The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ShauryaT wrote:Shiv ji: I am really not sure, where you are trying to go. A leaders words need to be credible and carry the weight to have the desired effect. Mao's words of 100 years were in context, please do not take that as a literal commitment of 100 years, it was not meant that way and no one takes it that way.
<snip>
But, this is all OT.
Shaurya it is OT
But If Mao did not mean 100 literally, why did Jiang make it literal by telling Kissinger "77 years left"? Do you see what I mean? There is a degree of political rhetoric here. If Mao was being figurative, Jiang spolied it. The significance of Mao's warning was diminished in my view.
OT. Let us move on. I have not voted on the poll yet. I am looking for an option called "US decision of the decade". 1981, or earlier, they would have said TSP, 1991, do not care, maintain status quo, 2001, maintain status quo, we are coming in. 2011, Wish TSP can simply disappear and India take over but wait till we finish. 2021?
I think my point is does it really matter, what the US wants. They want access. By this logic, the answer is always in favor of status quo or TSP. But, access now has a counter weight by their experience in the region and it is called security. So, they do not know. Either ways, it is not their problem to solve and as a result, whoever can muster the courage to control this region, they shall accept - provided security can be guaranteed. This is their real interest - security.
Between the opportunity called geo-political access and the fear of the security threat, if I were to bet, fear will win. Can we capitalize on their fears?
Someone put the Ralph Peters plan for the region on Ombaba's and MMS desk as a starting point - I will just pray that MMS does not say, but it violates the UN charter!
The consultations of Marc Grossman, US special representative on Afghanistan, in the Pakistani capital on Thursday would set the stage for a crucial phase of the Afghan endgame. He is arriving in Islamabad after touring the Central Asian capitals, Kabul and Delhi. He is slated to meet the civilian and military leadership.
As ‘curtain-raiser’ to the consultations in Islamabad, secretary of state Hillary Clinton publicly signalled in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday that the US is open to bringing the Haqqani group on board a settlement in Afghanistan and accommodate them in a future power set-up. In a second statement on Wednesday at the Centre for American Progress (a think tank reputed to be close to Barack Obama), she sought Pakistan’s cooperation.
Meanwhile, there has been another drone attack on North Waziristan hardly hours before Grossman’s arrival in Islamabad. Indeed, Clinton had said that fighting and talks would go together. Conceivably, back channel contacts are under way between the US and the Haqqanis, and it could be a 3-way engagement with Pakistan’s involvement.
Defence Secretary Leon Panetta who has been highly critical of Pakistan’s links with the Haqqanis, has also fallen in line, as it were. During his Q&A at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington on Tuesday, Panetta made some soothing remarks. He didn’t mention ‘Haqqani’-word even once.
In reply to a pointed question on the linkage between the Afghan and Kashmir problems, he mentioned: a) Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are “all part of a very vital area, a very vital region”; b) an “awful lot of history created incredible complexities and difficulties” for US efforts to bring India, Pakistan and Afghanistan together.
Panetta then went on to state: ” we [US] have urged them [Pakistan] to work with India to try to resolve the issues along the border area, because ultimately, until that is done, we are going to continue to have a great deal of instability. In many ways, Pakistan focuses on India as the primary concern, and so in many ways it’s been difficult to get them to focus on terrorism and militancy within their own country because they have faced that threat [from India] that they consider to be more prominent. If we’re [US] going to resolve the issues of that region, yes, we have to find a solution to Afghanistan. Yes, we have to try to continue to work with Pakistan. But more importantly, we have to bring all of these countries together to resolve the larger issues that had divided them for so long.” [Emphasis added.]
Just as well that the government chose the very same day that Grossman was in town to formally receive the final report of the J&K interlocutors, following which Home Minister P. Chidambaram reportedly assured them that he would “carry forward the process” they had initiated.
He should know better after planning the Abortabad raid. To me it looks like he wants to appease the Pakis that he is sipping the Cashmere koolaid. Looks like that is ritual requirement for any US official who deals with TSP like throwing stones at the devil in kaaba.
ShauryaT wrote: Always count on someone to give the democracy excuse, when it comes to China. Was America democratic enough to resolve and fight the cold war? Does being democratic mean that we cannot be committed? India has resolved, IMO to defend our current borders that we control, no matter who is against us. I am not sure, why are you saying this. Every time, there is China is mentioned in ANY context, someone will come and say but.....they are not democratic, do not have freedom....
Acharya ji: You of all people, should know very well, that democracy is a huge canard, when it comes to international relations. Are you teasing me
I am not talking about western style democracy and revolutions,
I am talking about religious freedom the Indian way and Tibet Buddism. This freedom and community sense is being wiped out by the western media and their controlled media inside India.
MKB as usual is playing to his particular gallery... He says Panetta did not mention the Haqqani word. Did Panetta mention the Kashmir word? If so, where is it?
Read what Panetta said exactly. It is the same old standard pap. Troubled region, they should talk, better for all, etc. But lookahere, Panetta says: "In many ways, Pakistan focuses on India as the primary concern, and so in many ways it’s been difficult to get them to focus on terrorism and militancy within their own country because they have faced that threat [from India] that they consider to be more prominent. If we’re [US] going to resolve the issues of that region, yes, we have to find a solution to Afghanistan. Yes, we have to try to continue to work with Pakistan."
JE Menon wrote:
Read what Panetta said exactly. It is the same old standard pap. Troubled region, they should talk, better for all, etc. But lookahere, Panetta says: "In many ways, Pakistan focuses on India as the primary concern, and so in many ways it’s been difficult to get them to focus on terrorism and militancy within their own country because they have faced that threat [from India] that they consider to be more prominent. If we’re [US] going to resolve the issues of that region, yes, we have to find a solution to Afghanistan. Yes, we have to try to continue to work with Pakistan."
That is really no better (if slightly more politic) than if Panetta mentioned Kashmir directly.
He is completely validating the Paki line that Pakistan hasn't "focused on terrorism in its own country", not because the terrorists are part and parcel of the Pakistani governing establishment and a prized asset of the strategic culture it fosters... but because Pakistan "has faced a threat" from India. What "threat"? In even asserting that a "threat" exists from India, Panetta is going along with Paki BS on Cashmere.
>>That is really no better (if slightly more politic) than if Panetta mentioned Kashmir directly.
Maybe so, but the point is that Panetta didn't mention the Kashmir word. I'm not sure where he is actually validating the Paki line. He's simply stating a fact, which even we have to accept, i.e. that Pakistan has been saying that it's whole lunatic behaviour is because of India. It is a fact. Pakistan is saying this. What is new is that the Americans, at least on an official level and repeatedly nowadays, are saying that this is lunacy of a sort - using words like paranoia, "threat that they consider to be prominent" (i.e. the Americans don't) and so on... This quite new, and quite interesting - although they deserve no credit and no payback for acknowledging that the earth is, indeed, spherical and that the planets orbit around the sun.
But it is reversible. They may go right back to their old posture, if the Pakistanis convince them that the Islamic terrorists whom they use as instruments will no longer kill Americans, but only Indians and Afghans. The Americans will be quite happy in those circumstances, i.e. if they are convinced and Pakistan sticks to their promise on that front, to call it victorious quits and go home. They really are prepared to wait, like we are, until they are nuked to actually deal with the monster that the Pakisatan is.
Fun times ahead.
Digressed a bit, but my grouse is with MKB's nonsensical extrapolations more than anything else.