Important Articles Relating US Policies and Relations

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

America's Purpose and Role In A Changed World

Public opinion reports on Americans' attitudes toward foreign policy sketch a picture of retrenchment, war-weariness, and scepticism toward global engagement, even as there is also a growing concern that the world is increasingly becoming unstable and dangerous. Nothing about this picture is new or controversial. Some may worry about it more than others, but it is now commonly accepted that the US is downsizing its international role, and that the administration, the Congress, and the general public are more absorbed with domestic concerns than with foreign challenges or threats.


The fact that the US is turning inward in the aftermath of the Bush administration's expansive foreign policy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is hardly surprising. The main message of Maximalist, Stephen Sestanovich's new history of American foreign policy since the Truman era, is that the shift from a “maximalist” policy to one of retrenchment and back again is par for the course. Eisenhower followed a policy of “scaling back from overextension” after the Korean War, just as Nixon adopted a “retrenchment strategy that would enable the United States to regain its balance” after Vietnam. Kennedy displayed a “confident readiness to act” and to bear the burdens of leadership after what he called “eight years of drugged and fitful sleep,” just as Reagan “brought a new maximalist edge to the East-West competition” following the malaise of the Carter years.

One important question the Americans face today, however, is whether the current policy of retrenchment is a standard correction after a period of maximalism, or something else. Sestanovich notes that for a number of reasons, “the retrenchment [currently] under way in American foreign policy may turn out to be different” from those of the past. He writes that “the emblematic foreign policy choice” of President Obama's first term was his imposition of a time limit on the surge in Afghanistan in 2009, a move that “took a consensus in favour of incremental adjustments to America's global role and pushed it toward a more thorough-going transformation.” A similar message was sent when the president rejected a plan prepared by his top advisors to aid the Syrian opposition.

Pressures for a course adjustment are already building; a process that could be accelerated by the Russian intervention in Ukraine. But public attitudes and resource constraints will probably prevent any administration from swinging too far in the opposite direction. An expansive maximalist policy would risk making commitments that exceed America's power and resources, and in any event it is not what is needed to achieve balance between realism—meaning the defence of their critical national interests—and idealism—meaning the advance of democracy and freedom in the world. What's needed to achieve such a balance is political will and strategic vision in meeting the three interrelated challenges of supporting freedom, defending the national security, and restoring America's economic health.

The first challenge involves making it clear that America will do whatever it can to support people fighting for fundamental rights. For many reasons, democracy is seen to be on the defensive today. Authoritarian states are pushing back aggressively against groups working for greater democracy, the turmoil in the Middle East has destroyed the early promise of the Arab Spring, and China's growing economic and military power has altered the balance of forces in the world at a time when the US and many European countries have entered a period of economic and political malaise.

In fact, though, the prospect for democracy in the world is actually much more promising than it appears, and there are opportunities for progress in the years ahead that could be encouraged by a more forward-leaning policy. Despite the recent problems, for instance, the much-anticipated reversal of the “third wave” of democratic expansion of the 1980s and early 1990s has not occurred. The number of electoral democracies now stands at one hundred and twenty-two countries, just one below the high-water mark of one hundred and twenty-three reached in 2005 and four more than in 2012. It also appears that Tunisia could become the first Arab democracy, a beachhead in the region of the world most resistant to democratic change. In addition, movements for civic renewal have emerged in some of the grimmest political environments. In contrast to the hope for change that these movements embody, the violence and repression used against them expose the insecurity of authoritarian regimes.

The road ahead for such reform movements will be long and very difficult one, but they are a natural by-product of a world in which people have more access to information. The challenge for the United States is to help create the conditions that will allow such movements to survive and to grow. Institutions already exist to provide them with material and technical assistance. Today, American leadership must make it clearer than they have that supporting people fighting for democratic values is not an afterthought but a core element of America's national policy; and that America will use diplomacy and other instruments of policy to protect democratic movements.

Committing to preserving US leadership in the world is, therefore, the second major challenge for the US policy-makers. This is not an expression of American arrogance or a reckless form of overreaching. Rather, it is the recognition of a fundamental geopolitical reality. “A world without US primacy,” Samuel Huntington once wrote, “will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic growth than a world where the United States continues to have more influence than any other country in shaping global affairs.” The urgent challenge now is for the US to exercise leadership in a convincing manner so that the vacuum is not filled by hostile powers or by chaos and violence.

But continued US primacy is simply not possible unless the US addresses a third critical challenge: to bring the spiralling US public debt under control. Over the last decade, the gross federal debt has nearly tripled to more than $17 trillion and now exceeds the total national GDP. While there are many reasons for the continuing surge in public debt, the principal factor has been the growth of entitlement spending, which has gone from less than one-third of the federal budget a half-century ago to more than two-thirds today. In the words of Robert J. Samuelson, “The welfare state is taking over government.” Other priorities are steadily being squeezed, from investment in infrastructure and human capital to international programmes and even defence spending, which is expected to shrink by forty per cent over the next decade. Unless America can summon the political will and bipartisan consensus to reverse the domestic decline, no amount of strategic vision will enable the US to exercise the kind of leadership that it aspires to.

The challenge the US faces today is as great as any in American history. The national security of the US and the values the Americans cherish, in addition to the future of democracy in the world, rest on Americans' ability to rise to this occasion.

Courtesy: World Affairs
Foreign Writer

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

AMERICA'S ADDICTION TO WAR

[I]They can't help themselves. Whatever the situation, the reaction of US policymakers is more war. Weak economy? War will get things going. Strong economy? Military spending will cool it off. Two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) finally winding down? Time to ramp up secret arms sales to a pair of pipsqueak insurgencies (Libya and Syria). Other superpowers love militarism. But only the United States would send troops, rather than aid workers, to people devastated by natural disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes … even within the US.



As Joel Andreas puts it, American politicians are addicted to war. And those who identify with the antiwar left are like an addict's long-suffering spouse, trapped in a dysfunctional relationship where we enable the militarism we claim to deplore. The ruling elite's addiction to militarism is fully visible in President Obama's announcement of plans to re-invade Iraq. He's starting small, with a few hundred military advisers and probably airstrikes via the precise, never-fails, cares-so-much-about-civilians technology of drones. Sending a few hundred military advisers was, of course, how JFK initiated America's involvement in the Vietnam War.

But we've already been through all that in Iraq. We invaded. We propped up a wildly unpopular pro-US puppet regime. We fought. We lost and lost big. We withdrew. Now our pet autocracy is collapsing.

Twenty or so years later, we come back and invade the right way as obnoxious tourists and predatory sneaker company executives.

What's up with Obama? Why is he treating Iraq like it's Vietnam in 1962 as though this were one of those hey, let's just send a little help and see what happens affairs as in no way, no how will “combat troops” go in again, unless they do? Even by presidential standards, Obama's behaviour is bizarre. Somewhere in the multi-verse there must be one version of this story in which a half-dozen Cabinet members, steeled in their resolve by the support of the Secret Service, rush into the Oval Office and bundle the president off to an institution that can give him the treatment he seems to require.

Alas, we live here. In this country, the President's re-invasion of Iraq is supported by 320 million enablers not least of whom is the media. It's not just the sickening worship of all things soldierly, as when so-called journalists say “thank you for your service” to armchair generals who will never be on the wrong end of a shot fired in anger. The media drowns us in so much misinformation that it's impossible for all but the most dedicated between-the-lines readers to come to an intelligent assessment of the facts.

Consider, for example, The New York Times. Given how often the paper has gotten burned by its pro-militarist establishmentarianism (supporting the failed right-wing coup attempt against Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not returning Edward Snowden's phone call), you'd think its editors would be reluctant to support Gulf War III. And yet, a June 17th piece bearing the headline “Your Iraq Questions, Answered,” in which Times reporters reply to readers, is illustrative.

One reader asks:

“ISIS seems to have legit online following. Is this reflective of support on the ground?”

Rod Nordland, Kabul bureau chief — but reporting from Iraq — replies:

“ISIS has a huge and very aggressive social media operation, but I don't know how anyone could characterize that as a legitimate following. I suspect a lot of their followers, clicks and retweets are voyeuristic because the material posted is so bloody and savage, and ISIS is completely unapologetic about it. Hopefully, most of their following is aghast.”

So much for any smidge of journalistic objectivity! Then things turn stupid:

“Most people in the territory ISIS controls do not seem terribly supportive of them, but they hate the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government far more, and ISIS takes pains to treat the Sunnis in their dominions with consideration at least at first. That is the central challenge that the Iraqi government faces, to convince people in ISIS-dominated areas that their government wants to include them, and has more to offer than the ISIS extremists.”

Anyone who has studied history or read Che Guevara — which you'd hope an employee of The New York Times might have done — knows that ISIL, as a guerrilla army outgunned and outmanned by the central government it seeks to overthrow, would never have gotten as far as it has without substantial support among civilians.

Even more egregious than Nordland's failure to convey this truism to Times readers is his closing combination of childlike naiveté and taking sides. Al-Maliki had been in office for eight years. If he were interested in building a pluralistic post-sectarian political coalition, rather than ruthlessly excluding all but his own Shiites from positions of influence, he would have done so by now. Even with ISIL on the road toward Baghdad, he hasn't shifted his Shiite-centric approach. With the most respected news source in the US spoon-feeding such nonsense, it's no wonder we can't break free of the militarist traps laid for Pentagon generals by defence contractors, for the president by his generals and for us by the president. When's the last time you read an uncompromising antiwar opinion on the op-ed page of a major newspaper? Have you ever seen someone completely against war interviewed on network television news even on “liberal” MSNBC? Even the state radio for the intellectual elite, NPR, rarely grants airtime to experts who oppose militarism. I'm an addict to news and I can honestly say that it's rare to see more than one antiwar talking head on TV in a year … and that's on daytime shows with low viewership. As long as the alternatives to war aren't allowed a voice, our addiction to war is safe.



Foreign Writers

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

India-US Strategic Dialogue – Not So Smooth Sailing

US Secretary of State John Kerry recently visited New Delhi to attend the 5th India-US Strategic Dialogue. During his stay, he held discussions with his counterpart Sushma Swaraj which was followed by his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This represented the first high—level contacts between the US and India since Modi became Prime Minister in May 2014. Reports on the outcome of those meetings seem to show there is still much unevenness in the equation, in spite of the rather grand rhetoric in the US ahead of the trip.



Before his departure Kerry had declared that it was a 'transformative moment' in the relationship and described India and the US both as being 'great powers' and 'great democracies.' Hailing Modi's vision, he went so far as to cite Modi's own slogan 'Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas' (together with all, development for all). This represents quite a turnaround since 2005 when Modi was a dirty word in the US State Department, and was refused a visa over alleged complicity in the 2002 Gujarat riots. After the landslide BJP victory in recent elections, however, all that changed.

The Delhi rendezvous is being seen as an ice-breaker in preparation for the Obama-Modi summit due to take place in Washington this month. But what made the news was Sushma Swaraj's statement that she had told Kerry about Indian anger over US snooping on the BJP leadership, as exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

WTO Deal Collapses

While trade and commerce took centre stage, the strategic dialogue covered a whole gamut of issues including defence, security, energy, climate change, science and technology, US nuclear plants, a US immigration bill affecting visas for Indian IT professionals and much else. But the talks were overshadowed by the collapse (in Geneva) of a landmark WTO trade pact owing to India's objections.

It appears that India refused to go along with the deal to protect its massive food security programme. Hundreds of millions of poor reportedly benefit by this scheme where grain is bought at inflated prices and sold at subsidised rates. Rich nations say it distorts trade. While India's move seems to have thrown the WTO into some disarray, Modi in his meeting with Kerry emphasised the need for developed countries to understand the challenges of poverty in developing countries and their governments' responsibilities in addressing them, when discussions take place in international forums.

In spite of the Modi Government's stated desire to open up trade, attract foreign investment, encourage technology transfer, etc. — all of which were anticipated in the US partnership — the WTO fiasco would seem to point to some mismatch in India-US equation that may be more intractable than either party cares to admit. This tension was evident under the previous regime too.

Strategic Partnership Stalled

In September last year when the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met President Obama in Washington and the two leaders endorsed a joint declaration on defence cooperation, it seemed like a high point in the US-India relationship, which was referred to as a 'strategic partnership'. But since then progress has stalled, if not deteriorated. At least three developments may be recalled, that revealed uneasiness in the India-US equation.

One was during the Ukraine crisis when Russia sent troops into Crimea. India's then National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon in his initial comments expressed the hope that Ukraine would settle its internal problems peacefully, but also made reference to 'legitimate Russian and other interests' that needed to be discussed. India signalled that it would not abandon its old friend Russia, its biggest arms supplier.

Then there was the row over the Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who was arrested and strip-searched in the US over a case of visa fraud. Delhi was outraged by the treatment of its representative and the ill feeling rankled long after Khobragade's return was negotiated.

A third instance where India's differences with the US surfaced was during the vote on the US-led resolution against Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council in March, where India abstained.

Inherent Contradictions

During the recent visit by a team of BJP ideologues who held a discussion in Colombo on aspects of foreign policy under Modi, it became clear that economic resurgence was a top priority for the new government. Modi was pledged to opening up the economy, boosting trade, creating jobs and generating incomes. It was revealed that some members of the delegation had for several years personally worked on developing better ties with the US and the West, besides China, Israel and Taiwan. It's known that US support is important for India in its bid for a permanent seat on a reformed UN Security Council. India wants Western technology as well. But the delegates also said India under Modi sought to give an 'Asian personality' to the global power structure.

Modi has demonstrated from the time he took office, that India's priority was the neighbourhood and Asia. The first signal was his unconventional move of inviting SAARC leaders to his swearing-in ceremony. His first foreign trip was to Bhutan. External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj already met her Sri Lankan counterpart in Delhi and has visited Nepal and Bangladesh. She is now set to visit Myanmar — ASEAN's chair for 2014. Another move on the international stage was signing up for the BRICS Development Bank, intended to counter global financial institutions controlled by the West. All of this seems to show that India under Modi is asserting a leadership role that is rooted in an Asian/developing countries' perspective.

How does this square with the stated desire to woo the West? Only time will tell how the apparent contradictions will play out in the longer term. For now, developments like the WTO bust up seem to indicate that 'rejecting Nehruvian socialist policies' as the BJP professes to do, is easier said than done — probably for good reasons.


Courtesy: The Sunday Times
JWT Desk

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

American Interests in Pakistan

A famous English writer and poet Walter Savage Landor once said, “We talk on principle, but we act on interest.” The undeniable reality about relations among states is their vault on interests. Interest only is the permanent thing that sets the overall goal and agenda of a country's foreign policy. With the turn of events in the international arena, a country adopts its strategy and tactics to meet its interests and achieve the foreign policy goals. Geography, economy, nature and volume of trade, political atmosphere, cultural and social values, military strength, population size and location constitute conditions for foreign policy strategy.



History of the Pak-US relations reveals that the latter has at all times used the former for its covetous interests, and when fulfilled, left the former in the lurch. This is the relationship that both partners have sustained, sometimes happily, other times not so happily.

From Pakistan's wars with India to Soviet entrance into Afghanistan, from grabbing of Kashmir to dismemberment of East Pakistan, from disintegration of USSR to devastation of 9/11, from Pakistan's nuclear tests in 1998 to America’s nuclear deal with India and in the post 9/11 'India-supportive' scenario in the region and beyond against Pakistan, from Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline to TAPI, from Silk Route to Gwadar, from economic adversity to political quandary, from peaceful Pakistan to fight against extremism and terrorism, from CSF to USAID, the US has always negatively exploited and browbeaten Pakistan.

United States has a variety of interests in Pakistan at all levels i.e. short, mid and long term. Broadly speaking, these can be divided into geostrategic interests and the protracted War on Terror. Among geostrategic interests, the US has severe reservations owing to Pakistan's inclination toward Russia, China and the SCO. American administration doesn't like better Pakistan-Russia ties. Pakistan and China have time-tested relations but the US would only bear it if American aims and interests are not put at stake. America would do anything to thwart Pakistan's joining of SCO as full member.

America has been forcing Pakistan incessantly to shun IP pipeline as it wants the country to go for TAPI project. Through this, the US wants to achieve a dual advantage. On one hand, it wants to inflict more harm to already cornered Iran — though after nuclear non-proliferation deal, the US has no lawful reasons to keep its traditional animosity with Iran — while on the other, it plans to shift Central Asian gas resources to South Asia that will not only help India rise against China but will also severely damage Russian interests in the region.

The US wants the completion of TAPI project at all costs, and at the earliest. It doesn't care if the route of TAPI is perilous and passes from the insecure areas. It is dead against Pak-China trade corridor through Silk Route as it may make other regional powers functional ergo powerful. The operations at the Gwadar Port, one of the world's deepest seaports, are still in the doldrums; despite the fact that fully functioning of this harbour can change the fate of Pakistan. The Indo-US manoeuvring or war in this region has been successfully countered by Pakistan and China but it has shattered the regional balance and peace. The emergence of China against the aspirations and designs of USA around the globe, and especially in this region, has changed the state of affairs.

The US has been chanting “do more” mantra to Pakistan. It is actually the wrapping of a comprehensive pack of American interests and benefits. By unending demand to 'do more', the US wants Pakistan to go on with the operations in its tribal areas. Other stipulations include covert permission to launch drone attacks, and a full-fledge, unconditional cooperation in the war against terror. The imminent US withdrawal from Afghanistan is impossible without Pakistan's support. At present, the US has no option but to support Pakistan because it is fully entangled in the quagmire of war against terror and the proposed withdrawal.

Pakistan has genuine, strong and rational concerns against America. First of all, America has made civil nuclear deal with India at a time when Pakistan is facing acute water and energy crises. It is also pressurizing Pakistan to go for TAPI instead of IP despite knowing that IP gas pipeline is more feasible, safer, and more result-oriented. The US knows that Pakistan and India are archrivals — Kashmir issue is still unresolved due to Indian stubbornness and hypocrisy of world powers — but America's unconditional support to India is really questionable. With American support, India has built up its presence in Afghanistan thus rendering Pakistan's Western border unsafe. American antagonism towards Gwadar port and Pak-China trade corridor is another issue of concern for Pakistan.
One thing is crystal clear that America cannot afford a destabilized Pakistan because if it happens, the extremists and militants would take over the whole region and this is totally against the American imperial designs. War on terror — which actually is war for terror — has now unfortunately become an anathema for Pakistan.

It is time for America to do more for Pakistan because it needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US. Pakistan should with sensitivity realize its position and importance without any fear and becoming marionette and satellite, and behave accordingly.


Zulqarnain Sewag

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

World Order by Henry Kissinger

The author's own orchestration of the opening of relations with China gives an extra piquancy to his views on Iran: if the US can engage with one isolated regional superpower, why not another?




No clash of civilisations or end of history – this argument for a balance of power is the summation of Kissinger's thinking

Western politicians who last year advocated bombing Syria now ask whether Damascus should be treated as a tacit ally against Islamic State. John Kerry talks of Iran as a possible partner in that war, while David Cameron meets the country's president in New York. The quote of the summer from the president of the United States was that “we don't have a strategy” on how to prevent a conflagration in the Middle East. Yet as old enmities and alliances dissolve and re form at high speed, we are having to develop one, and fast.

One person who has never lacked a strategy is the former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, now 91. However, his thoughtful new book aims not so much to advocate specific policies as to portray the shape of the world over the past 2000 years or so, with reflections on where it will go in the next 50.

The book circles much of the globe, covering India, Europe, China and the Middle East. Four specific conceptions of “order” attract most of his attention: the European system, specifically its Westphalian model of sovereign states with equal status within the system; an Islamic system based on a wider idea of an ummah, or community; a Chinese system based on traditional ideas of the Middle Kingdom as a great regional power; and the American order, finding a new purpose a century ago under Woodrow Wilson, eventually dominant across the globe, and now under unprecedented pressure.

This may sound like Samuel Huntington's idea of the “Clash of Civilizations,” but actually it is more like a bracing mixture of Metternichian pragmatism and – more unexpectedly – Edward Said's critique of “Orientalism”. Kissinger notes that when he told Chinese premier Zhou Enlai that China seemed mysterious, Zhou pointed out that China was not at all mysterious to 900 million of his compatriots. “In our time the quest for world order will require relating the perceptions of societies whose realities have largely been self-contained,” Kissinger argues. In other words, cultural (a preferable term to civilisational) aspects shape societies' worldviews, but culture is not an impermeable barrier to a wider model of order that can bring different regimes together. In that sense, this is a distinctly anti-Huntingtonian book in that it recognises the need to engage with civilisations rather than asserting the inevitability of their clashing; it also diverges from Francis Fukuyama's famous thesis about the “end of history” by arguing strongly that history and identity are central to societies’ perceptions of themselves today. Kissinger also takes on critics who accuse him of stressing realism above all other considerations, a characterisation he regards as simplistic: “idealists do not have a monopoly on moral values; realists must recognise that ideals are also part of reality.”

The book draws on a wide range of historical examples to make points about present-day issues. Unsurprisingly, Kissinger spends considerable time on the position of China in the international order, noting its central place in Asia for all but the past century or two. He characterises China's historical role in East Asia as “conceptual,” whereas that of the US is “pragmatic,” the former shaped by a long history of external attacks on its borders. Certainly the historical basis to Chinese behaviour has emerged ever more clearly in the past few years, as leaders in Beijing have expressed a desire for a prominent global influence based on longstanding ideas of China as a great power. However, there is plenty of pragmatism in Chinese behaviour, too. Today, Beijing feels that Washington is weak and that its commitment to the region is hedged; as a result, China and Japan's leaders each now claim that the other's military ambitions in the region are a reason to stockpile arms.

Kissinger uses his “adaptive cultural” thesis to criticise the nation-building project of George W. Bush in Iraq. He notes that he was supportive of the original invasion of Iraq in 2003, but expresses scepticism about the value of Bush's vision, which “proved beyond what the American public would support and what Iraqi society would accommodate”. In the end, withdrawal from Iraq resembled “Vietnamisation” in 1973-5, with equally dispiriting results. Since the book went to press, the collapse of the al-Maliki government has left Iraq on the brink of dissolution and the new government under Haider al-Abadi is dependent on the success of western air strikes to consolidate power.

The author's own orchestration of the opening of relations with China gives an extra piquancy to his views on Iran: if the US can engage with one isolated regional superpower, why not another? Yet although he gives a detailed and nuanced account of Iran's sense of its own imperial heritage over the centuries, he argues unequivocally that Tehran today is not Beijing in 1972.

The book also enables us to assess Kissinger's own era in government in historical perspective. Few would now dispute the wisdom of ending China's isolation from the “family of nations”. He reminds us of the importance of 1972-73, Nixon's high point in foreign policy (Kissinger was national security adviser, before becoming secretary of state): as well as the opening to China, this year saw the end of the American troop presence in Vietnam, détente in eastern Europe, and peace agreements in the Middle East (after an Arab-Israeli war that could have led to major conflagration). There were of course darker aspects of that era, including the bombing of North Vietnamese strongholds in Cambodia that worsened a domestic crisis and allowed the murderous Khmer Rouge to come to power, and the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile. Yet when we look back at the 1970s as an era of crisis both domestic and international, it is remarkable how much of the international politics of that decade has come out on the positive side of the ledger and how a wider crisis was averted. Kissinger notes that “nuclear weapons must not be permitted to turn into conventional arms”.

Kissinger was a key shaper of a world order that remained stable for a quarter century or more until our own post-cold war era. This urgently written book is a fine account of world order in the longue duree, and also a memorandum to future generations of policymakers that the next half-century will be no easier to manage than the most recent one.


JWT Desk

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

US-India Détente - It's the economy, stupid!

[B][I][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]While Washington has been preoccupied with a burning Middle East, Russia behaving badly and, to a lesser extent, the rise of China, US relations with India have slipped down the diplomatic priority list. In coming decades, however, enormous, unwieldy India will likely be the United States' most important continental partner in Asia. Modi, a Hindu nationalist who successfully brought economic growth to his home state of Gujarat, was elected by a landslide in May. His first state visit to the United States signified to Indians around the world that their country is back on the world stage. Their hopes are now pinned on their new prime minister and his team.



Why does India matter?

First, it is enormous and growing. Just 16 years from now, many experts believe that India will likely have inched past China to become the world's most populous country, with 1.5 billion people. By 2030, China will likely be the world's largest economy by purchasing-power parity, with the United States second and India third.

Yet the size of India's middle class is expected to surpass that of both the United States and China, due to its fast-growing population. In 2030, India alone will account for 23 per cent of middle-class spending globally (nearly $13 trillion a year!). US companies will be courting Indian customers. If the two governments can remove trade and investment barriers, America will be selling to that new, huge middle class everything from computers to cars to legal services and much more.

China will lead Asia's rising energy demand this decade, but India — again due to its fast-growing population — will surpass it in the years before 2030. Though China is now the world's largest emitter of carbon, the United States and India are close behind in this depressing league table. By some calculations, India could, by 2030 surpass China as the world's largest polluter.

In the past few years, the US-India relationship has drifted, pushed off the top of the agenda by other urgent priorities in Washington and by Delhi's hidebound inability to push through key reforms, such as improving infrastructure, rationalizing its tax system and making it easier for foreigners to invest. Modi's visit is an important opportunity to give relations a jump-start.

On Washington's long list of diplomatic agenda items with India, the most important for the Obama administration to get right is the bilateral economic relationship. Modi was elected with a mandate to revive the struggling Indian economy. If President Barack Obama can help him achieve that goal, he will build a strong and grateful partner — and create a long-term check on Beijing overstepping its power in the region.

Annual trade between the United States and India has skyrocketed, from $19 billion in 2000 to $97 billion today. But it is still tiny compared to US-Chinese bilateral trade, now nearly $600 billion.

The United States and India have repeatedly squabbled over trade. In 2008, the international trade negotiations in Doha collapsed because the two countries could not agree on the rules governing agriculture trade. They have each brought cases against the other in the World Trade Organization.

Partly as a result, India is not a part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that Washington has been promoting aggressively. Obama called the pact “a model not only for the Asia Pacific, but also for future trade agreements.” These trade differences threaten to undermine progress in the two countries' economic relationship.

The two sides can reverse the course by setting a firm deadline to complete a bilateral investment treaty in 2015. Negotiations have been languishing for years. This relatively small step on the trade agenda would give US investors renewed confidence in India.

Modi is already asking US businesses to make substantial investments — and bring sophisticated US technology — to build up India's infrastructure and other key sectors.

To convince the American private sector to invest capital, technology and best business practices in India, Modi must complete several over-due reforms: First, he must work to simplify India's legendarily complex bureaucratic procedures. His government is trying to do this, but it is too soon to see major results.

Second, he must clarify — and liberalize — restrictions on foreign investment in such key economic sectors as retail and construction, as has already been done for insurance and defence. Third, he must ensure that the tax system is fair and that contracts that have already been signed are not called into question.

If Modi can successfully tackle these internal issues, and the two countries can normalize their trade relationship, important advances can be made. Lured by a booming middle class, the US private sector would likely invest and trade more — and so help India meet its ambitious domestic growth targets. American business, in turn, would champion India's cause in Washington, leading to a stronger political partnership.

A thriving India — in partnership with the United States — would also be more able to confront the serious challenges posed by a rising China, instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, global warming and a host of other transnational issues.

Courtesy: Reuters
JWT Desk

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

US-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement

A Sinister Plan to Stay Put in Afghanistan? | On September 30, soon after the swearing-in of the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, the Bilateral Security Agreement (hereinafter BSA) between Afghanistan and the United States was signed in Kabul. The US Ambassador to Afghanistan James Cunningham and Afghan National Security Advisor Hanif Atmar signed the BSA that will ensure a US/NATO troop presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014. On the same day, Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with NATO, whose combat mission is scheduled to end this year, was also signed.



During recent months, serious concerns rose about the future of Afghanistan as uncertainty and ambiguity were galore owing to controversies regarding the presidential election and faltering economy. Nonetheless, with formation of a unity government and now with the signing of the BSA, the controversies has ended and the situation has become more optimistic. Now, there are hopes about the return of political stability and improvement in economic situation of the country.

It was just not possible till Karzai left, but the Americans have finally got the BSA There were fears that declining to sign the BSA would harm Afghan interests and could generate a power vacuum that can be filled by the insurgents. The new Afghan president and other notable leaders believe that signing of the Agreement would have a positive impact on the security situation in Afghanistan.

36.jpgIt is interesting to note that running after the Arrangement upset the Americans' withdrawal plans a couple of times and even frustrated Washington into making threats it could not follow up on. Nevertheless, it has drawn a favourable regional response, especially from Pakistan. Islamabad has done the right thing by embracing this development, despite talk of the last few years that regional peace will remain elusive as long as the occupying forces do not wrap up lock, stock and barrel.

But, along with Zarb-e-Azb, this sort of distance from 'strategic depth' posturing of the past should land Pakistan in a more respectable position vis-à-vis Afghanistan. The old charge – that Pakistan tolerates militants on home soil, if not much, much more – is a lot more difficult to stick now. Instead, Islamabad is taking the lead in the most comprehensive anti-militancy drive in the region, and the Afghans have been found wanting in terms of securing borders, apprehending militants on their side, etc. But with the security pact now in place and confusion about Kabul and Washington's role over, there is a very real possibility of all three powers finally tightening the noose around al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in both countries.

The logical sequence, therefore, is to follow US-Afghanistan convergence of interests with getting Pakistan on board, and redefining terms of cooperation in what should be the last round of fighting against AfPak insurgencies. But the diplomatic exercise should not end there. Other countries in the region, particularly Iran and China, have high stakes as well, and can play a big role not only in helping win the fight, but also in subsequent reconstruction that will be crucial. Once again the entire region stands at a crossroads. Like the fall of '01, decisions taken now will reverberate through the years. It is hoped that lessons learnt over the last decade and a half will not be lost, and the new partnership will have a better sense of priorities. Number one should be eliminating terrorism, following which economic and diplomatic linkages should be strengthened.

Things to know about the BSA

1. The BSA goes into force on January 1, 2015 and remains in force “until the end of 2024 and beyond” unless it is terminated by either side with two years' notice.

35.jpg2. The document itself does not establish how many US troops can be in Afghanistan during that time, but the US President Barack Obama announced in May that there would be only 9,800 soldiers after December 31, 2014. He also said that number would decrease rapidly by being halved at the end of 2015 and reduced to only a vestigial force by end of 2016.

3. Kabul signed a similar agreement with NATO on September 30 to allow 4,000 to 5,000 additional troops — mostly from Britain, Germany, Italy and Turkey — to stay in Afghanistan in a non-combat role after 2014.

4. The US forces' mission under the BSA is to “enhance the ability of Afghanistan to deter internal and external threats against its sovereignty.” Importantly, however, the BSA says that “unless otherwise mutually agreed, United States’ forces shall not conduct combat operations in Afghanistan.” Instead, the emphasis is upon supporting the Afghan forces, sharing intelligence, and strengthening Afghanistan's air force capabilities.

5. A special Loya Jirga (traditional grand assembly) convened by the then president Hamid Karzai to review the draft of the BSA found its language regarding soldiers entering homes acceptable and recommended the president to accept it.

6. That language — repeated in the text signed on September 30 — commits US forces to having “full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people, including in their homes.”

7. Another sticking point had been whether US forces remaining in Afghanistan would be immune from Afghan law, as they have been since entering the country in 2001.

8. The BSA does give Afghanistan jurisdiction over “United States contractors and United States contractor employees.”

9. The BSA is not a defence pact which would commit the United States to defending Afghanistan if it were attacked by another state. But the text does say that Washington “shall regard with grave concern any external aggression or threat of external aggression.”

10. The BSA authorizes US forces to maintain existing facilities and undertake new constructions so long as they are agreed upon by both sides.


Mustansar Hussain Tasir

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

Global War and Peace

Contemporary world is fraught with perpetuated violence and killings to undermine the sustainability of mankind's future. Complex societal conflicts need rational and flexible strategies using men of new ideas, diplomacy and peaceful means to conflict management. War is not a prelude to peacemaking. The sadistic warriors are using obsessive power to victimize the global humanity. Tim Roemer in his article “The Threats We Forget” published in Foreign Policy recently, notes that the Islamic State and Ebola are the “twin plagues” unleashed upon the world. The IS is trying to create a “house of blood”; and Ebola is the modern-day African ogre, and the two are “monumental crises” that the world must face together.




While the Ebola crisis is adequately considered by the global community, IS has been mishandled by the US and its European allies. The IS did not grow out of nowhere. The US and its allies have failed to imagine the ripple effects of their own follies and continued aggressive war as well as prolonged occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. IS, Iran-backed Badr group and several other groups are all active in Iraq and Syria. So are the US and its allies launching bombing campaigns and killing thousands of innocent civilians! Several millions of Arab refugees scattered around helplessly are the direct results of this insanity.

President Obama and other Western leaders don't touch the facts of this prevalent global madness aimed at dismantling and occupying the entire oil-producing Arab region. Tim Roemer points out:

“The world is an unpredictable place right now — and things could grow worse. The Islamic State might quickly escalate geopolitical problems in the Middle East, destabilize Jordan or Turkey, and begin a more systematic export of radicalized fighters around the world. That is why the United States needs to take immediate and bipartisan action against these threats.”

Western Hypocrisy or Emerging “Jihadist” Challenge?

Do the Islamic societies breed jihadis or did the US-led bogus war on terrorism produce reactionary jihadists? Where do the “Jihadists” come from? Most North American and western European intelligence establishments operate “Jihadi” watch websites to alert the public consciousness of the ongoing war on terror. It's a one-way descriptive fantasy of the Jihadi alarm bell. All of the Jihadi groups are fighting reactionary wars against American-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and, more broadly, across the Arab world. They owe their existence to American strategic warfare policies and practices.

To counteract the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US State Department and CIA envisaged, created and trained Al-Qaeda. The “Jihadi” group was financed and led by the US armed forces' personnel to fight against the former USSR-installed Afghan Communist regime. How strange the US excelsior club of “Jihadi” movement does not come to terms with the contemporary radical “Jihadist” ideology based in Iraq and Syria! All of the Jihadis were used by the Western nations in ideological conflict zones. But once they became a liability, they were abandoned and were termed terrorists. While the US is bombing the innocent civilians in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, these radical Jihadi enterprises are attracting more minds and souls in the same war theatres.

Certainly, a disconnect is prominent in what the US policy proclaims and what is being done on ground. The radicalized Jihadi groups are the means by which the US war economy and Europeans maintain their manipulation of ideas and ideals to support the continuous military interventions.

Political Deceptions and Lies of the War on Terrorism

All the monsters of history are to be found among the absolute leaders exercising absolute power in disregard of the peoples' interests. Since the Washington-based major military-industrial war complex orchestrated the bogus War on Terrorism, American politics in one-sided endeavour to unfold unthinkable futuristic disasters. Glenn Greenwald in his article “The 'War on Terror' – by Design – Can Never End,” writes:

“There's no question that this "war" will continue indefinitely. There is no question that US actions are the cause of that, the gasoline that fuels the fire. The only question — and it's becoming less of a question for me all the time — is whether this endless war is the intended result of US actions or just an unwanted miscalculation.”

He further states:

“Why would anyone in the US government or its owners have any interest in putting an end to this sham bonanza of power and profit called “the war on terror”?”
Arguably, conflicts generate mistrust and drain out all positive human energies and thinking for peaceful change, and transformation to sustainable future and productivity. Is it hard for Obama administration to understand this truth? To cover up their secretive and unhealthy minds, the US policymakers continue to lie and deceive the well informed global mankind.

Societies evolve and progress when they are open to rational communications and enjoin cooperation and mutual respects, not conflicts and illegal and immoral intelligence spying as stumbling blocks. “Is America at war with itself and that war is illusion,” wonders William Boardman in his article “A Country At War With An Illusion.” He writes:

“We are waging war on terrorism even as we embody terrorism. No wonder we seem sometimes to be at war with ourselves, and have been for most of the 21st century.”

Global-War-and-Peace1.jpgHow to Decode Insanity into Rationality?

Wars are planned by insane minds and sadistic political strategists. Wars kill people, dehumanize the civic culture and destroy the human habitats and undermine the natural environment to support life. There is not a single historic reference to indicate if wars were a prelude to peacemaking. The hourly paid Western news media intellectuals propagate and misinform the masses that Islamic terrorism is threatening the Western nations and their security, values and living standards. After the 9/11, George Bush used to contend “they hate our freedom.” Outside America, no impartial observer believes that America enjoys political freedom or the capacity to make public-interest-based foreign policy. The Washington-based political lobbyists and the powerful industrial-military complex set the US foreign policy agenda and conduct the warfare.

From George W. Bush, Tony Blair (Former British PM), Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and all other conspirators and liars onward to Barack Obama, all have consumed precious time and opportunities to cause massive deaths and destruction across the globe. Most probably, they will escape moral and political accountability. Were they not responsible for the longest bogus wars against the innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq? Were they not the cruellest people to set up Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Bagram prison in Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Bay? These were not the hallmarks of human freedom, liberty, democracy and justice!

It might be hard for any morally and intellectually conscientious American policymaker to see the mirror. How dare you claim that the “Jihadists” are waging war against the Western nations and their civilizations? You are the reason for the emergence of radicalized “Jihadists” across the globe.

The IS owes its origin to the US strategy and military intervention in Iraq. American and British leaders infested Iraqi culture with coerced sectarian divides and violence. But after the facts, America and some of its European allies fear a less engaged role and cumbersome futuristic domination of the oil-rich Iraq and the neighbouring Saudi Arabia and UAE. They want to contain the IS. American and Europeans do not seem to be bothered by the bloody sectarian rampage carried out by the Badr group sponsored by Iran and fighting against the Sunnis in Iraq.

One wonders, if there is a cure to a cruel mindset?

Absolute political power cannot be justified as simple favourable perversion to torture, kill the innocent mankind and destroy the universal harmony and natural habitats on the Earth. Should all the political leaders take a space journey and view the 10,000 mile per hour orbiting planet Earth and try to understand its operational existence and governance by its Creator and the vitality of human life and habitats. Do these leaders have the capacity to learn from scientific observations? If not, how could they be leaders to lead the 21st century informed humanity?

What is the cure to raging indifferences and cruelty to the interests of the people of the United States and for that matter the whole of the mankind? Professor P.L Thomas of South Carolina's Furman University speaks out loud and clear in “Obama's Failed Hope and Change: Forget the Politicians. They are Irrelevant.” He writes:

“Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have owners! They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear.”

If the leaders of a powerful nation like the US are not flexible and intelligent enough to realize the attributes of the 21st century effective leadership and be able to know and manage their comparative political strengths and weaknesses, how could they deal with the futuristic global challenges of security and peacemaking?


Dr Mahboob A. Khawaja

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

Intricate Pak-US Relationship

The US-Pakistan relations are characterized by increasing divergence between the two countries rather than the convergence. A potential convergence also exists on the end game in Afghanistan and a strategic cooperation leading to a broad partnership in other spheres but it will take a Herculean effort on both sides to overcome their differences. This relationship has served some important interests of the two countries over the past six decades. Yet the relationship's failures have been as big as its successes, because it has never truly reflected a larger conceptual framework, a shared vision, or continuity.



The history of Pak-US relationship has always been on a rocky path as numerous ups and downs have been witnessed since its establishment. The relationship was based on seeking national interests. The very first visit of Pakistan's first premier, Khan Liaquat Ali Khan, to United States in May 1950, was actually to seek financial, political as well as military support for the newly-born country to counter India's aggressions and overtures. The prime minister had expressed in a news conference that Pakistan occupied an important strategic position that was why he was interested in procuring up-to-date equipments for Pakistan's armed forces.

In the early phase, United States was least interested in relationship with Pakistan because it was looking towards Western Europe to contain the expansion of Communism. Western European countries were assisted economically in the shape of Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan.

The Korean war of 1950 changed the US perceptions; with the change of government in Washington; Eisenhower administration adopted the policy to find allies in important regions of the world. The US paid special attention to South Asia to frustrate the spread of communism. It co-opted Pakistan because India was unwilling to accept US advances.

The first seven years — 1947-1953 — passed without any actual bilateral alliance. The first mutual defence agreement between both countries was signed in 1954. Then, Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO in 1954 and 1955 respectively. In 1959, Pakistan signed another agreement of bilateral cooperation with the US. By these agreements Pakistan received nearly 2 billion dollars as economic assistance.

During 60s, the first trust-deficit emerged in Pak-US relations. China was seen by the US as an emerging threat to its global hegemony. So, in Sino-Indian War of 1962, it supplied military aid to India without consulting Pakistan. Eventually, Pakistan aligned with China. The actions of both the countries made Pak-US relationship fragile. Under the mutual defence agreement, the US was bound to assist Pakistan in case of a war or an aggression against her but in Indo-Pak war of 1965, the US did not come to assist Pakistan.

In June 1968, Arshed Hussain, the then foreign minister of Pakistan, explained in National Assembly that Pakistan would no longer take any part in military side of SEATO and CENTO and will attend the ministerial meetings as an observer. Finally, Pakistan withdrew from SEATO and CENTO in 1971 and 1979 respectively.

In 70s, Nixon administration made some radical changes in its Pakistan policy. Nixon also wanted to use Pakistan as a bridge in building ties with China. For this reason, United States extended some help to Pakistan in the 1971 crisis. During 1976-77, nuclear issue put the relations under pressure again to such an extent that the US suspended its aid to Pakistan in 1978 due to its agreement with France for a reprocessing plant. In early 1979, military aid to Pakistan was stopped on the account that it was to be used in nuclear enrichment programme.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 brought abrupt changes in US policy towards Pakistan. In an address on January 23, 1980, President Jimmy Carter said:

“An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

This statement spoke volumes about the US intentions to contain Soviet expansion in the region. United States had realized that they had no option better than Pakistan. For this purpose, the US revived its aid programme to Pakistan, which was the third largest getter after Israel and Egypt at that time. In his State of the Union Address, President Carter said:

We've reconfirmed our 1959 agreement to help Pakistan preserve its independence and its integrity. The United States will take action consistent with our own laws to assist Pakistan in resisting any outside aggression.”
China's huge investments in Pakistan especially her involvement in Gwadar also irks the US as it considers that this jeopardizes its interests in the region.
Intricate-Pak-US-Relations2.jpgPakistan fully cooperated with US in the proxy war against Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The mighty USSR was defeated with the help of jihadists supported by Pakistan. With the disintegration of USSR, the US became the sole superpower of the world. But, immediately after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US slapped sanctions on Pakistan in form of Pressler Amendment. The relations turned from cordial to adversarial once again. This gave birth to a huge trust-deficit in Pak-US bilateral relations that persists even today.

Pakistan's nuclear tests of May 1998 provided the US with another chance to strangulate Pakistan. In response to Musharraf's military coup of October 1999, Pakistan had to face more sanctions which further weakened this already fragile relationship.

The fateful incident of 9/11 changed the whole scenario of the world politics. The incident made the US change its foreign policy and the US once again turned to Pakistan. The then US President, George W. Bush famously said:

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

It was impossible for Pakistan at that time to afford tensions with the US and the whole world at large. So, it had to join the US-led war on terror. In this war, too, Pakistan has been — and is still — playing a vital role as a frontline state. The US immediately lifted some sanctions and Pakistan became a non-Nato ally in this campaign.

However, after 2005, some major issues emerged between both the allies including, but not limited to, drone strikes in FATA; Indo-US Nuclear deal; Haqqani Network and Dr A.Q Khan's alleged role in nuclear proliferation. This schism further deteriorated the relations of both the countries and led to a huge trust-deficit between Islamabad and Washington.

The tumultuous events of 2011 also exacerbated the situation. In the first half of 2011, the Raymond Davis episode, killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad and then the partial suspension of US security assistance to Pakistan again strained this relationship. Osama's death intensified the distrust of Pakistan's role in war on terror among the US authorities.

Another such incident was the Salala check post attack of November 26, 2011, in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were martyred by the US forces. The situation reached to such an extreme boiling point that Pakistan blocked the Nato supply routes to Afghanistan; got evicted the Shamsi Airbase from the US and also boycotted the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan that was to be held in Germany. Islamabad demanded an unconditional apology from Washington and after a formal apology, the supply lines were restored in July 2012.

The US was also infuriated by the signing of Pak-Iran gas pipeline. Despite the US warnings, former president Asif Ali Zardari went on to sign the agreement in May 2013.

China's huge investments in Pakistan especially her involvement in Gwadar also irks the US as it considers that this jeopardizes its interests in the region.
The crux of the matter is that the US does not acknowledge Pakistan's endeavours and sacrifices in war on terror. The 'do more' mantra created a lot of resentment in Pakistan and has further intensified the lack of trust in US among the Pakistanis. Pakistan is justified in this case. It is the time for Washington to realize that its policy towards Pakistan has been flawed and it still lacks balance that serves neither its interests nor those of Pakistan. The US treats Pakistan as a hireling. It has to be changed now for the sake of better Pak-US relations.

Pakistan too have to realize that the US has its own interests in the region. Islamabad cannot afford complete disengagement with Washington because of country's debt ridden economy. Instead of being hostile to the US, Pakistan should strive to gain a rebalance in ties with Washington.



The writer is an MPhil scholar at the
Department of Political Science,
University of Peshawar.
He can be reached at zafar_iqbal786@yahoo.com

Zafar Iqbal Yousafzai

[Naveed_Bhuutto]

US at A Crossroads

The basic feature of US foreign policy during the Cold War was inclusiveness — a willingness to embrace any country that opposed communism, whatever its type of government. The US contested the Soviet system and held the line militarily, and its consistent and comprehensive approach eventually led to the Soviet Union's implosion. After the Cold War, came the “war on terror” during which the United States has not been as inclusive as it was in its war against communism. Aside from those in the “coalition of the willing,” even most European countries have distanced themselves from Washington. Iraq also has exposed the weaknesses in American policymaking. All these factors have brought the US at a crossroads.




Washington officials have recently announced that the United States is going to increase its military presence in Iraq. At the same time, a number of US troops have been deployed in Iraqi Kurdistan. Simultaneously, the White House is applying a lot of pressure on Iran in the negotiations on the issue of Iranian nuclear programme. The US is trying to extract as many concessions from the Iranians as it possibly can, including the reduction in support that Tehran has been, and is still, providing to Damascus. Yet, Washington refuses to decrease the tension around the situation in eastern Ukraine, claiming that Russia had been sending military equipment and troops there.

Europeans have found themselves in a position similar to Iran, since the US officials have been twisting their arms in order to make them adopt a new package of anti-Russia sanctions. Therefore, it's no coincidence that Russia and China have taken a number of major steps to increase their efforts in the fields of energy and economic cooperation. The question then arises as to what is the ultimate goal of the US foreign policy — Ukraine, the Middle East or China? Should the Washington think tanks be presented with such a question, one would definitely hear an answer that the Obama administration can handle a number of different matters simultaneously. However, should you persist, the outcome of your inquiry can prove to be rather peculiar.

It's a general belief in Washington now that if choosing between the two recent crises — in the Middle East and Ukraine — the Middle Eastern one is by far the most important to American interests. There are a number of indicators to prove this statement:

Firstly, the Middle East is now torn apart by a full-scale war, especially in Iraq and Syria, and the US is carrying out air strikes against the positions of IS militants in these two countries on a daily basis.

Secondly, under the US national security doctrine the protection of the US population at home and overseas is imperative and Washington believes that the jihadists present by far a more pressing threat to US citizens than Russia.

Finally, Washington think tanks believe that the regional structure of the Middle East is now going down in flames, and it will take several decades to build a new one, while the European structure has been “slightly shaken” by the events in Ukraine.

Moreover, American politicians, lawmakers and analysts believe that the United States, while focusing on Russia and the Ukraine crisis, is not paying enough attention to Iraq, Syria and Iran. Therefore, Obama administration is being accused that its obsession with Ukraine had allowed IS militants to establish control over large parts of Iraq and Syria.

However, for those concerned with Vladimir Putin's actions aimed at restoring Russian influence in the post-Soviet space, the Middle East looks more like a dangerous distraction. Supporters of this approach fear that the US may once again be drawn into the “war on terror” in the Middle East, while the main security threat to US interests is growing in Europe. This position is based on the premise that the US has not fully realized how serious are the actual challenges that are associated with the strengthening of Russia. The supporters of this approach are sure that the return of the Crimea along with a de facto secession of the southeast territories from Ukraine is just the beginning of redistribution of the world at the expense of the United States. Moreover, they are convinced that Russia will become a threat to the rest of Ukraine, and even the Baltic states.

US-at-Crossroads1.jpgThe fact that Washington dismisses the possibility of its direct military involvement in the Ukraine crisis makes it pretend that it is not as tense as it could be, but in fact it is indirectly raising the stakes in the game called “the creation of a new world order.” The worst case scenario, which is being discussed behind closed doors in the White House, is the alleged possibility of Moscow putting its tactical nuclear weapons to actual use. This, of course, would be the biggest crisis in the field of international security since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it would be by far graver and more dangerous than the next phase of war in Iraq that has been going on for 35 years now.

Naturally, the vast majority of sensible and sane politicians and experts in the US don't believe in the nuclear scenario, although many of them still fear that Moscow will start a full-scale conventional assault in Ukraine or provoke a “rebellion” of the Russian-speaking population in the Baltic States that are Nato members. Should Russia invade the Baltic States and should Nato fail to react, they argue, Moscow will show the world that the Western military alliance is in fact a “paper tiger.”

This part of the US political elite hopes that the ever increasing pressure on the Russian economy will hold Putin back from escalating the Ukrainian conflict though their opponents are convinced that the economic crisis may instead push Russia to take a number of unpredictable steps by switching to “brute force” scenario.

Against this background Obama flew to the APEC summit in China. For supporters of the American 'pivot' to Asia, the ever growing Chinese influence is the main challenge in the long run. A handful of think tanks are convinced that while the US will try to deal with the two above-mentioned crises, China will be able to establish control over East Asia and the Asia Pacific region, which is slowly being transformed into a major centre of the world economy. These think tanks insist that the Obama administration must take steps to prevent China from growing stronger in military, political and economic terms. Russia's turn to China in search for a new major energy market can only make China stronger if Russia provides it with gas and modern weapons. Americans are increasingly nervous about the formation of a new alliance in Asia — between China and Russia. These think tanks, apparently, are closer to the actual understanding of the processes that affect the formation of a new world order.

Time will tell how well the Obama administration sets the US strategic priorities right, since it seems to be a turning point in the process of creation of a new world order, and it will be too late to change anything once the bets are made. It looks like the major challenge the United States is facing today is China, not Russia or the Middle East. The rapid rise of China is truly a significant development, though it may look deceptively long term from the outside, therefore one may get the impression that it is not leading to a possibility of an immediate conflict between China and the United States.

The collapsing states in the Middle East and the possible spread of terrorism are the threats that the US should, one way or the other, deal with now. The first occupation of Iraq and the consequent actions of Washington have unleashed a chain of colour revolutions that led to the events that cannot be controlled anymore. The supporters of the US in the region — Riyadh and Doha which assisted the White House in its plan of redrawing the regional map — are now facing the threat of an imminent collapse due to the rise of radical jihadists.

Not Iran only will benefit from this course of events; China and, to some extent, Russia, will benefit too. But it's imperative for the US now to find a balanced approach to China, Russia and the Middle East, since a failure to achieve this goal would not only endanger the international peace, but would also affect the very survival of the United States as a superpower and America will have to settle for a role of a regional power only, with no real influence whatsoever over the situation in Europe and Asia. It seems that this will be the most likely scenario since the recent actions of Barack Obama are showing that he has realized his miscalculations and now he's desperately trying to get out of trouble he has created himself.

Courtesy: New Eastern Outlook
Foreign Writers