Posts Tagged ‘U.S.’
Afghanistan Election Runoff - For Whom?
The runoff vote for Afghan Presidential elections has been scheduled for November 7. What is expected to emerge out of this internationally sponsored democratic exercise? Is the runoff an attempt to provide the Afghan people with a truly representative government or does the international community merely want to assert its partnership with the de jure and de facto Government of Afghanistan?
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.
Indo-US Relations: The Partnership Rhetoric Syndrome
U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s recent visit to India highlighted, more than anything else, the vision variance between the two countries. It has been proved that commitment to democracy and the rhetoric of shared vision cannot be panacea for inter-state differences. Disagreements are a part of bilateral relations but the divergence in approaches of India and the U.S. point to deeper schisms. It was a champion versus challenger duel in which the challenger is still lacking vital skills.
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…
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…
Sympathize, Empathize or Rationalize: Obama Administration’s Policy Choices in Pakistan
As the AFPAK strategy session concluded in Washington arguments for and against providing aid to Pakistan dominated the op-ed columns and the blogosphere. The U.S. cannot deprive Pakistan of essential aid because there are fears that the Country might collapse. At the same time U.S. aid will not solve most of Pakistan’s problems. So what should the Obama Administration do? Can the U.S. merely feel sorry for the state of affairs in Pakistan or should the challenges facing the Pakistan be recognized and a cooperative counter-Taliban effort be continued? Or should the U.S. rationalize in terms of delineating the respective responsibilities of the Pakistani Government and the international community? Click to continue…
Kerry-Lugar Bill: An Opportunity for Democratic Pakistan
The Kerry-Lugar Bill, presented before the Senate yesterday, seeks to apply the Afghanistan prescription suggested in Greg Mortenson’s Three Cups of Tea to Pakistan. The very title of the book is a suggestion on the best strategy to be pursued in Afghanistan: the Western style of speeding up operations doesn’t work; slowing down and building relationships would help to achieve the desired objectives. Though slowing down is not an option in Pakistan but building relationships is a viable strategy and this is what the Kerry-Lugar Bill intends to do. In the words of John Kerry, the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act (Kerry-Lugar bill) seeks to “fundamentally change America’s relationship with the people of Pakistan.”
[Photo Courtesy: Boston Globe, May 5, 2009]
The most important element of the proposed bill is the repeated reference to the ‘people of Pakistan’. U.S. commitment to the needs of Pakistani people is proposed to go beyond the fluctuating government to government relationship. The people of Pakistan cannot be punished for the inability of their Government to optimally utilize U.S. military aid to counter terrorism. The justification for reducing and conditioning military aid to Pakistan is as strong as the rationale for increasing non-military aid to the country. Click to continue…
Pakistan Beyond ‘AFPAK’
The Obama Administration before taking office was well aware that Pakistan would be the most compelling threat for the U.S, foreign policy in the coming days. President Obama’s AFPAK strategy was presented as an attempt to restructure America’s approach in dealing with the Al-qaeda- Taliban challenge. In terms of strategy and approach President Obama’s Pakistan policy appears sound, but it needs to be realized that the nature and degree of crisis confronting Pakistan is yet to be fully grasped. The greatest test for the Obama Presidency will not be to deal with the Taliban threat but to fully comprehend the Pakistan challenge. Click to continue…
Ambassador Husain Haqqani on “How Pakistan is Countering the Taliban”
Pakistan’s Ambassador to the Unites States Mr. Husain Haqqani has defended Pakistan’s Taliban strategy in the WSJ today.
Mr. Haqqani has excelled in the performance of his duties as Pakistan’s top diplomat in the U.S.; he has presented elaborate arguments rationalizing the recent policy decisions of Pakistani government vis-à-vis the Taliban. Even though I appreciate Mr. Haqqani’s diplomatic skills I strongly disagree with him. Certain claims made by Mr. Haqqani in his submission are faulty and biased:
According to Mr. Haqqani the panicked reactions of the type witnessed in the U.S. media over the last few weeks — after the Taliban drove into Buner, a town 60 miles north of the capital Islamabad — are not conducive to strengthening Pakistani democracy or to developing an effective counterterrorism policy for Pakistan. The panicked media reactions were not confined to the U.S. alone. The Pakistani media was equally rather more apprehensive of the Taliban’s entry into Buner. The scenes of a little boy selling newspapers on the streets of Lahore while shouting out the headlines as ‘Taliban have entered Islamabad’ reflected the anxiety and fear in the Pakistani media. Moreover, Mr. Haqanni needs to realize that counter-terrorism policy is based on empirical data and critical evaluations rather than merely media reports. Click to continue…