On Saturday, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari addressed Parliament in a wide-ranging speech about the future of Pakistan’s domestic politics and international relations. He said Pakistan would use a strong hand against terrorists planning foreign attacks from bases on Pakistani soil, but added that he would “not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in the name of combating terrorism.” According to the New York Times, this last stipulation was “broadly greeted by legislators, who loudly thumped on their desks to show their support.”
Speaking of loud thumps: hours later, 60 people were killed and 250 were wounded when a dump truck loaded with explosives crashed the gate of the Islamabad Marriott. If Islamabad wants to go on thinking their biggest national security problem is the occasional American incursion into the country’s tribal regions, they’re free to do so, but there’s no compelling reason for the U.S. to stop killing America’s enemies (and Pakistan’s internal saboteurs) because we’re stuck, yet again, with a feckless “partner” in the War on Terror. And if you think attacks such as this one are going to make Islamabad change its tune, consider that Zardari went on the radio afterward to give the obligatory condemnation of “cowardly” acts, and in so doing reiterated his firm stance against American operations in the tribal regions. In fact, according to the Telegraph’s Isambard Wilkinson,
public reaction to the bomb attack on the hotel was significant in that it did not roundly condemn the militants but reflected widespread ennui with America’s military policy in neighbouring Afghanistan.
The story goes that after 9/11, State Department official Richard Armitage told Pervez Musharaf that if Pakistan refused to cooperate with the U.S., it should “be prepared to go back to the stone age.” It was taken as a threat, but in truth, it works just as well as a non-interested prediction. If Islamabad wants to demonize the U.S. while al Qaeda makes in-roads into Pakistan, there will be more Marriotts to come. That’s their choice.
But America does not have a choice. We can’t lose in Afghanistan. It was the precipitous military withdrawals of the eighties and nineties that convinced terrorists groups of the U.S.’s vulnerability in the first place. The Iraq War has gone a long way in reversing that perception. The Afghanistan War has the potential to either confirm this change or undo it. Simply put, that’s more important to the U.S. than the lukewarm allegiance of Pakistan.
gordon is surely correct about india’s strategic importance – but why do i think that there are ‘discussions’ underway with pakistan that might lead to ‘issues’ if madame secretary clinton made india a centerpiece of her asian travels…?
Just as utopians are condescending when they explain to the Republicans what they did wrong in their election campaigns and how to win next time, conservatives really shouldn’t make policy recommendations to the utopians. Let them screw everything up on their own. They have their sausage recipe, the GOP has, hopefully, a different one. Let the criticism begin when the utopians fail.
Lots of people have the same idea about where Hillary should go, but you won’t find it on most maps.
mds123, thanks for raising the Pakistan issue. We need to maintain relations with Islamabad of course, but it’s time to tilt to the more important of the two nations. I’m tired of our failed approaches to Pakistan and China.
chuck martel, we don’t have time for too many failures. We need Obama and Clinton to be successful from the get-go.
We may have to get by somehow without what we need, or thought we needed, Gordon.
This post demonstrates well the little things that can say a lot. The U.S. is going to need its friends like never before in the coming years, and none in Asia more so than Australia and India. I worry that this administration believes that, in order to get our most devout and committed enemies to start liking us more, it will have to continually lean on our best and most loyal friends. Another way to see this is that it does not believe in peace through strength as traditionally understood.
True strength is born of support for an administration at home AND in key nations abroad. This administration’s primary domestic support comes from the “no blood for oil,” “blame America” set, which translates into a de facto weak position at home; ergo, strike 1. If it feels that playing nice with the playground bullies is the proverbial horse, while strengthening alliances with the good children merely the cart, they will have it 180 degrees backwards, and this will eventually translate into a weak position abroad: strike 2. China, Russia, Iran, the bad half of Pakistan, Syria, North Korea – etc., etc. – each of these bullies has a pretty good pitch or two, and facing them already two strikes down is not where the American “batter” really needs to be for the next four years.
CK MacLeod, I’m sure you’re right, but I am saying what we need, not necessarily what we’ll get. Thanks.
provoter, thanks for pointing out the critical point that we need to work with our friends and not our adversaries. We have gotten it backwards for far too long.
gordon,
“If she really wants to accomplish anything with the Chinese during her time in office, Mrs. Clinton should show them that the United States is prepared to work closely with the one nation they truly fear.”
you do mean china fear of india? because they can speak english better than chinese? because they have the most numbers of religions on this planet? omg, i forget that they are one of the most populated countries on this planet. india is great country without any doubts, but why does china fear of india for her greatness?
Gordon.
A refreshing change. I am now pleased to learn from you that Bush actually did a few wise things.
Richard
tony zhao, are you suggesting that China does not fear India? They fought border skirmishes, squabble over terriroty, compete for investment, and seek to gain influence in the region at the expense of the other. You bet the Chinese fear the Indians as the Indians fear the Chinese.
Richard Jansen, thanks. I have always lauded President Bush for his Indian initiative, in this forum and elsewhere.
The fact that Hilary first Asian trip won’t bring her to India, and that Obama sees China, as so many of the redwoods at State as the ballast of Asia is yet more proof of how farcial Obama’s pretense to change is. And does Obama even understand that Bush actually did something of value vis-a-vis India- something his administration needs to build on? Let’s face it. He really hasn’t given all that much thought to foreign policy.
On a related issue, just how influential is the India lobby in the U.S. now? I had read that the closer relations, India’s economic rise, of course, and a sizeable Indian-American population was starting to have an impact. How true is this?
My guess she is thinking “back to the Senate” and also kicking her self for not holding onto her seat like Gregg did.
Stuart Rose, India marshalled an effective lobbying effort on the nuclear deal. In general, I don’t know how capable India’s representatives are on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps some reader can help me on this.
Gordon – I do not think Aust expected or even desires a visit from HRC. I can see no problem with visiting Jakarta .
There are lots of Indians but 8 less than last week due to the Wedding Beheadings (hey that rhymes) in Bihar. Some are undoubtedly smart but maybe it will be the colossal battle between the 600 mill peasants of China vs the 500 mill in India.
IMO it is the Indian caste system which is the weakest link.
Its Bollywood vs Bruce Lee!
gordon,
gordon,
here was what you wrote:
“If she really wants to accomplish anything with the Chinese during her time in office, Mrs. Clinton should show them that the United States is prepared to work closely with the one nation they truly fear”
china is afraid of india, so madam clinton will instigate china’s fear by threatening chinese that US will become a closed ally with india. then china will be so scared by this threat that china will retreat from n. korea, pakistan, burma, darfur, etc and become US’ puppy?
now in your new post:
“They fought border skirmishes, squabble over terriroty, compete for investment, and seek to gain influence in the region at the expense of the other. You bet the Chinese fear the Indians as the Indians fear the Chinese.”
so basically because india is a competitor with china in military fight, then US is trying to scare the big-jeez out of china otherwise a close USindia will appear.
forgive me if i dare to ask:
who in the hell is afraid of whom!!!
it sounds like that it is not india that fears of china, someone else…
Tony – Dont be harsh on Gordie. He is allergic to China.
Gordon and necons,
A question: What’ so great about India? Since it is a democracy there was great hope that it would support the US against the Soviet Unions after India got its independence. Instead, it voted with the Soviets almost all the time at the UN and often DELIBERATELY puts down the US.
I am curious why people are so upbeat about India.
Big Picture, India has changed a bit in the last couple of decades, hasn’t it? They gave up trying to be the leaders of the non-aligned nations- well, the non-aligned movement disappeared, didn’t it, with the end of the Cold War. Certainly, India has ditched a command economy.
Good call, Gordon. You are quite right. Obama’s foreign policy is looking unexcusably hapless already, and it’s only a few weeks old. Hillary should absolutely visit Delhi and Canberra on such an otherwise comprehensive swing through Asia. America has not catered to Pakistan on our relations with India up to now, and there is no good reason to start. I don’t really suspect that that’s a factor here, but it certainly shouldn’t become one. If anything, Pakistan needs to operate on the understanding that we are committed to her future, but she is not the only south Asian nation we have good relations with. With NATO so ready to start making deals with Iran on Afghanistan, now is NOT the time for the US to lighten the pressures on Pakistan to perform: get its hinterland under control, suppress homicidal Islamism, regularize its border arrangements with India.
We needn’t put extra pressure on Pakistan, but lifting pressure by seeming to ignore India, and leave her in a post-Bush limbo, is definitely not a good idea. Everything a SecState does has meaning, including which nations she visits on this trip.
In many ways visiting China is visiting Australia. The relationship between Australia and the United States is that of two suitors for a beautiful lady. For years there was mild concern that we might somehow “lose” Australia, though they are not really the sorts to go in for Communism. But somewhere along the way they did get lost, go native as it were. They have gone from thinking of themselves as Europeans who happen to be in Asia to Asians who happen to be of European descent. Australia is still our friend in that it wishes us no specific sort of harm. But if a bus was bearing down on China and the US, there is now no question who they would push out of the way.
After years of kowtowing to China ending with Bush’s ham handed support of pro-mainland politicians in Taiwan, there is nothing more we can really do for China. They got us by the dollars and they can make us holla.
India likewise has gotten everything it wants from us and would us to please go back to our service calls and stop messing around destabilizing their region. I mean really have you talked to an Indian, read the Indian Times lately, the last thing they want is another American bumbling around while they are doing serious work of fighting terrorism and stabilizing the region
Pardon my cynicism, but isn’t one of the major sources of the Clinton’s wealth, after the Middle East, China? Am I cynical to believe that Clinton’s view of her tenure as Secretary of State is as a rainmaker for the Clinton investment fund, to believe she places the needs of the United States somewhat toward the bottom of her priority list? Australia has almost no reason to line her pockets, China has many. After all, they have some aircraft cariers to build and no expertise. Under her husband they had a missile capacity to build and no expertise.
No matter that the non-aligned movement has disappeared, India never really left the pro-Russia orbit and is still quite critical of the US (sometimes rightfully so). I think that criticism of the US is almost a knee jerk reaction.
I suppose countries can change but I am curious why, with this history, some Americans are so upbeat about an India that has never shown much enthusiasm for the US. Is it out of some dream of teaming up with India to block China, or is it more cultural, such as the democratic tradition that both countries share?
#23 – China is Australia’s most important trading partner. The trade runs heavily into aust ‘s favour . Plus there is no debt to China.
Yes right about the bus -but not that that dont like you -its just capitalism.:)
Unamerican, I agree, there is no problem in visiting Jakarta. It’s good she’s doing so. I am saying that she should also have visited reliable American allies first.
tony zhao, of course I am concerned about China, as should everone who is against nuclear proliferation, abhorrent regimes, and attempts to spread authoritarianism. Beijing, unfortunately, is on the wrong side of most every issue. Do you defend China’s foreign policies?
Big Picture, you ask a great question. That was the Cold War. This is now. New Delhi no longer is a big fan of Moscow. We need to build our policies on today’s India, not yesterday’s.
BIG PICTURE #20:
Although what countries U.S. Secretary of State picked for her first trip only bears a symbolic importance, it’s still an important touchstone when she and her people have to do their best to narrowly focus on a limited number of “cornerstones” by carefully re-prioritizing America’s foreign relations.
If I may generalize on the issue with which countries should have been included in her itinerary, the following are the most important selection criteria:
1) A sycophant is the least reliable friend.
2) While a friend of your friend seldom becomes your friend, an enemy of your enemy is likely to become your most reliable friend.
India meets both, on the premise that China is considered a foe in the State Department.
Just for your reference, Japan fulfills neither criterion.
Stuart Rose, thanks for the comments on today’s India.
J.E. Dyer, you wrote: “We needn’t put extra pressure on Pakistan, but lifting pressure by seeming to ignore India, and leave her in a post-Bush limbo, is definitely not a good idea.” Yes, that’s exactly right. I hope you develop this idea on your new blog.
For anyone who needs incisive geopolitical analysis, see this: http://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/not-your-father’s-cold-war/
Robert Lee Hotchkiss, Jr., you analysis of Australia is correct. That’s why Clinton needs to go there.
There are many Indians who don’t like us, but their number is shrinking. And those folks are not running the government. If we showed that we would be a reliable friend, I think you would be surprised how quickly they would warm to us. At this time, many Indians think we are too China friendly, so they are not friendly to us.
Mark Maps, I too am concerned about the factor you raise. That’s her husband’s money, though. Let’s see what she does.
Big Picture, you ask: “Is it out of some dream of teaming up with India to block China, or is it more cultural, such as the democratic tradition that both countries share?” I think we can have enduring relations only with nations that share our values. So it is not so much that we want to “block China” as realize that our relations with Beijing will not be satisfactory as long as China is run by the Communist Party.
YY, you wrote: “While a friend of your friend seldom becomes your friend, an enemy of your enemy is likely to become your most reliable friend.” Yes, that’s right. That explains India, as you point out so well.
Stop hating China so much, Gordon Chang!
Get a life Gordon Chang!
Right on the spot!
What EK Says about Gordon Chang
January 26th, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Ignorance must be a huge bliss for you. A plumber thinks that he’s got an unique perspective when giving advice on heart surgery.
Most people who lived in China for a while are humbled by the complexity and the dynamics of the society and its economy. As a result they typically refrain from making sweeping statement. But not you, I guess. Your methodology is to pick bits and pieces of information, take them out of their historic context and assemble to fit your prior ideologically motivated theory. Anything that doesn’t not support your theory, which are many, you discard. Isn’t that your methodology? No wonder you are not an economist. You don’t deserve to be one. If fact, you don’t deserve to be a member of any science.
DZ, my wife agrees with you that I should get a life. Thanks for the suggestion.
gordon,
“tony zhao, of course I am concerned about China, as should everone who is against nuclear proliferation, abhorrent regimes, and attempts to spread authoritarianism. Beijing, unfortunately, is on the wrong side of most every issue. Do you defend China’s foreign policies?”
authoritarianism vs democracy, communism vs capitalism, christianity vs islam, white vs black, good vs evil… on and on. you know better than me that this planet is not a simple dualistic world. every one has another one and very close tied. the argument among us is not about who defends china’s foreign policies or not. even before i answered your question, you already damned me by standing at a seemingly high moral ground. and this is fundamentally wrong. it seems to many of chinese that many on this platform look like a spoiled rich kid on the block and keep bragging how better cloth you are wearing.
in many senses, it is easy for us to disagree on what we disagree, but it is hard to say who is right or wrong.
Tony Zhao’s choices:
authoritarianism vs democracy,
..hmm- so you’re not a big fan of democracy . . .
communism vs capitalism,
Sounds like you might want to read Yang Jisheng’s new book on the Great Leap Forward: Tombstone
christianity vs islam,
I myself am partial to China’s Hui and Uyghur Muslim communities . . .
white vs black,
hey- don’t knock black! Skin cancer sucks . . .
good vs evil…
I understand you’re having a tough time choosing between good and evil, Tony, but I would suggest to you that the PRC financed rape (sexual violence) and genocide/mass slaughter in Darfur, Sudan is kind of wrong (in a way) . . .
” … I mean really have you talked to an Indian, read the Indian Times lately, the last thing they want is another American bumbling around while they are doing serious work of fighting terrorism and stabilizing the region …”
Just last week Obama lectured India to be nice to Pakistan, and India told him to butt out. So our good relations with India may have peaked during the Bush admin.
Obama is wrecking our reputation in the world rather than enhancing it. Add to insulting India, his protectionist noises and willingness to go unilateral with Iran, which undermines the carefully designed Euro negotiations (which weren’t useful anyway, but his recklessness isn’t winning him any friends there).
Gordon,
I don’t mean to lecture you, but Australia is not part of Asia. It is a separate continent, with a cultural legacy that comes straight from Great Britain. I know that even many Australians refer to their unique country as part of Asia, but an error doesn’t become accurate through repetition. It’s not even in the same region, if you consider how far Canberra is from Asian capitals like New Delhi and Moscow. Australia conducts plenty of trade with Asian countries, but mutual spheres of influence and commerce don’t make Australia part of Asia.
Tony Zhao , Big Picture and DZ,
India is a progressive country while China is a totalitarian $hit-hole that foments instability, war, genocide, and even terrorism all around the world. It is the world’s worst offender when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Do you three not understand the need for America to “work with our friends and not our adversaries,” or are you just blinded by bigotry?
You’re on the wrong side too, unAmerican. As usual.
Robert Hotchkiss,
the relationship between Australia and the United States regarding China is like that of two drunken sailors fighting over a diseased prostitute. It’s the self proclaimed elites of both countries who are infatuated with China. The average Australian has an even lower opinion of China than most Americans do.
I’d be interested to know how China could “make us holla,” or what it could do if we told told the CPC to go pound sand.
I’ve had this conversation before, maybe even with you, but I’ve never been able to elicit an honest rebuttal. Maybe this time things will be different, but I doubt it.
You’re as wrong about India as you are about Australia. Indians wants closer ties with America, but we keep snubbing them.
tony zhao, I appreciate your point of view and can see what you are getting at, but I don’t think you answered my question.
And I certainly don’t think I damned you. I just asked you something.
Yehudit, you’re right. Obama should not be lecturing India. Big mistake. If he lectures anyone, it should be the Pakistanis and their backers, the Chinese. Thanks for pointing this out.
Jeff Bargholz, yes, Australia is part of what has become known as the “Asia-Pacific region,” not “Asia.” I just shorthanded this for the posting. Nonetheless, thanks for encouraging me to be more precise.
Jeff Bargholz, thanks for suggesting that we should snub India no more.
Jeff Bargholz,
India has the second worse record in an occupied territory (Kashmir). Human rights violations are rampant. The worse is Israel.
India has bad relations with all its neighbors. Look it up. Indians often speak unfriendly of America.
Go to discussion forums like Bharat Rakshak and hear their views.
In the long run I think that India would not make a good stragetic partner with the US. Short term benefit for each other? Maybe, but most likely that’s not good either.
Naming Israel as the worse human rights offender in the world’s long term conflicts and India as the second worse is not going to change anyone’s minds in this neocon forum.
In fact, Gordon does not recognize that bulldozing a civilian house with occupants inside is a terrorist act.
To prove my case I ask Gordon again, is the above an act of terror on civilians?
Big Propaganda,
when you make asinine claims about Israel and India being the world’s worst human rights violators, you automatically ensure that your opinions wont be taken seriously by rational adults. I’m not going to rely on the opinions of India’s unsavory neighbors to determine where my sympathies lie.
What you think is good for America and India is obviously whatever weakens them the most.
J B,
You misquoted me. I said they are the bad ones compared to the other long standing conflicts such as N. Ireland, Tibet, and Sri Lanka.
You are probably like Gordon, anything the Israel does is not really terror, period (no explanation).
Big Picture, you alleged a war crime, not a terrorist act.
Quote: “Big Picture, you alleged a war crime, not a terrorist act”
Great, then why are Hamas or Hezbollah listed as terrorist groups ??? They are fighting a “war”, so that terrorizing Israeli civilians are not terrorist activity.
I have proved my point that in this forum that terror by Israel is not really terror. Just call it another name and one feels good that the beloved terrorist state of Israel is really not a terrorist state.
In neocon forums, semantics is the main way to winning battles.
Big propaganda,
I repeated your idiotic opinion accurately. You deal in lies and hatred as a matter of course. You’re beneath contempt.
So you don’t believe that the IDF bulldozes houses with people inside?
Big Picture, it is important to label things properly. It is never in season to be sloppy in our terminology or our thinking.
Hamas and Hezbollah are called “terrorist groups” because they have committed terrorist acts.
Gordon,
Quote: “Hamas and Hezbollah are called “terrorist groups” because they have committed terrorist acts.”
Not according to your “careful” use of terminology. They are fighting a war against Israeli occupation and aggression. According to your definition they are committing war crimes.
Israel has used terror and is using terror. Face it.
Big Propaganda,
Jewish Israelis are terrorists committing war crimes by aggressively occupying their own country, while a fictional ethnic and national identity known as “Palestinians” are not terrorists for committing terrorist acts against dem Joos on a daily basis.
This is what I meant when I said you cant be taken seriously. You’re also a hopeless @$$hole.
Big Picture, before there were wars these two groups were commiting terrorist acts. The wars followed as a result of these acts.
Between wars Israel, for example, bulldozes houses to terrorize civilians. Clear enough for me.
Israel is a terrorist nation, period. I know using semantics to win arguments is a strong neocon trait, but I don’t play along.
Hey, Jeff Bargholz,
Nice Zionist spin. So spinny that even kids can see through your lies.
Remember, the overriding Zionist mind set: ‘all self interest, all the time, without any regard for others’.
Supporting doctrines are, ‘violence works’ and ‘semantics work’.
Of course none of these work, they only seem to work.
I doubt anybody’s suggesting India or Israel as being champions of a moral cause / working towards world peace; if anything, they are utterly despicable, ruthless and conniving towards their innocent and peace loving neighbors (on a serious note, both India and Israel have their morality issues, but being modestly moral is better than being a gluttonous criminal).
It is puzzling, if not appalling, if one starts comparing India and Israel in the same light as China, Pakistan, North Korea and the likes… I completely understand that all nations work on the principle of self-interest and that once in a while; fundamental violations of human rights and other morally accepted codes within human society are broken. However, when self interest perpetually overrides humanity, and profits dictate your definition of morality, the very basis of human civilization and evolution get eroded.