The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Mar 2011 12:37

KLNMurthy ji,

somnath ji is a lone ranger here. There is NOBODY on his side! He is the third radical, and can't be really considered the second side!

The second side just wants/wanted to ensure that Pakistan is made useless for China, BEFORE the Americans are pushed out of Pakistan.

But due to "forceful" arguments by the first side, that made the second side brown their pants, shiver in their dhotis and moan all over the place, the argument was won by the first side! It was a Knock-Out!

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 04 Mar 2011 13:14

RajeshA sir, very well said.

If the US leaves and cedes TSP to China, the chances of TSP meeting its 72 go down to almost zero. Further the strategic encirclement of India would be complete.

If the US stays and keeps China out, there is a chance that the fissures shiv talks about continue to grow and reach boiling point. The US aid to TSPA etc. will become a non-issue then; since then the question which will be asked is not how to keep the snake alive, but whether to keep the snake alive, and more importantly how to dispose it.

In some ways that Levin (or whatever his name was) article on how every American Citizens should try to keep TSPA in control was also said somethings: it meant that perhaps there is a serious discussion going on that TSPA can no longer deliver the goods. That brings the TSP being too hard to maintain, and too dangerous to leave issue as on the fore-front.

shiv's scenario of a TSPA (without a rich Uncle) unable to control the Islamists and hence forcing the hands of the rest of the world, does a good job when it comes to defining the trigger. It however does not answer the question on how the different stake-holders will come to the table, and agree to the dismantling of the TSP. And this includes not only China but also KSA. What would it take to convince the other stake-holders to agree and what compromises would be needed?

The way I see it the Chinese would not agree to it, unless there is some iron-clad guarantee that their economic goals of access to the resources are met. One way of achieving those goals involves getting Iran on the table and making it a partner and a stake-holder in the settlement . However that would be an anathema to the KSA. I do not see a very high probability of all the stake-holders agreeing to something.

This Raymond David drama indicates that the TSPA is sensing greater activism on behalf of Uncle on the ground which raised some alarm bells. Their forums were full of Blackwater and the US is after our nukes stories for many years; so it is not surprising that TSPA is upping the ante.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Mar 2011 14:07

VikramS ji,

If the USA leaves Pakistan, all the various groups - the Pakistani Army, ISI, "rogue" ISI, Sarkari Jihadis, Punjabi Taliban, TTP, all would close ranks, because their point of contention and conflict would be removed. All the Jihadis who are arraigned against USA at the moment, would again be available to Pakistan to increase their attacks against India. This closing of ranks would also entail, that the Pakistani Army would not need to entertain the mask of "moderation", and it would go full Islamist very quickly.

So we now have a full Islamist Pakistan, armed with nukes, and having an openly anti-American stance. So fine, this should be the point when America decides that Pakistan is a terrorist country and Pakistani nukes are a danger to them. What then? Would Americans and the Brits, and the French and the Germans be able to denuke Pakistan? If yes, how? Any half-hearted attacks on Pakistan would only increase the threat level to everybody! So the only response America can think of is, to fully irradiate Pakistan using their own nukes! That is the ONLY solution! Americans would be forced to attack a country using nukes for the second time in history! Americans would be forced to attack a MUSLIM country using nukes! That would be some justification the Americans would be giving to the 1.57 billion Muslims the world over to nuke America as well!

Perhaps at this point we too should appreciate how close Amritsar is to Lahore!

If the Americans do not nuke Pakistan, then Pakistan would get a consolidated Islamist Elite! And China would get a much more stable partner to terrorize India using a nuclear shield against any retaliation!

Everybody is paying Jizya to Pakistan!

I think we are all well past the point where we could tell the Americans - You broke it, You fix it!. They too know it, that they can't fix it, so they continue paying jizya! Every American President would before getting elected tell the Americans how he is going to come into office, touch the ground running and then fix Pakistan, but once in office, he will start his own program of jizya!

As far as the notion of all stake holders sitting down and finding a solution to Pakistan is concerned, possibly by partitioning it, I just don't think that is going to fly. First the Chinese will not cooperate, and secondly the Pakistani Army itself would be laughing its head off, at the thought that others would be so presumptuous.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Mar 2011 14:31

From time to time I have expressed my personal disapproval of expressions like Pakistan's "collapse" and "implosion", and other similar imprecise summaries of what even I fervently desire to see. Of course there is a problem of language here. What do you call a rapid release of gas and energy resulting in mechanical and thermal effects on the immediate physical environment rendering all or many objects in those surroundings incapable of performing optimally or even being recognizable after the event. Easier to say "explosion" or "bomb".

But Pakistan the geographical area cannot be a bomb and cannot explode, implode or whatever.

Several other expressions come to mind but I have been piqued by the call to render Pakistan irrelevant. I agree with the idea. It is better to render Pakistan irrelevant than speak of state collapse, implosion or even failure sans definition.

Pakistan cannot be rendered irrelevant if we are unable to see what Pakistan's relevance is. In what way is Pakistan relevant? Is Pakistan relevant to India because they want Kashmir. Would Pakistan become irrelevant if they stopped wanting Kashmir? Would cessation of terrorism from Pakistan make it irrelevant? Sri Lanka neither wants Kashmir nor continues to be a source of terrorism. But Sri Lanka is not irrelevant in a way that I can understand.

What is Pakistan's relevance to India?

As a garbage dump of Muslims who wanted out?
As a source of war and terrorism?
As a piece of land contiguous with the Indian landmass that has historic connections with mainland India?
As a threat to India's existence?

I would be happy to see answers to this question. I have a view on this.

In my personal view, Pakistan's relevance to India is as an artificial entity created to oppose India, deny its history, culture and religions in favor of a claim that India is irrelevant and passe without domination by a Muslim ruling class represented by the leadership (and Muslim faithful) of Pakistan in a mythical construct of a "Mughal empire" that never was as big or long lived as imagined in Pakistani narratives. What this boils down to is a simple requirement that India must be hated and opposed by all Pakistanis as an expression of Pakistani nationalism. I believe this was the original definition of Pakistan - but over decades the requirement to be a Pakistani nationalist has become more stringent. One not only has to hate India but having an increasingly pure Muslim identity (whose definition nobody knows yet

) has become increasingly important to Pakistanis.

Unfortunately my understanding of Pakistan's relevance requires a solution that negates all of Pakistan's founding premises. From a Pakistani viewpoint, the more India becomes visible and relevant in the world, the less relevant Pakistan becomes. One would be tempted to see this as a great solution. It looks so simple. Pakistan feels India is irrelevant and needs to be deconstructed. Every display of Indian strength weakens Pakistan and makes it less relevant. As I see it - the end point of my logic is an eventual dissolution of Pakistan.

I think Pakistanis who consider themselves patriots (Madam Jalebi, Musharraf, Kiyani, Hamid Gul and all 20,000 odd movers and shakers of the Pakistani establishment) can see this very clearly. Pakistan's relevance has been going down for a while. Not just post 9-11. Bhutto senior and Zia ul Haq were early seers who understood this. The only hope for retaining Pakistan would be to bandwagon Pakistan's existence with that of Islam. If Pakistan was opposed, Islam would be opposed was the mantra. If Pakistan fell - it would be the defeat of Islam. In 2005 I wrote an article on BR about this. The article is still relevant and true although a lot more people understand Pakistan's relationship with Islam better in 2011 than was the case in late 2004 when I started writing the article - linked below:

An Attack on Pakistan is an Attack on Islam

From the Pakistani viewpoint they have now converted the idea of "making Pakistan irrelevant" into a trick in which Pakistanis say "To make Pakistan irrelevant, you have to make Islam irrelevant". Actually they have not done it quite that way - but what they have done is to equate Pakistan with Islam so that the geography matters less than religion. India has achieved some success in spite of this. India has managed to produce a bunch of productive and peaceful Muslims in India to put paid to the idea that the Pakistan idea is necessary for Islam. In a sense the Pakistan idea has been rendered one notch less relevant. Again by India.

So what remains of Pakistan?

I see Pakistan as a shell. A shell containing a lot of former Indians, with similar language and customs - but largely brainwashed into thinking that they are unique and Islamic and therefore different from India. For years these people have feared India and have been made to fear India as the end of their existence and the beginning of hell. For that reason their leaders have sold themselves out to any bidder who offers help. Any passerby who promises to help them keep India at bay. And those helpers have been extracting their pound of flesh from Pakistan. Those foreign agents who have helped Pakistan against India have helped Pakistanis to feel more relevant. The aid that those agents give to help Pakistanis feel relevant and stand up to India must go.

I repeat my earlier statement that it is wrong to say that removal of one aid giving agent is useless because the other will take over. That is an excuse for inaction. We must remove all, one by one if necessary. If we can exert pressure on the US today, we need to start today.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 04 Mar 2011 15:40

The PA's future is Pakjab's future. That is the centre of gravity.

Clearly the biggest problem its likely to face is pressures on land and water as the population explodes.

It is important that it is rarely ever the desperately poor who revolt - they don't have the time or the energy or the resources to take such risks. Rather its the middle classes with their frustrations and their capacity for ideology.

Pakistan does not have to keep its wretched peasants happy, but rather its shopkeepers and school teachers, the maulvis and faujis, its clerks and bus drivers.

Jihadi revolutions that turn on such classes, such as the Pakiban in Swat will lose support and fail.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Mar 2011 16:29

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110228 ... d-war-asia
Never fight a land war in Asia

When the United States fights in the Eastern Hemisphere, it fights at great distances, and the greater the distance, the greater the logistical cost. More ships are needed to deliver the same amount of material, for example. That absorbs many troops. The logistical cost of fighting at a distance is that it diverts numbers of troops (or requires numbers of civilian personnel) disproportionate to the size of the combat force.

Regardless of the number of troops deployed, the U.S. military is always vastly outnumbered by the populations of the countries to which it is deployed. If parts of these populations resist as light-infantry guerrilla forces or employ terrorist tactics, the enemy rapidly swells to a size that can outnumber U.S. forces, as in Vietnam and Korea. At the same time, the enemy adopts strategies to take advantage of the core weakness of the United States — tactical intelligence. The resistance is fighting at home. It understands the terrain and the culture. The United States is fighting in an alien environment. It is constantly at an intelligence disadvantage. That means that the effectiveness of the native forces is multiplied by excellent intelligence, while the effectiveness of U.S. forces is divided by lack of intelligence.

The United States compensates with technology, from space-based reconnaissance and air power to counter-battery systems and advanced communications. This can make up the deficit but only by massive diversions of manpower from ground-combat operations. Maintaining a helicopter requires dozens of ground-crew personnel. Where the enemy operates with minimal technology multiplied by intelligence, the United States compensates for lack of intelligence with massive technology that further reduces available combat personnel. Between logistics and technological force multipliers, the U.S. “point of the spear” shrinks. If you add the need to train, relieve, rest and recuperate the ground-combat forces, you are left with a small percentage available to fight.

The paradox of this is that American forces will win the engagements but may still lose the war. Having identified the enemy, the United States can overwhelm it with firepower. The problem the United States has is finding the enemy and distinguishing it from the general population. As a result, the United States is well-suited for the initial phases of combat, when the task is to defeat a conventional force. But after the conventional force has been defeated, the resistance can switch to methods difficult for American intelligence to deal with. The enemy can then control the tempo of operations by declining combat where it is at a disadvantage and initiating combat when it chooses.

Read more: Never Fight a Land War in Asia | STRATFOR

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Mar 2011 20:32

Johann wrote: It is important that it is rarely ever the desperately poor who revolt - they don't have the time or the energy or the resources to take such risks. Rather its the middle classes with their frustrations and their capacity for ideology.

Pakistan does not have to keep its wretched peasants happy, but rather its shopkeepers and school teachers, the maulvis and faujis, its clerks and bus drivers.

This is exactly correct, and Pakistan has avoided revolution so far precisely for that reason, but a little qualification is required. A population of 100 million can possibly be kept stable by a middle class of "shopkeepers and school teachers, the maulvis and faujis" and their families numbering, say, 10 million (10%)

A population of 180 million will require 18 million "shopkeepers and school teachers, the maulvis and faujis" and their families to be kept happy. Similarly a population of 250 million will need 25 million of that genre to be kept happy. That means the economy must keep on expanding. Or the poor get poorer

Now imagine that the economy does not expand enough and the percentage of "shopkeepers and school teachers, the maulvis and faujis" falls from the figure of 10% to 8%. That should in fact reduce the chance of revolution. This too is suitable for the Pakistan model

The only question to me is how far this can go before local imbalances and discrepancies in percentages of unhappy middle class in different areas of a huge country with a 200 million plus population cause an exacerbation of inter-regional difference and lead to a civil war like state. Such a situation is more likely in a country with a weak center or a center that is getting weaker and unable to impose equity or law and order or improve the economy. Making the "center" weaker - such as making the Pak army weaker would exacerbate the process. making it stronger would only delay it. Not prevent it.

After all "analysts" are too happy to predict war between nations like India and Pakistan over water. the same problems hold at a local level in huge nations with large populations where provincial discrepancies can lead to the very revolution that the theory says is unlikely.

This in fact is what is happening in Pakistan.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 04 Mar 2011 21:37

Shiv,

Its reasonable to expect resource conflicts to exacerbate internal tensions, but the PA has a history of successfully externalising issues.

While Sindh can complain about Pakjab's use of water, Pakjabis and the Pakistani establishment can, do and will complain about India and the need to liberate Kashmir.

Baluchistan is different in the degree to which its alienated from Pakistan, but it has some real disadvantages compared to Bangladesh. It is much too physically close to the core, and at a huge demographic disadvantage.

Pakistan's long term strategy seems to be to apply the Chinese solution in Tibet - encourage Pakjabi mass migration in to Baluchistan and drown out the Baluchis, killing two birds with one stone. That is why the Baluchi groups are so opposed to Gwadar and all of its related projects. They know what Karachi did to Sindhi political and demographic clout.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Mar 2011 18:36

RajeshA wrote: If the USA leaves Pakistan, all the various groups - the Pakistani Army, ISI, "rogue" ISI, Sarkari Jihadis, Punjabi Taliban, TTP, all would close ranks, because their point of contention and conflict would be removed.

So it was under American pressure that Musharraf in July 2007 had the Lal Masjid assaulted?

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 05 Mar 2011 19:01

A_Gupta wrote:
RajeshA wrote: If the USA leaves Pakistan, all the various groups - the Pakistani Army, ISI, "rogue" ISI, Sarkari Jihadis, Punjabi Taliban, TTP, all would close ranks, because their point of contention and conflict would be removed.
So it was under American pressure that Musharraf in July 2007 had the Lal Masjid assaulted?

Absolutely yes. The understanding with Amritraj is to shift the India specific terrror to interior Pak and to the west of Pak and in return India will talk to Pak and not attack it post operation parakram.

I understand that there will be folks who would not like to beleive this as they think it is impossible for India to negotiate with US.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2011 19:08

Muppalla wrote: The understanding with Amritraj is to shift the India specific terrror to interior Pak and to the west of Pak and in return India will talk to Pak and not attack it post operation parakram.

Assuming this to be correct, what would be the difference between this scenario and the immediate pre-9-11 days?

India specific terror camps were very much in PoK and Punjab. Very little India specific terror evidence was found in Afghanistan when the US moved in. There was some but we on BRF were desperate to find news of that and cheered when a little was found. Afghanistan had "Global jihad" not India specific terror. I would be grateful if you could dig up and post news links for all the India specific terror in Afghanistan that the US shut down. If there was any - all came to Pakistan and continued from there after 9-11

What is different now? Is Amirkhan saying "Shut down global jihad but continue to keep India specific jihad in Pakistan"?

But that is exactly what AmirKhan has done since 9-11. So what else is new? The same ol'
is being presented as new, as far as I can tell. And America is failing to make Pakistan do what it wants.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Mar 2011 19:24

AFAIK, it is under Chinese pressure - after Chinese nationals were kidnapped - that Musharraf moved against the Lal Masjid crowd.

B. Raman definitely thought so:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... r2833.html

Before the commando action, there was an incident in Islamabad in which students studying in the girls' madrasa attached to the Lal Masjid---some of them Uighurs--- kidnapped six Chinese women working in a massage parlour of Islamabad and accused them of working as prostitutes. They were subsequently released. It was after this incident that the Chinese authorities strongly took up with Musharraf the question of taking action against the madrasa students who were responsible for the kidnapping. Unnerved by the strong Chinese reaction, Musharraf ordered the commando action, which resulted in a huge tragedy.

http://www.saag.org/common/uploaded_fil ... r2287.html

June 23, 2007: Jamia Faridia and Jamia Hafsa students raided a massage parlour in the capital, which they alleged was a brothel and kidnapped nine people working there, including seven Chinese nationals. They were all released the next day. The clerics in the mosque said that while they valued Pakistan's friendship with China, they would not allow even Chinese women to work as prostitutes and damage the morals of Muslims.

June 25 to 28, 2007: The Federal Interior Minister, Mr.Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao, visited Beijing for talks on bilateral co-operation against terrorism. Before the Minister's departure for Beijing, media reports quoted a Pakistani official as stating as follows: "The security bosses of the two countries will discuss a list of 22 militants wanted by Beijing. These alleged militants belong to the Islamic Movement of East Turkestan, which is fighting for the separation of Sinkiang province. China has given Pakistan a list of militants who might be hiding in the volatile tribal region and conveyed its reservations to Islamabad over the involvement of some 'hidden hands' in the rebel movement's affairs. China had earlier asked Pakistan to bilaterally explore (enquire about) these 'hidden hands' as the movement was a major source behind the unrest in Sinkiang."

June 27, 2007: The Chinese Xinhua news agency reported as follows: "China on Tuesday (June 26, 2007) asked Pakistan to take further measures for the security of the Chinese people and businesses in the South Asian country. "We hope Pakistan will look into the terrorist attacks aiming at Chinese people and organizations as soon as possible and severely punish the criminals," the Chinese Minister of Public Security Zhou Yongkang told visiting Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao. Sherpao's visit came days after seven abducted Chinese --a couple and five of their women employees-- were got released in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad Saturday (June 23, 2007) night. They had been taken away from their residence in Islamabad early Saturday morning by Lal Masjid students. While appreciating the support of the Pakistani Government on helping get the kidnapped Chinese released, Zhou said China expected Pakistan to take active measures to ensure the personal and property security of Chinese working in the country. In response, Sherpao said Pakistan will take more rigorous actions to safeguard the security of Chinese people and organizations in Pakistan."

June 29, 2007: The "Daily Times" of Lahore wrote in an editorial as follows: "During his visit to Beijing, Sherpao got an earful from the Chinese Minister of Public Security, Zhou Yongkang, who asked Pakistan for the umpteenth time to protect Chinese nationals working in Pakistan. The reference was to the assault and kidnapping of Chinese citizens in Islamabad by the Lal Masjid vigilantes. The Chinese Minister called the Lal Masjid mob terrorists who targeted the Chinese, and asked Pakistan to punish the criminals. ......

June 30, 2007: On his return to Islamabad, Mr.Sherpao reported to Gen.Musharraf that the Chinese were extremely unhappy over the failure of the Pakistani authorities to protect Chinese women working legally in Pakistan from attacks and a slanderous campaign by the "terrorists" of the Lal Masjid and over the failure of the Police to make headway in the investigation of the murders of Chinese engineers in Gwadar and the FATA by the Uighur "terrorists".

...

July 2, 2007: The Rangers took up position in the vicinity of the Masjid and in the premises of the Ministry of Environment located nearby.

etc.

Given that the Lal Masjid crowd was active for many months before the July clashes and given the timeline as above, it is highly credible that it was Chinese and not American pressure that caused Musharraf to act against it.

(On July 4, B. Raman wrote:

Musharraf is hesitant to act against the pro-Taliban and pro-bin Laden agitators in the capital, who have been flouting his authority for nearly three months. There is estimated to be a total of 6000 agitators inside the mosque and its madrasas. Many of the students of these madrasas are the children of the non-commissioned officers of the Armed Forces. Many of the NCOs frequent the Lal Masjid for prayers and are devoted to Maulana Aziz and his brother. Musharraf is, therefore, not certain whether the lower and middle level members of his security forces would carry out his orders if he asked them to raid the moque and the madrasas, put an end to the agitation and arrest the two clerics. More worrying is what would be the impact on the armed forces personnel if some of these children get killed in any military raid.

)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Mar 2011 19:27

A_Gupta wrote:
RajeshA wrote: If the USA leaves Pakistan, all the various groups - the Pakistani Army, ISI, "rogue" ISI, Sarkari Jihadis, Punjabi Taliban, TTP, all would close ranks, because their point of contention and conflict would be removed.
So it was under American pressure that Musharraf in July 2007 had the Lal Masjid assaulted?

Let's say, it was Musharraf's Alliance with USA post 9/11 and the accompanied "liberalism" under him, that prevented the TSPA and Islamists to reconcile. Due to that rift, the Islamists of Lal Masjid continued to challenge the writ of the Pakistani Govt. of the day, till they "forced" his hand.

Perhaps your implication is that the Chinese too can be a cause for a wide gulf between the Pakistani Establishment and the Islamists. Chinese "massage parlors" are only there to cater to Pakistani Elite, and as intelligence outposts. It is the non-Islamic nature of the Musharraf Govt. which created an environment conducive to such services.

After the Lal Masjid affair, China did try to assuage the feelings of the Pushtun, by pleading their non-involvement in the action! I don't think, the Chinese would be keen to expand their footprint too wide in Pakistan, as far as "immorality" is concerned, so that there is as little chance of conflict between China and the Islamists of Pakistan.

On the contrary the Chinese have only been supportive of the Islamists in Pakistan lately, w.r.t. UN Resolutions declaring JuD a terrorist organization, as well as providing the Taliban fighting against America in Afghanistan with advanced weaponry, and according to some reports, going as far as to providing SAMs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2011 19:29

A_Gupta wrote:AFAIK, it is under Chinese pressure - after Chinese nationals were kidnapped - that Musharraf moved against the Lal Masjid crowd.

Indeed. It was Chinese pressure. There are Pakistani admissions to that effect - including AFAICT a statement from Musharraf.

I should rightly be read as the effectiveness of Chinese pressure on the Pakistan army. But Pakistan is still reeling from the after-effects of Lal Masjid. Does that mean that not all Islamist groups respect Chinese writ in the way the Pakistani army does? There is a theory that the Pakistani army can control anyone and everyone - but they seem unwilling or unable to control the attacks on them post-Lal Masjid.

Clearly some people were pissed off by the Lal Masjid attack. I made the following video in jest - but the video scenes are from contemporary news reports

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWiwy_iRTwA

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2011 19:37

RajeshA wrote: providing the Taliban fighting against America in Afghanistan with advanced weaponry, and according to some reports, going as far as to providing SAMs.

Surely America can't be bothered about a few SAMs supplied by China to the Taliban. They hardly matter, just like the F-16s to Pakistan hardly matter. In fact those SAMs would shoot down the F-16s that Pakistan, according to some, will park alongside Afghanistan so China is helping us if we think deeply Chankyan.

I would love to see news reports about this. It would give me no end of cheer.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Mar 2011 19:42

A_Gupta wrote:AFAIK, it is under Chinese pressure - after Chinese nationals were kidnapped - that Musharraf moved against the Lal Masjid crowd.

B. Raman definitely thought so:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... r2833.html

Before the commando action, there was an incident in Islamabad in which students studying in the girls' madrasa attached to the Lal Masjid---some of them Uighurs--- kidnapped six Chinese women working in a massage parlour of Islamabad and accused them of working as prostitutes. They were subsequently released. It was after this incident that the Chinese authorities strongly took up with Musharraf the question of taking action against the madrasa students who were responsible for the kidnapping. Unnerved by the strong Chinese reaction, Musharraf ordered the commando action, which resulted in a huge tragedy.

The action against Lal Masjid was not to free the Chinese nationals there, for they were released long before the siege. Now consider this: the Uighur girl students kidnapped Chinese prostitutes in Islamabad. Normally the Masjid would have kept them prisoner, but either due to the influence of the government or because the leadership of the Lal Masjid themselves felt overplaying their hand, that they released the prostitutes this quickly.

Here an article on the case:

ISLAMABAD: The Lal Masjid administration released seven Chinese nationals - six women and one man - and two Pakistani "customers", after 17-hour detention, following talks with senior police and administration officials, on Saturday.
Male and female students of Jamia Faridia, Jamia Hafsa and Beaconhouse School System, in a joint operation, kidnapped the Chinese women and Pakistani men shortly after midnight Friday from a Chinese massage centre, working at House No 17, Street 4, F-8/3, alleging that they were running a brothel. However, the hostages said they were running a massage centre and beauty parlour.

The release came only after Deputy Commissioner Chaudhry Muhammad Ali and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Zafar Iqbal, who held talks with the Lal Masjid administration, beseeched it for five hours and even touched the knees of some leading clerics while begging for the freedom of the abductees.

At a news conference at Jamia Faridia, Abdur Rashid Ghazi, Naib Khateeb of Lal Masjid, announced the release of the abductees and threatened that similar action would be taken if any American was found involved in such activities in Pakistan. The Capital Police, however, registered a case against Maulana Abdul Aziz (Khateeb), Ghazi and others under Sections 365, 354, 452, 148, 149 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code and 7 Anti-Terrorism Act.

Muhammad Ali and Zafar Iqbal were sent to soften the administrators of Lal Masjid at 12.15 p.m. after a meeting with the interior secretary, the chief commissioner and the inspector general of the police. They left Lal Masjid at 5.25 p.m.
Riding in three vehicles, the students of Jamia Faridia and Jamia Hafsa as well as the students of Beaconhouse System of Schools raided the massage centre located in the posh Islamabad sector. They overpowered three Pakistani males and guards posted there after thrashing them.

They, later, entered the building and ordered those present there to accompany them. On refusal, the students thrashed them and forcibly took them to the Jamia Hafsa compound. They accused the abducted people of rendering un-Islamic and unlawful services.

The administration quietly let two "big shots", Pakistani customers, go and released their vehicles, seized from outside the massage centre, to avoid any legal action against the place as they had promised with the Lal Masjid administration in exchange for securing release of the hostages. The identity of these clients is not being disclosed.

Six females - Jaiang Ying, Wang Li, Wang Xin, Jiao Ling, Li Bo and Li Hong - and a male, Geg Min, were handed over to the district administration following a deal with them.

Ghazi said that the abductees had been set free in view of Sino-Pak friendship and the assurance that the massage centre would be shut down. He invited the Chinese ambassador to Islamabad to visit the Lal Masjid.

He said it was the responsibility of the government under the Constitution to provide an opportunity to Muslims to live their lives in accordance with Islam. He said foreigners living in Pakistan were also required to follow the Constitution.

Ghazi said the China massage centre was involved in sex trade and complaints were being received about it since long. "Even housewives used to tell us by phone that the centre charges Rs 1,000 for massage while by paying Rs 500, something else was also available," he said.

He said China as a country was not involved in this business but some individuals. These people should have been deported, he said, adding that the administration officials admitted that sex trade was going on at the centre. However, officials of the law-enforcement agencies were tackling the situation only on papers, he added.

Agencies add: Deputy Commissioner Chaudhry Muhammad Ali said the Lal Masjid management was told that they should inform the Islamabad administration about any alleged immoral activities instead of taking the law into their own hands.
"We have assured them that the administration will itself take action on such complaints and no one found to be involved in any immoral practice would be spared," he said. The deputy commissioner said the Lal Masjid administration had apologised to the Chinese government over the incident.

President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz were earlier given minute-by-minute reports of the negotiations regarding the release of the hostages. The president had directed the prime minister on telephone from Lahore to make sure the release of the Chinese abductees and update him on all the developments in this regard. The prime minister was in contact with the Islamabad administration and the Interior Ministry and getting minute-by-minute reports from State Minister for Interior Zafar Warriach.

The prime minister was informed at 3.30 p.m. that the abducted Chinese men and women had been released from the Jamia Hafsa and the president was immediately communicated about it.

According to sources, the president has condemned the arrest of the Chinese citizens and expressed his anger over the incident and directed the authorities concerned to adopt a comprehensive strategy to control such incidents in the future. The Chinese ambassador contacted President Hu Jintao two times during the 15-hour hostage drama, sources said. The ambassador called his president while holding talks with Pakistan Muslim League chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain at his residence.

The Chinese president expressed confidence that the Pakistan government would find out a peaceful solution to the hostage crisis. Sources quoted President Hu Jintao, expressing shock over the kidnapping of the Chinese nationals, has called for security for them. The ambassador informed his president about his talks with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain. The PML leader also got telephonic contact established between the hostages and the ambassador.

China's Xinhua news agency said Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao had telephoned China's ambassador to apologise and assure him the hostages would be speedily released.

Students of Lal Masjid denied kidnappings and said they wanted to persuade the nine to give up their alleged vulgar ways.
President Musharraf has said he felt humiliated by his inability to oust the radical clerics from their city-centre mosque. They have about 5,000 followers at associated Madrassas.

Fears of a backlash, if any female student was hurt in an assault, has stayed the government's hand, he said. Instead, the government, which is struggling with a judicial crisis that is sapping its popularity, has tried to mollify the Islamists.

Worth noting is how much deference the leadership of Lal Masjid, that is the Islamists, showed to the Chinese during this whole drama. The Chinese seemed to have misread the situation a bit, and they forced Musharraf to siege the mosque even after their nationals were released, possibly because of the Uyghurs holed up inside. In the end, the Chinese ended up angering a lot of Pushtuns as well.

If it had been Americans, the Islamists would probably have shot all of them to prove their point.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2011 19:43

Arun - some more related news items

http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2007/0 ... -powerful/
Massages for the powerful
06.24.2007 · Posted in Foreign Affairs

The small, but important, Chinese establishment in Islamabad

By all accounts, the zealous promoters of virtue from Islamabad’s Lal Masjid went too far when they abducted nine Chinese nationals for running a brothel under the familiar guise of a massage parlour. For several reasons: China is an ‘all weather’ friend that Pakistan just cannot afford to annoy. But also because Islamabad’s powerful—including Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, leader of Pakistan’s ruling party—used to patronise that establishment to relax their weary muscles.

So it was that the hostages were released rather promptly. Why? Well, the situation escalated rather rapidly. In almost no time (on the diplomatic time-scale) ambassadors of each country were talking to the top leaders of the other. The leaders of Lal Masjid were told that they had gone too far this time. And coincidentally, Khalid Khawaja, a former ISI official and a key supporter of the Lal Masjid brigade, was released from official custody.

Ultimately, Abdul Rashid Ghazi, Lal Masjid’s leader, announced that he had released the hostages in the interests of Pakistan-China friendship, on the government’s word that Islamabad’s massage parlours would be closed down.

The targeting of massage parlours and brothels is actually a political masterstroke. Not only does it have a form of religious sanction and public sympathy, but it also makes the capital city’s powerful elite a little weak in the knees. Extracting concessions becomes easy, but just like in any game of blackmail, there is a tenuous balance. Upsetting that balance—though overreach or under-protection—can be very counterproductive.

--------------------
http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... asjid.html

In the speech announcing the state of emergency, Musharraf broke into English to tell us what he hoped we wanted to hear, evoking Lincoln as he tried to justify his move to the United States, the EU, and the Commonwealth as a response to judicial activism.

On the other hand, in his remarks in Urdu directed to the local audience as translated by Barnett Rubin , Musharraf cited the Lal Masjid mosque crisis--not the pursuit of al Qaeda and its allies in the border regions--as the primary instance of terrorism and extremism afflicting Pakistan.

And when he commiserated with the victims of terrorism, he took the opportunity to give a heartfelt shout-out to the Chinese, not to the United States:

Now. We saw the event of Lal Masjid in Islamabad where extremists took law into their own hands. In the heart of Pakistan - capital city - and to the great embarrassment of the nation around the world... These people - what didn't they do? - these extremists. They martyred police. They took police hostage. They burned shops. The Chinese, who are such great friends of ours - they took the Chinese hostage and tortured them. Because of this, I was personally embarrassed. I had to go apologize to the Chinese leaders, "I am ashamed that you are such great friends and this happened to you".
------------------

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Mar 2011 19:56

To the proposition that "It is only the US engagement with Pakistan that is keeping the anti-Indian forces from uniting", the counter-proposition is that "It is only India's having to deal with the US engagement with Pakistan that is keeping India from kicking Pakistan's butt."

If there was no US-Pakistan relationship because US was hostile to Pakistan, then the India-US relationship would not be at risk by Indian actions against Pakistan.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2011 20:01

A_Gupta wrote:To the proposition that "It is only the US engagement with Pakistan that is keeping the anti-Indian forces from uniting", the counter-proposition is that "It is only India's having to deal with the US engagement with Pakistan that is keeping India from kicking Pakistan's butt."

If there was no US-Pakistan relationship because US was hostile to Pakistan, then the India-US relationship would not be at risk by Indian actions against Pakistan.

Absolutely. Simple and elegant.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Mar 2011 20:03

China supports North Korea and Pakistan, likely both nucleared up with Chinese help, and both threats to their democratic, economically vibrant neighbors - South Korea and India.

However, the US is hostile to North Korea but friendly with Pakistan.

To summarize the discussion here: a huge section of BRF opinion thinks that the North-Koreanization of Pakistan would be bad for India.

RajeshA's comment on how close Amritsar is to Lahore (and hence susceptible to radioactive fallout) reminded me of the vulnerability of Seoul to North Korean bombardment and brought up this analogy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2011 20:12

I must say something that has occurred to me time and again.

As long as the US's actions in Pakistan, done in its own interest were hostile to India I have been told "Tough. The US is a superpower and does things in its own interest". India should work for its interests.

But now, when US interests are being blown away in a hostile Pakistan why the hell should India aid America in any way? America, the superpower that does things in its own interest will do just fine without Indian assistance. If they want India help they can ask for it but will have to work for Indian interests and not Pakistani interests. India should work for its own interests no? Not US interests. Unless the US plays the game we want. What is the US tangibly going to give us in return? Not arms - we will pay for them and ensure US jobs by buying arms.

The US did not protect us against Chinese action in 1965. The US actually encouraged Chinese action against India in 1971. Obama and Hu had a heart to heart about how they could cooperate for stability in the region. What's in it for India? Why should India be involved at all? If we must suck up, we should, in fact be sucking up to China rather than weeping for the US. China is right next door. the US will ski all the way downhill to to where they came from.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Mar 2011 20:13

A_Gupta wrote:To the proposition that "It is only the US engagement with Pakistan that is keeping the anti-Indian forces from uniting", the counter-proposition is that "It is only India's having to deal with the US engagement with Pakistan that is keeping India from kicking Pakistan's butt."

If there was no US-Pakistan relationship because US was hostile to Pakistan, then the India-US relationship would not be at risk by Indian actions against Pakistan.

As far as I know, Kargil happened before the Pak-US Alliance was resolidified, and at that time, we did not think of kicking Pakistan's butt hard enough! Can it be, that it was the China-supplied nukes that stayed our hand?! What was stopping us from smothering Pakistan then and there!

There were sanctions against both India AND Pakistan! There was a low in outside support for Pakistan at that moment! India had relied on outside support to a much lesser degree than Pakistan, and still we let the "opportunity" go!

It shames me to say, but GoI sees American presence in Pakistan as a convenient excuse to not have to kick Pakistan's butt. It loses some H&D, but saves a lot more echandee with the excuse. Just imagine, if America was not in Pakistan, and a Mumbai 26/11 had occurred. How would the GoI, the custodian of a super-power in the making, had saved its face then?!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2011 20:16

RajeshA wrote: It shames me to say, but GoI sees American presence in Pakistan as a convenient excuse to not have to kick Pakistan's butt. It loses some H&D, but saves a lot more echandee with the excuse. Just imagine, if America was not in Pakistan, and a Mumbai 26/11 had occurred. How would the GoI, the custodian of a super-power in the making, had saved its face then?!

None of this is any excuse for supporting the US instead of China. Or we could choose to support neither which would require more balls than supporting one or the other. "What would have been" can never be a way of handling what is.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Mar 2011 20:27

A_Gupta wrote:China supports North Korea and Pakistan, likely both nucleared up with Chinese help, and both threats to their democratic, economically vibrant neighbors - South Korea and India.

However, the US is hostile to North Korea but friendly with Pakistan.

To summarize the discussion here: a huge section of BRF opinion thinks that the North-Koreanization of Pakistan would be bad for India.

RajeshA's comment on how close Amritsar is to Lahore (and hence susceptible to radioactive fallout) reminded me of the vulnerability of Seoul to North Korean bombardment and brought up this analogy.

A_Gupta ji,
I have to thank you for bringing up this parallel.

USA has absolutely no use of North Korea. Okay I take back my statement. Perhaps USA does use North Korea to keep its alliance with South Korea healthy, and to justify the stationing of so many American soldiers in Japan and South Korea.

But if we put this chanakyan thinking aside, USA could just scoop into North Korea, shut down its reactors, sabotage its missiles, and confiscate the nukes. They are not that far ahead in their fissile material production, so may not have that many nukes. Area-wise North-Korea is much smaller place, much easier to attack! Still USA has not attacked! Perhaps it is because of the Chinese, but the Chinese would not really jeopardize their exports to the West and the Rest, because of North Korea!

So if USA cannot deal with a little North Korea and a little Iran, why should we expect that USA has the wherewithal to denuke Pakistan, after they break up! USA does not have the capacity to do it!

So in that way, true, a Pakistan that breaks up with Washington, would have its nuclear arsenal giving headaches to a lot more countries, and its arsenal would be distributed over many more targets (which I doubt, it functions this way), but the speed with which they are multiplying their fissile material, there will be pretty much left for India as well.

However alone from this, India cannot simply assume that Pakistan would be denuked if America dumps Pakistan, or vice versa.

The problem for India remains!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2011 20:50

What can America verifiably, irrevocably and reliably do for India, to get India to support America? Homilies that there are no permanent friends or enemies will be assumed by me to mean that "America can do nothing for India. America will do nothing for India. America needs to do nothing for India"

Is America doing anything for India? If so what?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Mar 2011 21:24

shiv wrote:What can America verifiably, irrevocably and reliably do for India, to get India to support America? Homilies that there are no permanent friends or enemies will be assumed by me to mean that "America can do nothing for India. America will do nothing for India. America needs to do nothing for India"

Is America doing anything for India? If so what?

What America is doing for India:

America is keeping Pakistan's main jihadi operations focussed on Afghanistan and against America, instead of against India. This Afghanistan focus is allowing India to keep a certain level of political and social stability in India and to grow economically and otherwise.
The inducement of aid and good relations with the West, has encouraged Pakistan to act a little more sensitive to world opinion and thus to keep its export of terrorism to India in check. And regardless of Mumbai 26/11 and all the other acts of terrorism, IMHO, the potential for terrorism in India is far larger. Many would disagree with this point, but IMHO, I think, Pakistan is being forced to keep up its mask, tying up one of its hands.
Through American involvement in the region, Pakistan is not being allowed to either depend on China fully, nor to take dictation from China completely, nor to make all its services available to China exclusively, as its resources are tied elsewhere for other purposes. This too facilitates a higher level of political security in India.
American actions in Afghanistan, is directly responsible for the Talibanization of Pakistan, TTP, Punjabi Taliban sprouted only after America entered Afghanistan. This means there is internal strife in Pakistan, thus keeping the anti-India establishment on tenter-hooks.
Anti-Americanism is slowly replacing anti-Indianism as the most potent hate in Pakistan.
Added Later: Could it be that America has been bribing India in its own way, not to spoil its party in Afghanistan. USA wanted to have Pakistani troops on its Western border, and wished that India does not increase the tensions on the Eastern border, on her own initiative or as reaction to some provocation! Could the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement be a child of such considerations?! I don't know! So could it be that the next Mumbai Terror Attack would get GoI an UNSC Permanent Seat for our restraint?! This is some food for thought for Pakistan!

I know, that by offering to play the devil's advocate, I am inviting a lot of missiles!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2011 21:30

RajeshA wrote: I know, that by offering to play the devil's advocate, I am inviting a lot of missiles!

I will help deflect missiles if they are ridiculous ones. If there are no missiles your statement stands.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 05 Mar 2011 21:38

RajeshA wrote: Worth noting is how much deference the leadership of Lal Masjid, that is the Islamists, showed to the Chinese during this whole drama. The Chinese seemed to have misread the situation a bit, and they forced Musharraf to siege the mosque even after their nationals were released, possibly because of the Uyghurs holed up inside. In the end, the Chinese ended up angering a lot of Pushtuns as well.

If it had been Americans, the Islamists would probably have shot all of them to prove their point.

IMHO, this is correctly deduced. Let me go further, Pakistan used China as the factor to do whatever it did on the islamist but in reality it did what US asked it to do otherwise Mushy has no reason to attack Lal Masjid even after the hostages were released.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 05 Mar 2011 21:43

Here are my thoughts sometime ago on this topic in the context of US leaving AF-Pak:

Muppalla wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Assume for an instant that Stratfor's George Friedman is correct, about this "Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan - which it wasn't going to get anyway - the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants,' Friedman said."

To me, the logical implication is that if Pakistan could break the al-Qaeda/other international terrorist groups' link with the Taliban; i.e., if the Pakistani Army could convince/force its clients in Afghanistan and Pakistan not to threaten the US or NATO countries, the the US would be happy to give Pakistan free rein in Afghanistan. After all, that meets all US objectives.

It follows that Pakistan is unable or unwilling to deliver this delinking. Pakistan has not kept even the L-e-T to a local scope (India, Afghanistan). It might be the usual Paki method of taking a maximalist position, or it might be that Pakistan genuinely has lost control.

It follows that the duplicity is not that Pakistan supports the Taliban. The duplicity, from the P.O.V. of the US, if Friedman is correct, is that Pakistan has not delivered on keeping its terrorist proxies confined to South Asia.

shiv wrote:If what Friedman says is true and we assume that Paki nukes have US PALs - it is likely that the US has made it clear to India that war with Pakistan means that Pakistan will be free to unlock their nukes.

This is contrary to what I have believed and stated so far.I have believed hat the US has cajoled and compelled India into cooperation on the suggestion that moving the nukes would get some of them out of control. But this news could mean that the US will not object if the nukes are moved for mating in a war with India. I am still not sure that this is good for the US in the long term. It is bad for India from any anglle anyway.
These two posts fundamentally are summary of the zillion posts and zillion versions of BR threads regarding this tango between India-TSP-US. In addition to what George Friedman has put so bluntly and honestly, we should add India's closest friend Robert Blackwill's comments recently and also the one that he made immediately after India's parliament attack. He clearly said that " Existance and integerty of pakistan is non-negotiable as it is US national interest. We are not here to fight India's war. "

What US wants is a tap (owned by TSP) when opened the water (Jihadi Terror) should always fall in a designated vessel (was Russia and India and later just India). However, as the tap got wornout, it started leakings. The leaked water started reaching western nations and created a one time flood in the form of 911. US was working to fix the leak for a while and became serious to fix the leak after 911. However, there was never a plan to remove the tap. The tap is required. India is just a catalyst so that the leaks are fixed. Nukes are a hedge so that India and others does not remove the tap forever. Now just add the billions of dollars in aid being delivered etc. to this picture and we get the same story. Fundamentally nothing has really changed geopolitically between US-TSP and India. US's friendship with India is just for pure commercial purposes.

TSP knows this game so well and they were extremely confident that US will never knockout TSP and hence they played the alleged-double game against US. It is neither unexpected nor shocking for US that TSP is actually using the war on terror to help Taliban. They know that Pakistan has to be allowed to do whatever they are doing inorder to get the tap-leaks plugged. The only challenge in the whole game was for TSP in convincing the entire jihadi-machinery that this whole thing is supposed to be meant only-for-India and not a global thing. The entire engagement of US in South Asia is to wait patienty and help/facilitate TSP to plug the tap-leaks. In the persuit, it asked India also to take some hits because it is a necessary step to facilate TSP meet the "challenge".

The wikileaks is a platform to tell the world what US actually wanted and it is like a status report. It is also the way to tell that as soon as we are satisfied that the "water-leak" is taken care off, we will be off Af-Pak. I am sure in the coming days we will also see the strategy that US want to put in place so that TSP could meet the "challenge".

Did US succeed in helping TSP meet the challenge?
(1) Yes - it has put a lot of human and electronic intel in Af-Pak area to know when the attacks are coming to west.
(2) As long as jihadis are busy in attacks in India, Russia etc. it achieved its goal
(3) It may allow some not-so-important western nations (like Spain, Iceland etc.) to take those once in a while attacks. It may feel that it is ok to take once in a while terror attacks on US interest abroad viz. US-Cole etc. Minimal life loss once in a while to jihadis is not that big of a loss and worth the loss in the US-National interest.

Did the US succeed in helping TSP stay on course and intact?
(1) US is working on a plan to see Pasthuns are less angry. TSP may just allow them to do whatever they want in Punjab. TSPA may gift Pastuns to go and rape as many women as they want in Punjab. The rentier state can rent the selected portions of Punjab to Pasthuns to buy peace and put back the machines on course.
(2) Allow Taliban to takeover Afghanistan so that they can lead Afghans and also they have Punjab for flesh. TSPA will make sure the tap water goes to designated vessel.
(3) Drug market eminating from Af-Pak is force multiplier to motivate all the officials from the countires there so that the financial-cuts could make them rich while helping the jihadi finances

US will stay as long as it takes to achieve the above.

What's for India in all this?
It has to wait before thinking doing these big-boy items as it has to take care of those who does not have a flushable lavatory. Until then India has to spin itself for talks-with-anyone, Nuke deals and everything that will get few more dollars. [Note: not meant to take potshots on any BR member. I honestly believe this is the thought process in a substantial section of Indian policy makers.]

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Mar 2011 21:49

Without the US, Pakistan loses some $3 billion an year, plus forgiveness from IMF, World Bank (which counts for more $billions to keep them afloat - I don't have the numbers but it is I think revolving loans of the order of $3 billion an year).

Best figures on the Web are that China provides some $25 billion in aid per year, spread over Latin America, Africa and Asia. If China had to provide $5 billion per year to Pakistan to keep it afloat - instead of Unkil and Unkil-led institutions - that would be a significant chunk of the current Chinese aid budget.

Moreover our belief is that Pakistan is a black hole - aid given there does nothing to reduce the long-term need for aid - it is a commitment in perpetuity.

So, yet another way of looking at it is that China is not paying the full price for its support of Pakistan, because the US is bearing the major part of the financial burden. If the US withdraws, China may get some incremental benefit from being the sole Master of Pakistan, but the additional cost will be quite high.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Mar 2011 21:56

Yet another way of looking at it is that the Indian leadership has never been successful at the three-body problem - be it Congress-MuslimLeague-British or be it India-China,Pakistan-USA. {Here I'm assuming that China and Pakistan are joined at the hip as RajeshA, VikramS, etc., suggest.}

However, when it is a two-body problem India is spectacularly successful. The best example was 1971, when the USSR neutralized China and the US, so the Indo-Pakistan confrontation was a two-body problem. {If we take Kissinger as being truthful, it was a two-body problem as long as the confrontation was confined to the east wing, and there was no threat of dismemberment of the west wing of Pakistan.}

From this point of view also, it is beneficial to India to reduce the situation to a two-body problem.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Mar 2011 22:07

RajeshA wrote:
[*] Anti-Americanism is slowly replacing anti-Indianism as the most potent hate in Pakistan.

This is the most important role which is beneficial to India.
Until 911 the Islamists used to say that it is due to US neglecting India and showing an image of enemy of India that they could kill Hindus and Indians at will.
The Pakis used to come to US and make fun of Hindus and would get good approval by the Americans. The Americans who would interact with the Pakis would also join in and would mock Indians.

Even 911 did not change the Islamists stand completely and they continued the killings in Kashmir and other parts of India. The forceful war on Terror inside Pakistan has slightly tilted the pressure away from India but not much. The new paranoia for the Pak Generals is that from both side of Pakistan east and west they could face pressure and forces will move inside Pakistan from both sides.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Mar 2011 22:10

A_Gupta wrote:Yet another way of looking at it is that the Indian leadership has never been successful at the three-body problem - be it Congress-MuslimLeague-British or be it India-China,Pakistan-USA. {Here I'm assuming that China and Pakistan are joined at the hip as RajeshA, VikramS, etc., suggest.}

From this point of view also, it is beneficial to India to reduce the situation to a two-body problem.

Three body dynamic situation needs gaming and strategic thinking. The clear goal of national interest is very important. Woolly head and vague perception will not be sufficient to over come such complex problem.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Mar 2011 23:31

I will sketch out a possible, though improbable path to a new strategic situation. Yes, it is highly improbable - but an year ago, would you have predicted what is happening in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, ityaadi?

Briefly, more people-oriented governments (I did not say democracies) in the Arab world will make it impossible for the US to shield Israel via Mubarak, King of Jordon, Saudi etc. type of "allies". Israel, if wise, will seek a permanent settlement with the Palestinians. Once that happens, Iran will be much more isolated.

IMO, Iran is the key to weaning the US off of Pakistan. With a friendly Iran, US can achieve its Central Asia goals much better than with Pakistan; moreover Iran has energy, Pakistan has nothing to offer except blackmail.

IMO, the US also has to recognize where the world is headed - where it will be first among equals, so to speak, and much less dominant. If the US behaves properly, however, most nations in the world will tilt towards the Anglosphere and not the Sinosphere (unless miracles happen with China). India, by interests and by inclination, is inclined towards the Anglosphere. The US has to be made to see India's growth as strengthening the Anglosphere rather than challenging it. Of course the US dominance will be diminished; but US has to see a better chance of protecting its interests in such an arrangement.

Finally, there has to be rapid political change in Iran that makes rapprochement with the West, and the US, feasible.

IMO, such a reconfig of the world would be much more favorable to Indian interests than the current one. In such a world, I think Pakistan, even if squarely in the Sinosphere, will be manageable.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Mar 2011 02:14

Read The Foundation and also Hari Seldon in BRF

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Mar 2011 02:43

The US has to be made to see India's growth as strengthening the Anglosphere rather than challenging it.

that is a contradictory statement. the "Anglosphere" is modeled on British Imperialism. and British Imperialism was the greatest threat to Bharata Varsha in the past 500 years. the only way that India can strengthen the Anglosphere is by becoming a poodle to the Anglosphere. there are no half steps here. either become a poodle or keep a spine.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 06 Mar 2011 02:49

shivji:
(1) The =/= between the F-16 and a SAM is disingenuous. An F-16 has no use in a Low Intensity Conflict (except for the TSPAF bombing a Tabliqi Jamaat gathering prior to the visit of a US big-wig). A SAM is a game-changer in an LIC since it levels the playing field substantially. And we have been having and likely continue to have LICs only, unless things change dramatically.

AGupta_Ji:

Iran is the king-pin. Any hope of a change in the status-quo evolves around it. If Iran can get a seat at the table, the entire dynamics can change.

And like it or not, I feel that Obama might be the one person who could actually bring about that. He has pursued US interests with a doggedness which has surprised many of his conservative detractors. I would go on to say, that he has actually established some degree of credibility with them. But he is hardly the establishment's candidate; and perhaps more willing to solidify the US role as the First Among Equals, and compromise on some issues sacred to the establishment.

And BTW, I am not so sure that the common Arab Abdul is so bothered about Israel. As it is turning out, it is the basic issues of roti-kapda-makaan which is lighting the fire; not Israel. In fact, Israel, for all the Arab blustering may have been just the bogeyman to keep the Abdul's in control. Of course things change if AQAM start gaining power; though since no biggie wants them to rise, I doubt it will happen in the short term.

And your multiple stake-holder (the three body) situation was a very pertinent observation. In some ways, the TSP elite is a master in finding its place in a multi-body situation. Perhaps they are better at morphing like a chameleon.

RajeshA:
In one of your earlier comments in response to my post about stake-holders you mentioned that TSPA will never agree. I think you missed my point that TSPA would no longer be considered a stake-holder, and would essentially be asked to FO. The utility of TSPA as a pain in the backside would be seen as not worth the risk it poses, and the instability it creates; hence the grand realignment of the TSP.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 06 Mar 2011 03:00

Anglosphere versus Sinosphere:

I think when left to their own devices, most thinking adults will tend towards the Anglospheric way of life rather than the Sinospheric way of life. If the common man in the Arab world gets some say, its orientation is going to be less towards the Sinosphere, which is another form of totalitarian rule; not very different from the strongman rulers of the past.

Whether it is the RAPE or the Sheiks partying in the Riviera, at a most basic level, the Anglospheric way with its emphasis on individual choice and freedom, appeals to a lot more; even the most pious of the pious. The impact of soft-power can not be underestimated. The information revolution has allowed these ideas to move much faster and reach a lot more people in the past decade than it has done in the past hundred.

devesh:
Like it or not, India is now the heart of the Anglosphere. Whether it is her constitution, her form of government, the language or the basic orientation of the people, there is nothing closer to the Anglosphere outside the West than India.

One might argue that the Anglosphere just re-discovered elements of the basic dharmic values when have guided Indian people. So in a lot of ways, the Anglospheric values have a lot in common with the dharmic values. Perhaps you could call the Anglosphere a modern interpretation of dharmic values.

I am but a novice in this area, but from what I have understood from Acharya ji, the reason dharma has been under attack, is that it is too close to their basic value system, while filling in gaps where they lack. And when people are left to their own devices, they are willing to adopt elements of dharma in their lives, which of course threatens the hold of the EJ establishment (whatever remains).

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Mar 2011 03:37

VikramS wrote:
devesh:
Like it or not, India is now the heart of the Anglosphere. Whether it is her constitution, her form of government, the language or the basic orientation of the people, there is nothing closer to the Anglosphere outside the West than India.

False

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Mar 2011 04:56

VikramS wrote:RajeshA:
In one of your earlier comments in response to my post about stake-holders you mentioned that TSPA will never agree. I think you missed my point that TSPA would no longer be considered a stake-holder, and would essentially be asked to FO. The utility of TSPA as a pain in the backside would be seen as not worth the risk it poses, and the instability it creates; hence the grand realignment of the TSP.

VikramS ji,

IMHO, we are underestimating Pakistan's strengths as well as the stakes of the stakeholders in propping up Pakistan. There is only one country that can take Pakistan apart, and that is India. It would be India that takes Pakistan apart in face of strong opposition by other powers favoring the continuance of Pakistan, rather than the others cooperating with India deciding on the dissolution of Pakistan.

America is happy to create instability in the heart of Asia, the continent that would challenge American domination of the world. China is happy to create instability at the front door of the Indian Subcontinent, jeopardizing the stability of the only country that can challenge Chinese domination of Asia, and with that, that of the world - India. Britain is happy that it has influence over such a weapon of mass chaos - Pakistan. India is happy if the instability does not escape Pakistan and jumps over to India.