God knows I haven’t been paying enough attention to this blog…my blog dashboard informs me that the last time I updated it was 51 days ago. To use the cliche, time certainly flies. Many reasons for the inattention, chief of which was that I was busy organising 30 lectures for future foreign service professionals.

But the title of this post is not related to that, but, rather to a thought that crossed my mind sometime over the past 50 days when it seemed to me that India-US Relations were about to go into hibernation, if not deep freeze. The trouble as usual is that there are many conflicting signals coming out of Washington which lend themselves to all kinds of interpretation in a region on the boil. Coupled with that is the fact that there are all kinds of proxy warriors on the Hill, and in the thinktanks and the media in Washington and you have a situation where it often becomes difficult to separate fact from fiction.
Two examples that come to mind are the reactions following the release of the Af-Pak Policy Review and the reported nomination of Timothy Roemer as next Ambassador to India.
An initial reading of the Af-Pak review made it seem as if the Obama Administration was still intent of bringing in internationalisation of the Kashmir issue through the back-door after beating a hasty retreat the first time around after vigorous Indian protestations. Continued consultations with India by Richard Holbrooke as well as the most recent statement by Secretary of State Clinton in Congress have shown the opposite to be the case. Of course, part of the reason for that could be that events in the region are outpacing policies, and complicating issues would be the last thing on the mind of US policymakers.

So also the reported appointment of Timoth Roemer as next US Ambassador to India. I say reported because AFAIK, there’s been no official confirmation ever since the news broke on the Cable blog of Foreign Policy magazine. After going into Roemer’s background, I am not sure whether he’s been made Ambassador t India bcause of his Pakistan credentials or his non-proliferation credentials. Either way, it doesn’t bode that well for India other than the fact that he apparently has the President’s ear.

We generally tend to have a love-hate relationship with US Ambassadors to India, partly because they are invariably tasked with passing on bad news and admonishments by their bosses which they also tend to do with gusto. Just do search on Google News Labs Timeline feature and you will see what I mean. The headlines range from Manmohan snubs Mulford to US (read Mulford) attacks ‘closed’ India economy. The last link is to a BBC report of Mulford’s first statement after being appointed US Ambassador to India! Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself.

What did not figure in the press reports was the brush up between Republican Congressman Rohrbacher and Inderfurth, with Rohrbacher harking back to the policies pushed by Inderfurth while he was in government which the Congressman had opposed, and on which, in retrospect, he turned out to be right. This, according to the Congressman, was evidence of Inderfurth’s professional incompetence, which he advised the current Administration to keep in mind when considering Inderfurth for any position. You can view for yourself this exchange on the webcast of the proceedings available here. (You will need a Realplayer available at real.com to view the webcast) The exchanges took place at the 20:59 mark as well as the 01:00:07 mark.

Though I have viewed Committee sessions, this is the first occasion I can recollect of a witness being harangued in this manner. The fact that it was not reported anywhere probably indicates it is part of the normal rough and tumble of Congress. Inderfurth was quite unruffled during the exchange, saying that he had expected something of this sort to take place, but would focus on the topic for which he had been invited. Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation, the other witness, tried to come to his rescue, citing some new material she had found, but only muddied the waters further. The whole exercise seemed to be with the intention of denying Inderfurth a stab at the Ambassadorship but to me, it seems to have been a stillborn one. Nonetheless, an interesting episode revolving around egos and party political loyalties.

I just came across this lecture by FBI Director Robert F. Mueller III which he delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations. Probably because this was just a few days before he was to wing his way to Delhi, he began his remarks with reference to the Mumbai attacks and the involvement of the FBI.

The FBI figures quite frequently in the news coverage of the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks on 26/11 but he did have some interesting tidbits to offer; “Agents and analysts conducted more than 60 interviews, including that of the lone surviving attacker. Our forensic specialists pulled fingerprints from improvised explosive devices….They recovered data from damaged cell phones, in one case by literally wiring a smashed phone back together.”

Muller called for closer co-ordination between various intelligence agencies to counter terrorism. That is a call that will be increasingly heeded as terrorist acts become even more transnational, being hatched in one country, financed by nationals of another country and perpetrated by nationals of other countries. In fact till very recently, India would have rejected any offers of help with the response that its investigative agencies were competent enough to conduct the investigation. In fact the first time, an FBI Director visited India was only in 2000, after the Kandahar hijacking when India allowed the FBI to open a liaison office in New Delhi. Though cooperation on counterterrorism began around that time, it progressed only in fits and starts, partly because of the reluctance to share information by the US because of sensitivities towards Pakistan. That now seesm to be changing, with the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, and not a moment too soon.

Investigative agencies on the sub-continent have been neutered by their political and bureaucratic leadership over the decades. They are no longer seen as being able to carry out their duties in an impartial and professional manner. While Pakistan President Zardari’s appeal to the UN Secretary General for an investigation to be carried out by the UN into Benazir Bhutto’s assasination was initially received with sniggers of disbelief on the sub-continent, the trend has continued with Mumbai and now Bangladesh where Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina  has requested the FBI’s assistance in the massacre of army officers by the Bangladesh Rifles personnel.

End Note: When visiting the FBI About US page, I notice that the two representative pics of FBI employees are that of a woman in a saree and a sardarji in a turban. Just wondering if the pics are rotated based on IP location….

Indian American lobby groups came up with the Washington Chalo (Let’s March on Washington) program, echoing the Delhi Chalo war cry of Subhas Chandra Bose during the Independence Movement. Though their intention was to descend on Washington on January 29th and meet with Congressmen and Administration officials, newspaper reports don’t show any activity vis-a-vis meeting Administration officials.

The clout of Pakistani Lobby groups might be declining along in direct proportion with their country’s declining image in Washington but that hasn’t stopped them from doing their own version of Washington Chalo.The Pakistani-American National Alliance (PANA), a group of 6 Pakistani-American organizations is all set to hold “day-long lobbying activities at the Capitol on February 18“. A  “fact-sheet” filled with innuendo and disinformation was also released on January 26th in Washington and it’s worth reading, if only for the ludicrousness of its assertions and recommendations.

The surprising thing about this “fact-sheet’ is that it is written by a scholar of the Middle East Institute, a well-known thinktank based in Washington which prides itself on being non-partisan. I daresay the Institute’s credibility is at stake if its scholars indulge in such activities, even if in their personal capacities.  Then again, it might well be that the Pakistanis have taken over funding this thinktank, going by the following news report: Musharraf gets job offer from Middle East Institute of US.

This is slightly off-topic but I just couldn’t resist:-) I was googling for Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon’s speech at Delhi University on January 19 when Google turned up another speech of his in December 2007 out of which 2 paragraphs(547 words) on International Terrorism and Energy Security had been copied in their entirety and pasted into the 2009 speech. Given that the Foreign Secretary doesn’t make so many speeches (there are only 2 listed in 2008 and 6 in 2007 on the MEA website) and that so much has happened on these two fronts over the year, it seems like a case of extreme laziness on the part of his speechwriters. And for all you know, even the other parts of the speech might also be copied and pasted, hopefully from his own speeches. I dare not google further for fear of being proved otherwise.

These are the operative paragraphs taken from 2009 speech. The earlier speech was delivered on December 13, 2007 at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, London.

Paradoxically, some of the same forces of globalization – the evolution of technology, the mobility of capital and so on – which have led to the decline or collapse of the Westphalian state order are also the source of our greatest dangers. Our major threats today are from non-state actors, from trans-boundary effects of the collapse of the state system, or, at least, of its inadequacy.(Paradoxically, the doctrine of absolute sovereignty created by the strong European states and rulers in earlier centuries is now the last defence of the weak against the strong.)

Looking ahead, the real factors of risk that threaten systemic stability come from larger, global issues like terrorism, energy security and environmental and climate change. With globalization and the spread of technology, threats have also globalised and now span borders. These are issues that will impact directly on India’s ability to grow and expand our strategic autonomy. It is also obvious that no single country can deal with these issues alone. They require global solutions.

International Terrorism

Among these global threats, international terrorism remains a major threat to peace and stability. We in India have directly suffered the consequences of the linkages and relationships among terrorist organizations, support structures and funding mechanisms, centered upon our immediate neighborhood, and transcending national borders. Any compromise with such forces, howsoever pragmatic or opportune it might appear momentarily, only encourages the forces responsible for terrorism. Large areas abutting India to the west have seen the collapse of state structures and the absence of governance or the writ of the state, with the emergence of multiple centres of power. The results, in the form of terrorism, extremism and radicalism are felt by us all in India.

Energy Security

As for energy security, this is one issue which combines an ethical challenge to all societies with an opportunity to provide for the energy so necessary for development. For India, clean, convenient and affordable energy is a critical necessity if we are to improve the lives of our people. Today, India’s per-capita energy consumption is less than a third of the global average. (Our per capita consumption is only 500 kgoe compared to a global average of nearly 1800 kgoe). For India a rapid increase in energy use per capita is imperative to realize our national development goals.

Global warming and climate change require all societies to work together. While the major responsibility for the accumulation of green house gasses in the atmosphere lies with the developed countries, its adverse affects are felt most severely by developing countries like India. When we speak of ‘shared responsibility’, it must include the international community’s shared responsibility to ensure the right to development of the developing countries. Development is the best form of adaptation to climate change.

What we seek is equitable burden-sharing. We have made it clear that India will not exceed the average of per capita GHG emissions by the industrialized countries, as we continue to pursue the growth and development that our people need.
Also, the transfer and access to clean technologies by developing countries, as global public goods on the lines of what was done for retrovirals to fight AIDS, is essential to effectively limit future GHG emissions. The IPR regime should include collaborative R&D and the sharing of the resulting IPRs.

Me thinks he should get the Ctrl-C Ctrl-V keys disabled on the computers in his office.

First, it was the month long vacation that was combined with a medical check-up. And, then picking up the threads after such a long break also proved to be a tedious task. It took Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address to remind me of my responsibilities in cyber space, and I shall resume posting before the week is out. I swear

One doesn’t quite know what to post after an attack like the one on Bombay. The terror attacks have been termed as India’s 9/11 and I find the analogy quite apt as it exposed the utter unpreparedness of the authorities. As a leading columnist put it, India is disgraced by Mumbai Failure. Though it seemed for a moment that the shock of the events would result in India and Pakistan joining hands to stop the horror from engulfing them, that was just too good to last. Pretty soon, we were back to playing the same old record of mutual recrimination and accusations. Madeline Albright was right on the money when she said that Pakistan was an international migraine. I have seen other commentaries in which the US-Pakistan relationship is described as one in which Pakistan is constantly holding a gun to its head and threatening to pull the trigger. The same applies to India-Pakistan relations and the Mumbai attacks are the latest instance of that. One can expect these attacks to recur since our dysfunctional state apparatus makes us such an easy target. So, how do you deal with a problem like that???

I think part of the problem lies in the fact that Pakistan is yet to become a normal state after the end of the Cold War. Its ruling establishment  had got so used to its being a frontline state and having attention showered on it that it has almost become a Pavlovian reflex to keep seeking attention, even if it means having to resort to self-destruction. The US has brought it to this sorry state, and only the US can get it out.

Going by the fact that both India and Pakistan are cut off the same cloth, I refuse to believe that Pakistan is beyond redemption. Like in India, the vast majority in Pakistan are peace loving, and simply want to get on with their lives. The Obama Administration has the right ideas in trying to build up civili society in that country and strengthening institutions. But, it also faces formidable obstacles in the form of the jihadist elements and vested interests that are quite happy with things the way they are.

The United States can also help India by passing  on the lessons learnt during 9/11, and improving cooperation in counter-terrorism. A Commission based on the 9/11 model should go into the acts of commission and ommission that resulted in our 9/11.  As one of its members summarized the raison d’etre of the Commission,

Here is the American bargain. Each of us, as individual citizens, take a portion of our liberties and our lives and pass them to those we elect or appoint as our guardians. And their task is to hold our liberties and our lives in their hands, secure. That is an appropriate bargain. But on September 11th, that bargain was not kept. Our government, all governments, somehow failed in their duty that day. We need to know why.”

The same is the case here, and unless people are held accountable and  punished for lapses, things will continue the way they are. Among the main reasons why the Commission succeeded in its efforts was because it could question the top leadership of the country including the President to establish the chain of events, and because an earnest effort was made to stay non-partisan. Right at the outset, it was also decided that the findings of the Commission would be published in their entirety. Reports such as the Kargil Committee Report could be swept under the carpet because much of its findings and supporting documents were classified. If some of those recommendations had been implemented, 26/11 could well have been mitigated to some extent.

The pictures released by the Indian Navy show that this action took place at night, so this could well turn out to be a case of mistaken identity. This would be a PR disaster for the Indian Navy, and this is a perfect example of what I have detailed in my previous post. The knives will be out, and you are going to see all kinds of accusations flying to and fro.  The Indian Navy is going to wish it had never sailed into the Gulf of Eden.

INS Tabar in anti-piracy action off the coast of Somalia

As the Navy basks in the glow of its successful actions in Somalia leading to congratulations pouring in from across the world, the civilian bureaucracy and the political leadership at the helm of affairs in Delhi have been running helter-skelter trying to figure out how to prevent existing power equations changing as a result of the Navy’s actions.

This is evident from a a flurry of news reports coming out of Delhi, each negating the previous one. First it was that the Indian government had allowed hot pursuit into Somalian waters which was subsequently denied, then it was the report that additional warships were to be sent, which again was denied almost immediately. There was even the report that some officials of the Ministry of Defence had asked the Navy who had given it authority to engage in offensive action against the pirates.

This is all par for the course for those who are familiar with the complex relationship between the military and the civilian bureaucracy on the one hand, and between the Ministries of Defence and External Affairs on the other. All these respective agencies have their turfs which they guard with tenacity. The games are played for high stakes, with each actor waiting for the other to make a fatal error which will bring them down a peg or two, or trying to shape things in such a way that they get credit for the successes and evade any responsibility for the misses. The result of all this infighting is that that policy making is usually at a stand still thanks to the gridlock. Masterly inaction is the favoured course for those at the helm of affairs. Of course, this can also serve its purposes as during the debate on whether India should send troops to Iraq  some years back. This debate had fierce proponents on both sides, and they all ended up canceling the other out. In retrospect, not sending troops to Iraq turned out to be the wisest course.

To put it more charitably, the military is forever trying to push the envelope and get more autonomy. In the case of the Somalia action, for instance, according to news reports, the Navy chief had to put his foot down and demand that operational freedom to the local commander be a part of the Rules of Engagement. The Ministry of External Affairs, for its part, is constantly worried that  any action the Indian Navy undertakes might be seen to set a precedent internationally, and be quoted back chapter and verse at a later date. Hence, the constant quoting of UN Resolutions when speaking of the Somalia action, and the constant efforts to bring together a naval coalition under UN or affiliated organisation auspices.  In other words, there is more of looking nervously over one’s shoulder, and looking back, rather than looking forward. This should serve as an eye-opener for those who expect India to take on its share of responsibilities and prove itself worthy to be called a great power.

On a related note, there’s an interesting post by Galrahn on the reason behind the US Navy’s inactivity despite having a huge force in the region. Apparently, it’s all part of a strategy of getting other nations to shoulder the burden.