No other American president in modern memory has faced a learning curve as steep as the one Barack Obama has encountered. Three years ago in April, 2006, the Dow Jones Industrial Average traded between 11,017 and 11,468.
It wasn’t until 18 months later in October, 2007 that the Dow Jones averages peaked at 14,269 and began the downward spiral with a 55 per cent drop to 6,443 on March 6, 2009. By the time he took office, America’s financial industry was in chaos, credit markets were frozen, housing values were plummeting and the economy was in its worst contraction since the Great Depression. Add to that Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and you get an extraordinary set of challenges.
And yet, by most measures, President Obama’s first 100 days have been successful. The economy remains weak, of course, but he has put forward a series of initiatives to stabilise the capital and housing markets, proposed longer-term programmes to create sustained growth, adjusted America’s military priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq, and begun a process of reaching out to the world and changing America’s image. These are only overtures, and naturally much will depend on how things turn out — in the economy, in Pakistan, in Iraq. But so far, any president would be envious of Obama’s accomplishments.
FULL ARTICLE
Showing posts with label UAE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UAE. Show all posts
10 May 2009
30 April 2009
After the First 100 Days (UAE)
Analysts and experts usually analyze the performance of any newly elected president hundred days after he assumes power. They believe that this period is enough to assess his performance, as it allows him to draw his agenda, choose his aides, and review the proposed dossiers at the domestic and foreign fronts.
Attention is currently shifting, in an unprecedented manner, to President Obama who has completed the first hundred days of his tenure. This is because Obama's personality is exciting and worth analyzing, while his policies influence all the hot files in the world.
At the personal level, the Afro-American president of the United States still enjoys a dominant popularity, supported by his continued appearance in the media and direct communication with millions of Americans who volunteered in his electoral campaign. This popularity is also strengthened by his wife Michele. Together, they constitute the couple that was the most admired and appreciated in the White House ever since late President John Kennedy.
FULL ARTICLE
Attention is currently shifting, in an unprecedented manner, to President Obama who has completed the first hundred days of his tenure. This is because Obama's personality is exciting and worth analyzing, while his policies influence all the hot files in the world.
At the personal level, the Afro-American president of the United States still enjoys a dominant popularity, supported by his continued appearance in the media and direct communication with millions of Americans who volunteered in his electoral campaign. This popularity is also strengthened by his wife Michele. Together, they constitute the couple that was the most admired and appreciated in the White House ever since late President John Kennedy.
FULL ARTICLE
17 April 2009
World is Waiting, Mr Obama! (UAE)
A rather perceptive colleague is tired of my endless adulation for Barack Obama. Every time I talk about him, she rolls her eyes to point out all that America’s new president has done is talk, talk and talk. There are no actions to back up his rhetoric.
She accuses me of ‘betraying the cause’ when she sees my repugnance of George W Bush give way to hopeless admiration for his successor. And I ask her to pit Obama against W. and see the difference. I ask her to imagine the alternate scenario if the Americans had NOT voted for Obama.
We would be stuck with John McCain today, the 72-year old warhorse from Bush’s party who talked of staying in Iraq and Afghanistan forever and promise to ‘bomb-bomb’ Iran.
Obama may not have produced any pigeons out of his hat yet. But look at what he has already set out to do. It gives you real hope about the ‘change we can.’ Next week, he will be completing three months in office. These have been perhaps the most eventful and epoch-making twelve weeks of any leader in the US history with implications that go far beyond America’s borders.
FULL ARTICLE
She accuses me of ‘betraying the cause’ when she sees my repugnance of George W Bush give way to hopeless admiration for his successor. And I ask her to pit Obama against W. and see the difference. I ask her to imagine the alternate scenario if the Americans had NOT voted for Obama.
We would be stuck with John McCain today, the 72-year old warhorse from Bush’s party who talked of staying in Iraq and Afghanistan forever and promise to ‘bomb-bomb’ Iran.
Obama may not have produced any pigeons out of his hat yet. But look at what he has already set out to do. It gives you real hope about the ‘change we can.’ Next week, he will be completing three months in office. These have been perhaps the most eventful and epoch-making twelve weeks of any leader in the US history with implications that go far beyond America’s borders.
FULL ARTICLE
25 March 2009
Pakistan's Major Threat: U.S. Ignorance (UAE)
U.S. ignorance regarding the ground realities of Pakistan is a source of major threat to Pakistan, both in terms of its internal dynamics and external security concerns. Taking the internal dynamics first, there were the crude U.S. interventions during the nation's reassertion of its self in the context of the long march and the demand for the restoration of the constitutional chief justice – with members of the U.S. Administration trying to bulldoze the opposition political leaders into abandoning the march to Islamabad and into making unholy compromises with their present favorite Pakistani – President Zardari. It is a testimony to the Pakistani people that the U.S. failed in its nefarious designs and at the end of the day had to make conciliatory statements regarding the restoration of Chief Justice Chaudhry. But imperial hubris could not resist sending the CIA chief to Islamabad to coincide with the CJP's date of restoration of office.
FULL ARTICLE
FULL ARTICLE
12 March 2009
Obama’s Climate Strategy (UAE)
For a decade now, the deadlock between the United States and China on how to deal with global warming has crippled the effort to make an effective international treaty. It’s why the 1997 Kyoto accord was such a botched job: with the U.S. refusing to sign and China under no obligation to control its greenhouse gas emissions, over 40 percent of the world’s total emissions were excluded from the treaty.
The U.S.-Chinese quarrel could have the same poisonous effect on the attempt to negotiate a replacement treaty in Copenhagen by the end of this year, so Washington and Beijing need to sort out their differences first. This can only be settled at the highest level, and there isn’t much time left, so what is needed is a summit meeting between the two countries to make the deal.
FULL ARTICLE
The U.S.-Chinese quarrel could have the same poisonous effect on the attempt to negotiate a replacement treaty in Copenhagen by the end of this year, so Washington and Beijing need to sort out their differences first. This can only be settled at the highest level, and there isn’t much time left, so what is needed is a summit meeting between the two countries to make the deal.
FULL ARTICLE
04 March 2009
The Battle for Obama’s Ear on Iran (UAE)
A week is a long time in Washington, especially for the influential Israel lobby. Last Monday it had cause to celebrate the appointment of one of its favorite sons, Dennis Ross, as the State Department’s point-man on Iran. But on Friday came the announcement that Charles Freeman is to be President Obama’s National Intelligence Council chairman – the super spook who distils the gleanings of America’s 16 different intelligence agencies into the authoritative National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) that guide U.S. policy.
NIEs were key to the Bush administration’s case for war with Iraq, and the Iran NIE has become a fierce battleground between the traditional intelligence establishment and the neoconservatives and Israel lobby, who were furious when the 2007 NIE suggested that Iran was not currently engaged in nuclear weapons work. Israel and its supporters peddle alarmist views of Iran’s nuclear activities, not bothering to distinguish between developments that would give Iran the means to pursue nuclear weapons and the actual pursuit of such weapons (the international and U.S. intelligence consensus is that Iran has not yet taken a decision to build nuclear weapons; the concern is its nuclear energy infrastructure puts such weapons within reach).
FULL ARTICLE
NIEs were key to the Bush administration’s case for war with Iraq, and the Iran NIE has become a fierce battleground between the traditional intelligence establishment and the neoconservatives and Israel lobby, who were furious when the 2007 NIE suggested that Iran was not currently engaged in nuclear weapons work. Israel and its supporters peddle alarmist views of Iran’s nuclear activities, not bothering to distinguish between developments that would give Iran the means to pursue nuclear weapons and the actual pursuit of such weapons (the international and U.S. intelligence consensus is that Iran has not yet taken a decision to build nuclear weapons; the concern is its nuclear energy infrastructure puts such weapons within reach).
FULL ARTICLE
03 March 2009
The Way Forward in Afghanistan (UAE)
In its first weeks in office, the Obama administration has made two major decisions regarding Afghanistan.
American combat forces have been increased by 50 per cent, and a distinguished ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, has been appointed as presidential representative to what has been designated as the AFPAK region (implying that Afghanistan and Pakistan are being treated as a single geopolitical unit). But the outcome will depend on the strategy with which we will face the inevitable complexities. The central Islamist challenge has moved to the mountainous Pashtun tribal area along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where sanctuaries on the Pakistan side of the border supply and train the assault on Afghanistan and the allied forces assisting it.
No guerrilla war has ever been won in the face of sanctuaries immune to attack. The administration is therefore right in dealing with it as a single problem. But it is also the case that the sanctuaries exist less by the design of the Pakistan government than by its political and military inability to control the territory along the Afghan border, which has never been under civil administration - even during British rule.
The Obama administration faces dilemmas familiar to several of its predecessors. America cannot withdraw now, but neither can it sustain the strategy that brought us to this point.
FULL ARTICLE
American combat forces have been increased by 50 per cent, and a distinguished ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, has been appointed as presidential representative to what has been designated as the AFPAK region (implying that Afghanistan and Pakistan are being treated as a single geopolitical unit). But the outcome will depend on the strategy with which we will face the inevitable complexities. The central Islamist challenge has moved to the mountainous Pashtun tribal area along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where sanctuaries on the Pakistan side of the border supply and train the assault on Afghanistan and the allied forces assisting it.
No guerrilla war has ever been won in the face of sanctuaries immune to attack. The administration is therefore right in dealing with it as a single problem. But it is also the case that the sanctuaries exist less by the design of the Pakistan government than by its political and military inability to control the territory along the Afghan border, which has never been under civil administration - even during British rule.
The Obama administration faces dilemmas familiar to several of its predecessors. America cannot withdraw now, but neither can it sustain the strategy that brought us to this point.
FULL ARTICLE
13 February 2009
A Divided Vote in Israel and US (UAE)
Israel’s elections have thrown up a divided verdict with no clear winner in sight. Both Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the prime ministerial hopeful of the governing Kadima Party, and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud have claimed victory.
However, none of them appears to have the magic number that would take them past the post.
Even though Livni’s Kadima Party has a slight edge over Likud in numbers, it’s Netanyahu who is likely to come out top of the heap and form the government with the help of the Yisrael Beytenu party of Avigdor Lieberman. In fact, if there’s a clear winner of this unclear electoral outcome, it’s Lieberman who has emerged as the kingmaker with his 15 seats in the Knesset, even ahead of Defence Minister Ehud Barak’s Labour party.
Which is bad news for the so-called Middle East peace process. Because both Netanyahu and Lieberman have long been known for their rabid views and posturing on peace with the Palestinians as well as relations with other Arab and Muslim neighbours. If Netanyahu has repeatedly promised bombing of Iran, Lieberman is known for his calls to abduct and assassinate Hamas leaders and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Let’s hope, however, better sense will prevail once these hawks are in power. The exigencies and demands of power should hopefully see more reasonable and responsible behaviour by Israel’s new leaders. The Palestinians and Arabs have no option but prepare themselves to deal with the incoming Israeli leadership. Even though there’s little hope that there will be any real and meaningful progress in the peace process under the incoming regime in Israel, the Palestinians and Arab leaders must continue to press US President Barack Obama to keep his promises on the Middle East.
FULL ARTICLE
However, none of them appears to have the magic number that would take them past the post.
Even though Livni’s Kadima Party has a slight edge over Likud in numbers, it’s Netanyahu who is likely to come out top of the heap and form the government with the help of the Yisrael Beytenu party of Avigdor Lieberman. In fact, if there’s a clear winner of this unclear electoral outcome, it’s Lieberman who has emerged as the kingmaker with his 15 seats in the Knesset, even ahead of Defence Minister Ehud Barak’s Labour party.
Which is bad news for the so-called Middle East peace process. Because both Netanyahu and Lieberman have long been known for their rabid views and posturing on peace with the Palestinians as well as relations with other Arab and Muslim neighbours. If Netanyahu has repeatedly promised bombing of Iran, Lieberman is known for his calls to abduct and assassinate Hamas leaders and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Let’s hope, however, better sense will prevail once these hawks are in power. The exigencies and demands of power should hopefully see more reasonable and responsible behaviour by Israel’s new leaders. The Palestinians and Arabs have no option but prepare themselves to deal with the incoming Israeli leadership. Even though there’s little hope that there will be any real and meaningful progress in the peace process under the incoming regime in Israel, the Palestinians and Arab leaders must continue to press US President Barack Obama to keep his promises on the Middle East.
FULL ARTICLE
08 February 2009
Showdown with Iran (UAE)
President Barack Obama’s administration has lost little time in announcing that it will seek direct talks with the Iranian government.
This means, at the very least, a tough confrontation over Iran’s quest for a regional strategic advantage in the form of a nuclear weapon. There is more at stake here than coming up with the right set of incentives and threats to change the Iranians’ minds. Rather, the time has come to approach the nuclear question in its full regional context rather than piecemeal and operationally.
The entire world knows the risk posed by a nuclear Iran: a drastically altered balance of power in the Middle East and Central Asia, with Iran able to exert far more regional leverage – both overt and implicit — than it now possesses in pursuit of its interests.
Moreover, nearby states are likely to launch or further their own nuclear programmes in response, leading to a protracted nuclear arms race in one of world’s most volatile regions. It is not in the interest of the US or Europe for any of the states at the head of the list – Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Algeria — to have its own nuclear weapons capability.
While neither outcome is certain, each remains likely. There is considerable domestic pressure in each of these countries — as there has been in Israel and Pakistan, currently the region’s only nuclear states — to secure the presumed benefits in power and prestige of possessing nuclear weapons.
Such pressure is magnified when rivals and neighbours are perceived to have any kind of strategic advantage.
Yet each of the region’s states has important security concerns and vulnerabilities. Iran, a multiethnic state whose rulers have struggled to advance national cohesion, is no different.
FULL ARTICLE
This means, at the very least, a tough confrontation over Iran’s quest for a regional strategic advantage in the form of a nuclear weapon. There is more at stake here than coming up with the right set of incentives and threats to change the Iranians’ minds. Rather, the time has come to approach the nuclear question in its full regional context rather than piecemeal and operationally.The entire world knows the risk posed by a nuclear Iran: a drastically altered balance of power in the Middle East and Central Asia, with Iran able to exert far more regional leverage – both overt and implicit — than it now possesses in pursuit of its interests.
Moreover, nearby states are likely to launch or further their own nuclear programmes in response, leading to a protracted nuclear arms race in one of world’s most volatile regions. It is not in the interest of the US or Europe for any of the states at the head of the list – Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Algeria — to have its own nuclear weapons capability.
While neither outcome is certain, each remains likely. There is considerable domestic pressure in each of these countries — as there has been in Israel and Pakistan, currently the region’s only nuclear states — to secure the presumed benefits in power and prestige of possessing nuclear weapons.
Such pressure is magnified when rivals and neighbours are perceived to have any kind of strategic advantage.
Yet each of the region’s states has important security concerns and vulnerabilities. Iran, a multiethnic state whose rulers have struggled to advance national cohesion, is no different.
FULL ARTICLE
05 February 2009
Unclenching Fist in Iran and Syria (Khaleej Times, UAE)
In an interesting development, the White House has sought to distance itself from reports that some advisers to President Barack Obama had held ‘discreet’ talks with ‘very, very top’ Syrian and Iranian officials during his transition.
In fact, some of those talks were reportedly held even before Obama’s election on November 4. The talks were held with Syrian President Bashar Al Assad in Damascus and included Ellen Laipson, a former White House adviser and a member of the Obama transition team. That meeting took place as recently as January 11.
More important, some nuclear non-proliferation experts have had contacts in the last few months with top Iranian leadership. Now the White House spokesperson insists Obama had made it clear to his team of advisers that there would be no contacts with foreign governments. This however does not change the fact that the incoming president had indeed initiated or sanctioned engagement with Teheran and Damascus.
In fact, we see no reason why the Obama administration should get defensive about establishing direct contacts with the two countries that have been at loggerheads with the US for the past several years. The US friction with these two countries has dangerously destabilised the entire neighbourhood. As if the US didn’t have enough problems with Iran, the Bush administration managed to alienate Syria, forcing it into the welcoming arms of the Iranians. This policy had not been inspired by the US national interest but under pressure from Israel. Which is why all Syrian efforts to patch up with Washington ran into a blind wall. The hostility to Iran was also largely driven by the Israeli factor, rather than by mutual US-Iran interests.
FULL ARTICLE
In fact, some of those talks were reportedly held even before Obama’s election on November 4. The talks were held with Syrian President Bashar Al Assad in Damascus and included Ellen Laipson, a former White House adviser and a member of the Obama transition team. That meeting took place as recently as January 11.
More important, some nuclear non-proliferation experts have had contacts in the last few months with top Iranian leadership. Now the White House spokesperson insists Obama had made it clear to his team of advisers that there would be no contacts with foreign governments. This however does not change the fact that the incoming president had indeed initiated or sanctioned engagement with Teheran and Damascus.
In fact, we see no reason why the Obama administration should get defensive about establishing direct contacts with the two countries that have been at loggerheads with the US for the past several years. The US friction with these two countries has dangerously destabilised the entire neighbourhood. As if the US didn’t have enough problems with Iran, the Bush administration managed to alienate Syria, forcing it into the welcoming arms of the Iranians. This policy had not been inspired by the US national interest but under pressure from Israel. Which is why all Syrian efforts to patch up with Washington ran into a blind wall. The hostility to Iran was also largely driven by the Israeli factor, rather than by mutual US-Iran interests.
FULL ARTICLE
30 January 2009
Iran Cleric: "Don’t repeat Bush’s warnings" (Khaleej Times, UAE)
TEHRAN - An influential Iranian cleric criticized the new U.S. administration on Friday for signaling that it reserved all its options, ranging from diplomacy to military action, to pressure Iran over its nuclear program.
But Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, a former president, also held out the prospect that if U.S. President Barack Obama changed Washington’s approach towards Iran’s disputed nuclear plans the Islamic Republic would cooperate with it in the Middle East.
Obama’s administration has said he would break from his predecessor by pursuing direct talks with Tehran but has also warned Iran to expect more pressure if it did not meet the U.N. Security Council demand to halt nuclear uranium enrichment.
Iran has repeatedly refused to halt atomic activities which the West suspects are aimed at making bombs but which Tehran says are to generate electricity so that it can export more oil.
“We have this expectation that you (the United States) take a fair and wise step so that Iran’s (nuclear) rights would not be violated,” Rafsanjani told worshipers at Friday prayers.
If that happens, the United States “would be able to help the people of this region with the companionship and cooperation of Iran so that we solve the region’s problems”, he said in the sermon at Tehran University broadcast live on state radio.
FULL ARTICLE
But Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, a former president, also held out the prospect that if U.S. President Barack Obama changed Washington’s approach towards Iran’s disputed nuclear plans the Islamic Republic would cooperate with it in the Middle East.
Obama’s administration has said he would break from his predecessor by pursuing direct talks with Tehran but has also warned Iran to expect more pressure if it did not meet the U.N. Security Council demand to halt nuclear uranium enrichment.
Iran has repeatedly refused to halt atomic activities which the West suspects are aimed at making bombs but which Tehran says are to generate electricity so that it can export more oil.
“We have this expectation that you (the United States) take a fair and wise step so that Iran’s (nuclear) rights would not be violated,” Rafsanjani told worshipers at Friday prayers.
If that happens, the United States “would be able to help the people of this region with the companionship and cooperation of Iran so that we solve the region’s problems”, he said in the sermon at Tehran University broadcast live on state radio.
FULL ARTICLE
Indonesia Muslims Stage Obama Protest (Khaleej Times, UAE)
JAKARTA - About a hundred Indonesians from a hardline Muslim group rallied outside the U.S. embassy in Jakarta on Friday, some criticising U.S. President Barack Obama over suspected U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan.
‘Obama has promised maintaining a mutual respect with the Muslim world but the position that the U.S. shows when it attacks Pakistan and Afghanistan means it has not changed,’ said Heru Binawan, head of the Jakarta branch of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia.
While there is a radical fringe, most Indonesian Muslims follow a moderate form of Islam. There is also a lot of pride in Indonesia over the four years Obama spent in Jakarta as child. The suspected U.S. missiles were fired into Pakistan last week, killing at least 14 people. It was the first strike since Obama took office.
Some of the protesters from the Muslim group Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia also held banners saying ‘Obama is similar to Bush’. Indonesia has been a key ally in the U.S.-led ‘war on terror’ and looks to America for trade and investment. But many of President George W. Bush's policies, especially in the Middle East, have been unpopular in the predominantly Muslim nation.
LINK BACK
‘Obama has promised maintaining a mutual respect with the Muslim world but the position that the U.S. shows when it attacks Pakistan and Afghanistan means it has not changed,’ said Heru Binawan, head of the Jakarta branch of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia.
While there is a radical fringe, most Indonesian Muslims follow a moderate form of Islam. There is also a lot of pride in Indonesia over the four years Obama spent in Jakarta as child. The suspected U.S. missiles were fired into Pakistan last week, killing at least 14 people. It was the first strike since Obama took office.
Some of the protesters from the Muslim group Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia also held banners saying ‘Obama is similar to Bush’. Indonesia has been a key ally in the U.S.-led ‘war on terror’ and looks to America for trade and investment. But many of President George W. Bush's policies, especially in the Middle East, have been unpopular in the predominantly Muslim nation.
LINK BACK
26 January 2009
OP-ED: Obama's First Right Step on Gitmo (Khaleej Times, UAE)
President Barack Obama did the right thing by closing the US prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, though he allowed a year for the process.
Obama ordered CIA’s network of secret, or ‘black,’ prisons closed, and torture to cease, ending one of the worst stains on America’s honour and a grave violation of international and US law.
The US conquered Cuba in the 1898 Spanish American War. Washington then installed a US citizen as president who granted Washington base rights to Guantanamo in perpetuity.
The US imposed a similar one-sided treaty on Panama. A century later, the US made a similar base deal in Afghanistan and perhaps in Iraq.
Obama should return the entire US base at Guantanamo to Cuba. This would be an excellent start to restoring US-Cuban relations.
President Obama’s next step in returning America to its senses: ending use of the propaganda terms, ‘terrorism,’ and ‘war on terror.’
FULL ARTICLE
Obama ordered CIA’s network of secret, or ‘black,’ prisons closed, and torture to cease, ending one of the worst stains on America’s honour and a grave violation of international and US law.
The US conquered Cuba in the 1898 Spanish American War. Washington then installed a US citizen as president who granted Washington base rights to Guantanamo in perpetuity.
The US imposed a similar one-sided treaty on Panama. A century later, the US made a similar base deal in Afghanistan and perhaps in Iraq.
Obama should return the entire US base at Guantanamo to Cuba. This would be an excellent start to restoring US-Cuban relations.
President Obama’s next step in returning America to its senses: ending use of the propaganda terms, ‘terrorism,’ and ‘war on terror.’
FULL ARTICLE
OP-ED: Hope With Care (Khaleej Times, UAE)
Foreign policy is not made in a day, much less on Inauguration Day. The smiles that broke out in Delhi when President Barack Obama cautioned Pakistan that non-military aid would be cut if it did not curb domestic terrorism were premature.
In any case, it is military aid rather than civilian aid to Islamabad which should be of more concern to Delhi, but the government in Delhi has become so dependent on the United States that it gets pleased with very little.
An inaugural speech can only be peppered with markers that will slowly be fleshed into policy. But amateurs in Delhi have rushed to judgment where professionals fear to tread.
There was an air of simulation in the bluster with which Pakistan reacted. The boys of Islamabad know a charade when they see it; they are experts in the game themselves, after all. They don’t need spectacles to read between the lines of Obama’s South Asia policy.
Obama, still brimming with the audacity of hope, has promised peace all over the world and war in one corner: Afghanistan. Pakistan is not very competent in the disbursement of peace. Its expertise lies in the dissemination of war, by declaration or proxy, on enemy territory or the land of friends.
And now of course it is fighting more than one war on its own soil. Pakistan knows that America cannot fight in Afghanistan without force, intelligence and logistical support provided by Pakistan. As long as this material situation does not change, America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America.
FULL ARTICLE
In any case, it is military aid rather than civilian aid to Islamabad which should be of more concern to Delhi, but the government in Delhi has become so dependent on the United States that it gets pleased with very little.
An inaugural speech can only be peppered with markers that will slowly be fleshed into policy. But amateurs in Delhi have rushed to judgment where professionals fear to tread.
There was an air of simulation in the bluster with which Pakistan reacted. The boys of Islamabad know a charade when they see it; they are experts in the game themselves, after all. They don’t need spectacles to read between the lines of Obama’s South Asia policy.
Obama, still brimming with the audacity of hope, has promised peace all over the world and war in one corner: Afghanistan. Pakistan is not very competent in the disbursement of peace. Its expertise lies in the dissemination of war, by declaration or proxy, on enemy territory or the land of friends.
And now of course it is fighting more than one war on its own soil. Pakistan knows that America cannot fight in Afghanistan without force, intelligence and logistical support provided by Pakistan. As long as this material situation does not change, America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America.
FULL ARTICLE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
