Comment

Whither foreign policy and diplomacy

WHAT is the difference between foreign policy and diplomacy? Foreign policy is what you do; diplomacy is how you do it. A country may have an excellent foreign policy. However, no foreign policy can be effective if not buttressed by a dynamic diplomacy. I will go further: A country can have the best of diplomats, but without the right kind of foreign policy even brilliant diplomats can do precious little.

Only those countries whose foreign policy and diplomacy are in tandem can play an effective role in their sub-region, region, and neighbourhood. Larger countries, of course, can be leading players – in NAM, Commonwealth, and the U.N.

I have often said: Diplomacy does not offer salvation, it offers hope. Events, both linear and non-linear, impinge on a country’s foreign policy and diplomacy. It is the sacred duty of the managers of a country to ensure that events do not run away leaving foreign policy pundits and diplomatic czars helpless.

The 21st century in a mere eight years has given notice that it is going to be a very bumpy ride in the foreseeable future. 9/11 caught America unawares. It changed global equations. It led to the invasion and destruction of a secular, non-aligned Muslim country. Iraq is a very horrifying example of the unacceptable dictum of ‘might is right’. Diplomatic vocabulary has been altered – humanitarian intervention, benign invasion, axis of evil, and so on. These are all part of American terminology. This is Orwell’s Animal Farm made to stand on its head. Regrettably, despite a nine per cent growth, India has fallen in line. We have not commented on Iraq or Iran for many months. We are leaning over backwards to please the USA. We all desire close and harmonious relations with America, but surely not at the cost of national self-respect.

If we look at the map of the SAARC region, what we see is a melancholy scene. Our priorities are not Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Manmohan Singh’s top priority is the nuclear deal; it is also his second and third priority. The MEA’s energy is focused on the nuclear deal. Originally the N-deal was about energy; now we talk of non-proliferation and the N.P.T.

South Asia looks to India, and rightly so. The challenge before us is to ensure unity of purpose, harmony and rewarding development. We should be far more active in Afghanistan, a traditional friend of ours. What are NATO troops doing in Afghanistan? Why cannot SAARC troops be sent instead? Is it because America will not permit it? The revival of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is very worrying.

The composite dialogue with Pakistan has been all but forgotten; even civility has disappeared. In Nepal, we have taken a back seat. It was CPM leader Sitaram Yechuri who unscrambled the Nepali omelette. Nepal is our natural ally with many common ties. We could and still can play a constructive and helpful role in that country. In my judgment Nepal needs both democracy and a strictly constitutional monarchy. Unfortunately, the King has committed a series of follies. He seems to be his own worst enemy. Even now it is not too late to make His Majesty heed wise advice. He should know that the divine right of kings is a wholly outdated concept. We do not have to practice dadagiri; we need to practice diplomacy – subtle, silent, and sensible. The 1950 Treaty needs revision.

Our SAARC neighbours are apprehensive about Indian hegemony. These fears can be and should be allayed. Prime Minister I.K. Gujral did take a SAARC initiative though nothing came of it because his tenure was too short. We should be making efforts such as helping Nepal overcome her chronic reluctance to jointly harness hydropower potential.

Bangladesh also needs special attention. The current situation is so complicated and dangerous that one has to act with maximum tact and restraint. Its location on the map, its gifted people, its language should make for far closer inter-change and inter-action. The flood of Bangladesh citizens in several Indian states is a thorny fact of life. Only economic, mutually beneficial cooperation can give Bangladesh security and assure all-round development. I say this with much reluctance, but the leaders of Bangladesh have often let down her people. Synergies are needed and in plenty. Minimally the two nations can do so much in harnessing their water resources.

Sri Lanka; no serendipity. All was well till 1983, then horror struck. The Sinhala-Tamil conflict burst open. Death stalked those involved and those not involved. A prosperous island with over ten per cent annual growth was turned into a bloodbath. What happens in Sri Lanka impinges directly on the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Between 1987 and 1989 we did too much; now we are doing too little. The LTTE, a creation of V. Prabhakaran, wants Eelam. India can never agree. We cannot have a Cyprus-like situation 40 miles from our southern shore. There are five oceans in the world; only one has a name – Indian. Our inactivity has only encouraged other countries to meddle in the troubled waters of Sri Lanka.

One adamantine reality is the disappearance of the Soviet Union in 1991. The world has yet to come to terms with that upheaval. A strong and united Russia is absolutely essential for the whole world. Till recently it appeared that Russia had lost interest in the SAARC region. That is not so any longer. Similarly, China is today a global player. She has very close relations with Pakistan. We should work closely with Beijing and have a long-term strategic cooperative partnership.

At present our foreign policy lacks focus. Take for example the Iran-Pak-India gas pipeline. We seem to have lost interest in it. Why?

There exist serious political and territorial differences within SAARC. These cannot be wished away. Let’s put these aside and emphasize trade and economic cooperation. ASEAN does it well. We should take a SAARC initiative which breaks new ground. I have energy, environment and globalization in mind. Here SAARC should have a common agenda.

Will it work? Why not at least give it a resolute try.

K. Natwar Singh

 

The great game continues

AFGHANISTAN is at the gateway to South Asia, West Asia, Central Asia, Russia and China. This places it in a unique position. Over the last two centuries, imperial ambitions have been played out on its inhospitable terrain. Today, once again, we see several countries vying for influence over this landlocked country of 31 million fiercely independent people, playing out the great games of yesterday.

Afghanistan has no oil, minerals or great resources. The primary reason for countries to have a presence in Afghanistan is its strategic value. Who are the main players and what do they want?

Direct US involvement in Afghanistan is recent and a result of the events of 9/11. During the Cold War, its only interest was to contain Russian influence, which it did by providing aid to anti-communist factions. Condoleezza Rice recently recounted that so little was known about Afghanistan that White House officials after 9/11 rushed to the map to see where this little-known country was. After retaliating by attacking Afghanistan and driving out OBL, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the US objective soon shifted to security. The US discovered, like its Russian predecessors, that occupation and control over Afghanistan was not easy. Determined to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven from which terrorists could launch an attack on the US, it has focused on preventing the Islamists from regaining control of the country.

This it has done by maintaining a strong military presence in Afghanistan and helping establish a pro-US government. It continues to ensure that President Karzai, handpicked by the US, stays in power. The Bush administration has pushed its agenda of democracy and elections because it believes that this is the path to modernization and stability.

The US is keeping a wary eye on the tribal areas of Pakistan where the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other assorted jihadists have found refuge in an attempt to prevent these groups from spilling back over the border. Nonetheless, the Taliban, which has regrouped in Waziristan, has gained ground in the areas around Quetta and Helmand, challenging both the Karzai government and the US military in those areas. These developments have fuelled tension in US-Pakistan relations, with the US increasingly arguing that Pakistan has not done enough to combat terrorists within its borders.

The US has also tried to curb the escalating opium production which has grown to alarming levels. This has not only become a source of finance for a resurgent Taliban, it is compromising governance at all levels in Afghanistan. Finally, the US is trying to prevent Iran and Russia from gaining undue influence in Kabul.

Not surprisingly, with all these varied and competing objectives, the Americans remain frustrated. Six years and several tens of billions of dollars later, the US strategy for reconstruction seems hamstrung. Progress is glacial, unemployment remains astronomically high, and the government fragile. The Taliban, exploiting these weaknesses, are seeping back and the population, increasingly frustrated with the heavy handedness of US military presence, is caught in between the two.

Pakistan has always had the most to gain or lose by what unfolds in Afghanistan. It played a key role in expelling the Russians from Afghanistan. The ISI was instrumental in installing the Taliban in power and as a consequence Pakistan was by far the most influential country in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. Under the Karzai government, however, the relationship has sharply deteriorated. Karzai is pro-India and blames instability in Afghanistan’s southern region on Pakistan. Pakistan’s current, rather prickly relationship with the US has also made it more difficult to be an influential player in Kabul.

Pakistan is, however, determined to regain its influence in Afghanistan, or as officials put it, to maintain ‘strategic depth’ in the region. Because the tribal areas of Pakistan are interconnected with southern Afghanistan, any deterioration in these areas or in Kabul is viewed as a threat to Pakistan’s internal security. Pakistan views a strong presence in Afghanistan as a matter of necessity rather than choice.

It has also expressed economic interests in the area, as it wants access to markets in Central Asia. Lastly, because the Pakistanis share a long border with Afghanistan, they would like to curb the effects of the opium trade.

Pakistan has had to tread carefully as recent tensions in the US-Pakistan relationship have escalated. Meeting its objectives will depend on how this relationship plays out, as US cooperation is essential if it is to find a seat at the table in Kabul. As always for Pakistan, what India chooses to do is especially important.

Many of India’s objectives in Afghanistan mirror those of Pakistan. It seeks what its policy-makers also call ‘strategic depth’, by which they mean having a pro-India ally to its West. In part this is simply to counter its traditional enemy – Pakistan.

India is also concerned about energy security and is pursuing a gas pipeline from Iran, which would have to go through Afghanistan. A stable Afghanistan is essential for this venture to succeed. Like Pakistan, India is also interested in the markets of Central Asia.

India, like the US, would like to prevent the spread of radical Islam in the region. Its rise as the new emerging power, together with a vastly improved US relationship, has provided it with the platform it needs to extend its influence in Kabul. India has tried to exploit the pro-Indian sentiments of Karzai and the US, and deepen ties between the three countries by providing aid to Afghanistan. It is investing in reconstruction and infrastructure development projects, opening banks and NGOs.

Iran has an enormous stake in Afghanistan. The ties between the two countries go back centuries to a time when parts of Afghanistan were part of Iran. Iran’s primary concern is its own security. Despite having cooperated with the US at the start of the invasion, it was placed in the ‘Axis of Evil’. The US has also threatened to use force against Iran. Understandably, Iran feels intimidated by the US, especially by the Bush administration. It faces 160,000 US troops to its West in Iraq, and a further US military presence in Afghanistan to its East.

Iran also sees itself as the leader and protector of the Shia community. Historically, it has been against the Taliban regime. In this regard it shares a common interest with the US. However, in an effort to destabilize the US, it is now supporting the Taliban, acting on the theory that the enemy of your enemy is a friend.

The Iranian strategy in Afghanistan is, therefore, somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand it has poured aid money into the country in order to win over the people: building roads, schools and providing social services. At the same time, it has begun to support insurgent groups within Afghanistan that are trying to destabilize the current regime.

Russia was badly defeated in Afghanistan in a long, costly and unpopular war. Nevertheless, under Putin, Russia has tried to re-establish itself as a major player in world politics and would like to restore its influence in the region and recover its prestige. It is especially troubled by a permanent US military presence on its southern border. The Russians see the US as making many of the same mistakes they did and are happy to gain diplomatically at US expense.

Although China maintains a somewhat remote stance, its primary interest is to ensure that it faces no problems from its secessionist Muslim populations. Uighurs from western China have often fled to Afghanistan for asylum and to drum up support for their movement. The Chinese also have strong economic interests in Central Asia and view stability in Afghanistan as important for regional growth.

The question of who can exert the most influence in Kabul and gain the most will be determined by several factors. Democracy and Karzai’s government remain fragile. The jury is still out on whether democracy will bring stability that will endure long enough for these objectives to be met. A lot will depend on the level and length of the US commitment to the country.

The countries with the closest ties to the US are currently the beneficiaries. If the Karzai government teeters or worse, does not survive, then the countries he favours and the position of the US in Afghanistan could easily be reversed.

Meenakshi Ahamed