US secretary of state John Kerry to Moscow.

Nine military bases mean a substantial military presence and Moscow is questioning the need of such a profound engagement when the US is also maintaining that it does not anymore want to participate in military operations against the Taliban. The Kremlin readout is here.