Archive for the ‘United States’ Category
Faisal Shahzad’s Impact on Policies and Perceptions
Much has been written about the impact of Faisal Shahzad’s failed attack in New York City’s Times Square. Most Indians thought that Faisal’s links to Pakistan would increase U.S. pressure on the ‘epicenter of terrorism’, thereby validating India’s perspective. It was hoped that Faisal would help India to get where Kasab and David Headley could not: terrorist groups within Pakistan which act as auxiliary units for the Al-Qeada against the U.S. and India. Indian media is replete with quotations like “U.S. warns Pakistan of severe consequences.” However there is little evidence to show that the nature of U.S.-Pakistan Partnership will change much in the coming days. Views of Bruce Riedel and General Petraeus also validate this contention. Click to continue…
Tale of Two Terrorists in Two Democracies
Ajmal Kasab and Faisal Shahzad are familiar names for most Indians and Americans. Kasab was the only terrorist in the gang of ten who was arrested alive during the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008. Shahzad was arrested early this week for planting a car bomb in the Times Square in New York City. Kasab was arrested while operationalizing a terror strike; Shahzad was nabbed following the cues from the car which he had planted. Kasab’s connection to Pakistan was established, Shahzad Pakistani connection is evident and under scrutiny.
Pakistan and U.S. Move from ‘Relationship’ to ‘Partnership’
“Today, I am a happy man and a satisfied man,” Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said in a news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Secretary Clinton’s remarks at the same conference “We have listened, and we will continue to listen.”
This is what Pakistan is celebrating as a movement from relationship to partnership. Semantics in diplomacy can be a great face safer and Minister Qureshi seems to realize this fact.
[Picture Courtesy: Jim Young/Reuters]
Pakistan set to Take the U.S. ‘Beyond the Vietnam Experience’
Since assuming office in January this year, President Obama made it clear that Pakistan was an area of grave concern for the U.S. counter-terrorism efforts around the globe. Review of strategy in Afghanistan led to the now famous acronym Af-Pak: an approach signifying the conjoined nature of problems and solutions for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Obama Administration was making a sincere attempt at resolving the Afghanistan crisis. Strategists in Washington and other Capitals across the globe welcomed (with skepticism) the new alignment of priorities and strategy proposed by the Obama administration. But it is now turning out that the Administration is in for an undesirable realization: if Afghanistan was viewed as re-living Vietnam, Pakistan is sure to take the U.S. beyond the “Vietnam Experience”. Click to continue…
Is Obama on the Gorbachev Path-I?
Indeed, the international situation is still complicated. The dangers to which we have no right to turn a blind eye remain. There has been some change, however, or, at least, change is starting….A new, democratic philosophy of international relations, of world politics is breaking through… Considering that world public opinion and the peoples of the world are very concerned about the situation in the world, our policy is an invitation to dialogue, to a search, to a better world, to normalization of international relations.
The above is an excerpt from Mikhail Gorbachev’s speech in 1987. The words have an uncanny sense of semblance to the recent foreign policy speeches of President Obama. The foreign policy vision of Gorbachev and Obama share a commonality: the acknowledgement that challenges persists yet there room for change. This post explores what makes President Obama’s foreign policy objectives challenging and promising.
Is President Obama on the Gorbachev Path?
Mikhail Gorbachev was a victim of his own reform movement. Though praised internationally for his bold vision, Gorbachev’s popularity dipped dramatically in the erstwhile U.S.S.R. The vision and rhetoric of reform is more appealing than actual reform process. Is President Obama treading the Gorbachev path? Or is it still too early to decide? I must confess that the comparison here is not about the impact of reform policies on the political system but more specifically on the political future of the two leaders.
President Obama’s approach and policies in four particular areas can be referred to as ‘reformatory’ if not revolutionary: narratives on race in the country, foreign relations of the U.S., health care in America and issues of fiscal responsibility. This four part analysis will deal with each aspect in detail. The objective is to review the kind of reform that President Obama is aspiring for and the emerging response to it. Such analysis would equip us to determine whether or not President Obama is heading down the Gorbachev path. Click to continue…
President Obama’s Speeches are Aimed at Uncertainty Reduction
R.L. Health and J. Bryant in their book Human Communication: Theory and Research stated, “Interactions are expected to increase predictability with the goal that this will lead to the ability to predict and explain what will occur in future interactions.” This explanation is the core of the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) of Communications. Simply stated the URT emphasizes that reducing uncertainty is the central motive of communication. The four major foreign policy speeches of President Barak Obama epitomize the central tenet of the URT. Contrary to popular perception, President Obama is not attempting to induce changes in behaviors of nation-states or other non-state actors. He is simply reducing uncertainty in international affairs by clearly explaining the basis and goals of U.S. foreign policy under his Administration. The stated goals are marked by an element of continuity and the speeches are merely contextual communication of the same. Click to continue…
Reactions to President Oabma’s Cairo Moment
President Obama’s Cairo moment was anxiously awaited around the globe. Anticipations about President Obama’s speech had dominated the international media for the past week and managed to wrestle the headlines from the striking Tiananmen Square commemorations. The content of the speech will continue to be analyzed by scores of scholars across the globe for days to come. But what were the immediate responses of the common people and political leadership to President Obama’s speech? Here are a few reactions.
Expectations from President Obama’s Cairo Speech
From taxi drivers to high-ranking bureaucrats; from university students to renowned political analysts, everyone in the Arab and Muslim world seems to be waiting for June 4 – the day when President Obama is expected to address the Muslim world. Student exams scheduled for June 4th have been postponed at the Cairo University, the venue for President Obama’s speech. This is not the first time that President Obama would approach the followers of Islamic faith with the objective of clarifying the U.S. policy towards the ‘Muslim world’. Since the inception of his term, President Obama is attempting to re-define America’s diplomatic outreach in an effort to reverse the tide of anti-Americanism among the Muslims across the world. So what makes the June 4th speech so special? To me it’s the burden of expectations. From open letters in leading newspapers of Egypt to op-eds by scholars of international affairs everyone has a list of dos and don’ts for President Obama. Though we cannot appropriately anticipate what President Obama will say we can examine what the Arab and Muslim world expects him to say.
[AP Photo/Ben Curtis]
Replacing Huntington with Morgenthau in U.S. Foreign Policy
Islam has emerged as a dominant influence in U.S. domestic and foreign policy in recent years. A variety of issues ranging from Islam as an organizing principle of the socio-political systems to the nationalistic expressions of Islam; from Islam as a political force to Islam as an international threat – the U.S. and Islam have interacted in every possible way. Yet clouds of distrust have thickened and a sense of hostility marks mutual relations. Despite the positive rhetoric of President Obama not much has changed on the ground. Is there any approach that the U.S. can adopt for reconciliation with the followers (both nation-states and common people) of Islam? Click to continue…