Shanghai Cooperation Organization

Eleanor Albert                                                                        October 14, 2015

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)is an intergovernmental organization composed of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan founded in Shanghai in 2001. Originally formed as a confidence-building forum to demilitarize borders, the organization’s goals and agenda have since broadened to include increased military and counter terrorism cooperation and intelligence sharing. The SCO has also intensified its focus on regional economic initiatives like the recently announced integration of the China-ledSilk Road Economic Beltand the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union. While some experts say the organization has emerged as an anti-U.S. bulwark in Central Asia, others believe frictions among its members effectively preclude a strong, unified SCO.

Originally organized as the Shanghai Five in 1996, the organization added Uzbekistan in 2001 and renamed itself the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The six member states occupy territory that accounts for three-fifths of the Eurasian continent and have a population of 1.5 billion, a quarter of the world’s population. In addition to the six member states, the SCO has two new acceding members, Indian and Pakistan, four observer nations , and six dialogue partners.

As laid out in its charter, the organizationfunctions as a forumto strengthen confidence and neighborly relations among member countries and promote cooperation in politics, trade, economy, and culture to education, energy, and transportation. The SCO has two permanent headquarters, the secretariat in Beijing and the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) in Tashkent, the Uzbek capital. One of the organization’s primary objectives is promoting cooperation on security-related issues, namely to combat the “three evils” of terrorism, separatism, and extremism. The organization adopts decisions made byconsensus, and all member states must uphold the core principle of non-aggression and non-interference in internal affairs.

As a young organization, the SCO’s regional influence remains limited. Richard Weitz, senior fellow and director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, writes that the SCO and its main organizational bodies are “chronically underfundedand have limited powers to take decisions independently of their member governments.” Member states’ penchant for pursuing “micro-agendas” alsounderminesgroup cohesion and sows mistrust, says Matthew Crosston, professor and director of the International Security and Intelligence Studies Program at Bellevue University.

Despite these challenges, the SCO has nevertheless broadened its mandate in recent years to include joint security and economic development programs. In 2014, China hosted the bloc’sPeace Mission, its largest military exercise in terms of the number troops involved, more than seven thousand, and advanced weaponry deployed. Other organizational priorities are initiatives to deepen economic and energy cooperation, including establishng a bloc-wide development bank.

The SCO as a group does not have much sway in Afghanistan, though the organization considers religious extremism, terrorism, and drug trafficking in the country as potential serious threats to the region. Its neighbors share the fear that instability in Afghanistan will spread beyond its borders. For  Kabul to participate in SCO counterterrorism initiatives, Afghanistan was elevated from an SCO contact group to full observer status at the 2012 SCO summit in Beijing. With the presence of theTalibanand local militants aligned with the self-proclaimed Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the drawdown of NATO forces, the landlocked country’s security situation remains a top priority at SCO meetings. New Afghan leaders President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah have backed greater SCO participation in rebuilding efforts, but the organization has had little involvement to date.

However, some SCO member nations have intensified bilateral engagement with the country. China, in particular, has sought to play a larger role in stabilizing Afghanistan to protect its substantial investments. Currently, China is the largest SCO investor in Afghanistan, with projects including the $3 billion contract to develop the Aynak copper mine (though its completion has faced numerousdelays). Leaders in Beijing hope that a stable Afghanistan will have a“spillover” effecton China’s own restive autonomous region ofXinjiang. Russia, too, participates in a variety of bilateral efforts with Afghanistan, including the provision of weapons to its army, counternarcotics initiatives, and its owninvestmentprojects. From 1979 to 1989 the Soviet Union and Afghanistan were at war, but today, Russia has a vested interest in the country’s security. Moscow views the SCO’s Central Asian members as a buffer zone between Russia and Afghanistan, says Raffaello Pantucci of the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and therefore chooses to strengthen broader regional security to prevent instability in Afghanistan from spreading to Russian borders. Central Asian partners, includingKazakhstanandUzbekistan, have also made significant investments in Afghanistan.

Despite these bilateral initiatives, it is unclear if the SCO will play a larger role in Afghanistan. The organization’s narrow action is in part due to the obstructivism by members who prefer to tackle security issues at the bilateral level, and friction and distrust between members prevent the SCO from forming a unified policy on security issues in Afghanistan. Experts cite the absence of not onlypolitical will, but also a limitedeconomic capacity (PDF)for the bloc to take on a military role. However, Weitz writes that if SCO members could make an effective contribution to Afghan prosperity and security, Western powers may come toappreciatethe Eurasian body.

Economic cooperation has become one of the organization’s more pressing  goals in recent years. At the Ufa summit in Russia, member states adopted the SCO Development Strategy, which included bolstering finance, investment, and trade cooperation as a priority over the next ten years. Beijing has pushed the organization to focus on economic cooperation with proposals like launching a development fund and a free-trade zone. In the past, many of these initiatives were“met with skepticism” (PDF)by regional, according to Pantucci. However, Central Asian member states, in need of infrastructure and energy investment, have been responsive to these overtures, despite Russian sensitivities to China’s expanding influence in former Soviet satellites.

Several SCO member states—notably Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan—possess some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and natural gas, driving interest in expanded energy cooperation among members. At a June 2006 summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for an “energy dialogue, integration of our national energy concepts, and the creation of an Energy Club.” During that meeting, member states discussed establishing a “unified energy market” for oil and gas exports, while also promoting regional development through preferential energy agreements. However, the plans never materialized due todiverging interests (PDF)between energy consumers and energy producers. China is looking to tap energy resources for its growing demand and while Kazkhakstan and Russia are dominant energy exporters, Uzbekistan increasingly needs its energy resources for domestic development and consumption, and the economies in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan remain weak. Members “prefer to keep national control over their production, supply, and consumption mechanisms and agreements,” according to Julie Boland, a former Federal Executive Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Still, regional energy cooperation occurs outside of SCO auspices. Russia hassecured agreementswith several of its Central Asian neighbors to build gas pipelines. China’s energy diplomacy similarly follows a bilateral course. For example, theCentral Asia–China Gas Pipelineconsists of multiple lines, both completed and still under construction, running more than 1,100 miles through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to China’s Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Beijing alsopledgeda $16.3 billion fund to integrate the region, reviving old trade routes as part of China’s Silk Road Economic Belt. Though China’s flurry of activity has been uprooting Russia’s traditionally dominant influence in the region,energy dealsbetween Beijing and Moscow are also on the rise.

Energy cooperation is but one facet of the economic exchanges among SCO members. China pitched the establishment of an inter-SCO Development Bank in 2010 as a smaller, regional version of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The SCO’s consensus-based decision-making procedures have enabled Moscow to block the emergence of the SCO Development Bank for years, fearing that the institution wouldcede full controlto Beijing as its dominant financier. Though the final document from the 2015 Ufa summit did not address the status of the bank, there are indications that Russia may be more willing to cooperate with China moving forward. RUSI’s Sarah Lain writes that within multilateral bodies, “Russia appears willing to accept someloss of statusin favour of China” in order to gain from closer ties with China.

China and Russia are the twin engines of the SCO, despite offering differing visions for the organization. Decades of rapid economic growth have propelled China onto the world’s stage, whereas Russia has found itself beset with economic turmoil and geopolitical isolation following its 2014 annexation of Crimea, subsequent ejection from the G8, and continuing involvement in the Ukraine conflict. In the past year, the Russian economy has faltered amid currency and oil price volatility, as well as an onslaught of sanctions imposed by the West.

Moscow had longblocked Beijing’s effortsto advance economic initiatives within the SCO. However, much like its Central Asian neighbors, Moscow is now looking to benefit from Chinese investments, including from energy and manufacturing deals. Since the fallout between Russia and the West, Russia has made its own “pivot” to the East to improve ties with its Asian neighbors, opening the door for greater cooperation between Beijing and Moscow in shaping the SCO agenda. Of late, China’s slowing growth has injected a degree of uncertainty about the future momentum of its economy, but analysts say that due to Russia’s own economy volatility, China will remain crucial partner for an increasingly isolated Russia.

Some experts believe that recent moves by Beijing and Moscow, including the agreement toharmonizeChina’s Silk Road Economic Belt and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union and bilateral military exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, signal  an entente between the two regional powers. Greg Shtraks, a fellow at the East China Normal University in Shanghai,writes that the improvement in Sino-Russian relations seems to be a “genuine,lasting phenomenon.” Pantucci adds that Moscow’s overtures to Beijing not only indicate a willingness, but also an eagerness to have a close bilateral relationship, in both appearance and practice.

However, others like University of Tasmania’s Matthew Sussex believe that Russia’s relationship with China has “deepened by necessityrather than a sense of mutual trust.” Anita Inder Singh of the New Delhi-based Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution doubts the durability of Beijing and Moscow’s cooperation, claiming that the “‘has-been superpower’ and the ‘wannabe great power’ are engaged in acontest for primacyin Eurasia.”

Enlargement brings both risks and rewards. To date, the SCO has yet to finalize the expansion of its membership, despite applications from India, Iran, and Pakistan. In September 2014, the SCOclearedall legal hurdles to expansion at the heads of state summit, and India and Pakistan began the accession process at the July 2015 summit in Ufa. Belarus, a former dialogue partner, was also upgraded to observer state, and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, and Nepal wereintroducedas new dialogue partners.

Beijing maintains that SCO expansion would “infusefresh vigorinto the group’s future development and boost its influence and appeal in the international arena.” Moscow sees the addition of India and Pakistan as a chance toincreaseboth the bloc’s political and economic potential and boost its ability to counter pressing regional challenges. Meanwhile, smaller SCO members, concerned of being squeezed by the interests of two superpowers, see the inclusion of India and Pakistan as an opportunity to diversify and build new partnerships.

Meanwhile, some area experts say that introducing new members—including those with fraught bilateral relations like India and Pakistan—to an organization that has been criticized for inefficacy is unlikely to result in greater efficiencies or cohesion. Barnard College’s Alexander Cooley cautions that expansion will make the SCO, “asymbolic organizationrather than a vehicle for any kind of substantive regional integration or cooperative problem solving.”

Despite the potential drawbacks, some experts say that there are collective gains to be made for the still-young grouping. As the two South Asian nations join, theprospects for a SCO Development Bankmay improve. New Delhi, keen to invest in Central Asia, would be a source of valuable financing and inject life into ambitious infrastructure and energy development plans. The addition of the world’s largest democracy, India, could also grant greater legitimacy to the body traditionally seen as a club of authoritarian governments. CFR’s Elizabeth C. Economy and William Piekos write that “while expansion may hinder the organization’s ability to act decisively, it will give the SCO theopportunity to revolutionize itselfinto a more comprehensive institution capable of connecting and integrating a broad swath of Asia.”

Emanuel Pastreich

Francis Fukuyama is a leading American political scientist, political economist, and author best known for his booksThe End of History and the Last Man(1992) and theOrigins of the Political Order. He serves as a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University.

We have to start with the simplest of questions. If we want to understand the challenges in East Asia today, we must first consider why it is thatAsia has become so centralin theglobal economy andwhy it plays an increasingly large role inglobal politics. How do you explain the enormous shiftthat we are witnessing today?

Well, there is a significant difference between the economic and the political spheres. Obviously, the biggest shift is to be observed in the economic realm. We can trace it back to the industrialization of China after the Cultural Revolution and rise of the four tigers: South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. But the shift in terms of political power is a much slower process than the economic shift.

Overall, Asia punches below its weight in terms of its ability to shape the rules for the global system and the direction that global governance is evolving towards. It is an issue of what Joseph Nye refers to as “soft power” – the ability of a nation to project ideas and concepts, build influential institutions and practices. The lag at the level of ideas is even more severe than the lag in terms of political power.

So if we talk about the rise of Asia, we must be sure that we are clear about what aspect of the rise we are referring to. If we ask the specific question, “Why has East Asia’s economic development been so successful?” We can speak with more confidence about a clear rise, although that rise does not necessarily fulfill all the traditional expectation for growing power and influence. We can be sure; however, that China will continue to increase its influence in global affairs for the foreseeable future.

And yet China’s rise is profoundly paradoxical. China is increasing influence in the political and economic spheres today, and is engaged in large-scale aid projects that are unprecedented in its history. At the same time, if you go to Shanghai, you will find more and more Chinese students studying English and trying to go abroad to study at American universities. There is more interest, not less, in moving to advanced countries now than was the case twenty years ago.

The trend is real, but it perhaps has more to do with the fact that there are simply more Chinese who have the money to send their children to the United States for their studies than anything else. Nevertheless, we can see that although China has the economic, the cultural and educational soft power is still lacking.

For all its weaknesses, the United States projects a tremendous amount of soft power globally. China cannot match that power yet.

But what is it exactly that gives the U.S. that advantage? Why has it been so hard for China, Korea and Japan, in spite of astounding economic growth, to have that sort of cultural impact? Certainly the cultures are extremely sophisticated and the level of education is very high.

We are seeing some changes these days, but the building of institutions, the growth of global networks, and the acceptance of new cultures takes generations.

Korea has done well in terms of culture. If you look at the spread of K-pop, Korean soap operas and Korean movies, Korea is producing a highly competitive culture that is expanding rapidly, even including spheres like manga and anime that were once exclusively Japanese. But such cultural influence has very little to do with GDP.

Significant shifts may come, but they will not be fast.

I suppose that the dominance of the English language is also an important factor.

The power of English has a long history, dating back to the British Empire, but its continued dominance is in part a reflection of culture, and in part a reflection of U.S. dominance in international business. In spite of the remaining dominance of English, we can perceive significant shifts. People are starting to learn Mandarin around the world, and that trend will continue. For some in Africa, Chinese seems like a very significant language. Eventually cultural influence will follow from growing economic power, but the lag time is significant.

And we are in an age of unprecedented age of globalization that defies previous precedents. For example, if you read the published statistics concerning members of the Chinese Central Communist Party committee, you will see that an extraordinary number of them have either a relative living abroad or own property abroad. They are committed to a global economy and they have an interest in the economy of the United States. We can see those overseas investments as a way to stash the cash, but there is also a sense in which those overseas investments are a security net of sorts. I do think there’s a sense that Western countries, whatever problems they may have, are fundamentally more stable politically than developing nations.

Therefore, despite all of China’s remarkable success, continued stability and prosperity is not something that they can take for granted? The accumulation of capital is not a replacement for quality of life, for getting a quality education, having safe food to eat. Even the superrich in Beijing can have kids with asthma who become terribly sick because of air pollution.

The author Lee Chang Rae recently published a novel entitled On Such a Full Seadescribing an authoritarian state in a megacity B-Mor (the former Baltimore) which is populated with immigrants from a village in “New China” that become uninhabitable because of climate change. The novel suggests that we may encounter a world quite different than our common “rise and fall of great powers” assumptions and that technology and climate change will be major factors. The entire world is being impacted by China’s rise and Lee Chang Rae’s scenario is not far-fetched.

There is a debate in the West, and to some degree in China, as to whether China is really capable of fundamental innovation. I probably fall into the camp of those who say that you we should not underestimate China’s ability to make profound shifts. China has changed far more than anyone imagined since the Cultural Revolution and it has a long history of institutional transformation. Although much of China’s recent economic and intellectual progress has been a form of catch-up. China is a vast country with many smart people. I would not assume that just because China lacks great political freedom that this means China isn’t going to be able achieve astounding progress, to innovate in technology and institution building.

Certainly China has a long tradition of good government and of institutional innovation. From the Tang and Song Dynasties to the Ming and Qing Dynasties, China has been able to generate internal reform on many occasions. There have been some scholars like Daniel Bell at Tsinghua University, in his bookThe China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, or Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University in his bookThe China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State, who argue that China is fundamentally different than other nations in that it is a civilization, not a nation state. Is there perhaps something transformative of China that seeks to remake the entire world, not just expand into new markets?

I’m a little skeptical of such efforts to see some sort of new Confucian vision in the chaos that is the present Chinese political economy. I just do not see an integrated package; it’s an incoherent package. The official message coming out of China in its official sources is still taking Marxism-Leninism as its base. Perhaps there is a sincerely interest in the past, but basically Chinese are pretty confused about Confucianism. Although it may feel good to think on is building on a great tradition of millennia. But when push comes to shove they are back to Marxism or neo-liberalism. They end up filling the ideological vacuum with consumerism and greed. As long as the economic growth keeps up, they will be alright. But I do not see too much Confucian civilization in the hard choices that Chinese politicians make.

But in the West things are at last shifting a bit. Western intellectual are taking a stronger interest in Asia and reading and writing about China and its culture and politics. How broad is the interest in East Asia in Washington D.C.?

Although interest in Asia has risen remarkably, it is probably still far from what it should be. The rise of China has triggered broad introspection about Western and American institutions and their shortcomings. There have been some debates in the fringes, but the serious reorientation has not started. Most people in the West acknowledge there is a new drive in China and they express concern about job losses in the United States. But there are few who look at the rise of China and East Asia as a challenge to the dominance of Western civilization.

What do you think is the primary challenge to the U.S. and Europe today?

Many social scientists in the United States have postulated that economic freedom without a corresponding degree of political freedom is not sustainable. They assume that China will have to open up its political system and to democratize in one way or another. But there are serious problems with this assumption. If we think long term, say thirty years in the future, could we have a China in which economic growth is significantly higher than that in the West, a Chinese economy that has completely displaced the U.S. in scale and impact, but still have a China in which the government calls the shots domestically and internationally? Such a scenario is entirely possible and could create immense challenges to current global institutions. Few in the West want to imagine such an outcome. But that is not an excuse for presenting wishful thinking as critical analysis.

At the same time, the question of freedom is a complex one. Certain areas of Shanghai, for example, have access to Face book and Google and there are virtually no cases of interference from the government – if you are part of the “international community.” Many American expats feel oddly freer in that Chinese environment.

Yes, there are clearly pockets in China that are quite open these days. Globalization produces all sorts of complexities.

And what about Europe? How has the rise of Asia impacted France, Germany, Italy and other European powers?

What is striking about Europe is just how little attention they pay to China. Although I wish the United States took Asia seriously, compared with Europe, we are doing a pretty good job. You would be amazed to see how much Europeans still are talking about the challenge from America and the American model for business. They are having trouble getting their heads around the fact that China going to be a major player in the world and that what happens in the Chinese economy impacts the European economy. Similarly, the study of China, Japan and Korea in Europe is far behind the United States. There are not that many Chinese speakers and almost no one who can deliver a speech or read a book in an Asian language.

We have stressed China so far in our conversation, but in reality Korea and Japan remain quite significant. Might there be a risk that America focuses too much on the China challenge and loses track of the important developments in the rest of Asia. After all, Korea and Japan are major players in Southeast Asia and Africa, often displaying a greater sophistication than China.

Asia is polycentric, multi-polar, and constantly evolving. There is no uniformity in Asia in terms of geopolitics and culture and each of those countries is a separate world to itself, even as it overlaps in trade and commerce with its neighbors and with the United States. It is a challenge for Americans to keep up with that region.

The conditions are really different in each country. If we take a slightly longer-term horizon, all of Asia will be caught in this demographic trap (declining and aging population) which may have unintended consequences. Japan was the first to experience that shift, and we have seen articles about aging villages in the Western media for some time. But the trend for the future is actually more severe in Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore. These countries are struggling to come up with some solution to the aging population crisis, and the resulting growth of a multi-cultural society.

But if you looked at middle-class and upper-middle class Caucasians in Europe or the United States, is not that population is more or less following the same trajectory as the aging populations of Korea or Japan. 

One cannot make sweeping statements. The fertility rates for Caucasians in the United States remain higher than that of countries like Korea and Japan. In the case of Scandinavia fertility rates have risen above the replacement rate. I speculate that countries that have the lowest fertility rates in the world are those in which you have a high level of female education, but still socially conservative mores that limit career opportunities for women. That is exactly what we find in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, where a lot of women don’t want to enter into marriages that require them to stay home and raise families, but the childcare facilities necessary for them to pursue careers do not exist. In Japan, the average age for the marriage of women keeps rising every year.

It’s amazing that although many families in Korea or Japan place so much emphasis on education for both boys and girls, there is an absolute distinction after graduation from college. Equality of opportunity suddenly ends when the student receives a diploma.

I met a professor at Julliard who was just livid because although many of his best piano students are Korean women, not a single one of them has turned that talent into a career as a musician. Despite all their talents, they dutifully go back to Korea and marry a rich corporate executive. Their outstanding musical talent becomes, he lamented, but an adornment, a hobby. There was no opportunity for those women to pursue a career in music.

Let’s talk about the current tensions in Asia, specifically those between China, Japan, and Korea. Although some make grim analogies between Asia today and Europe just before World War I, it seems to me that the conflicts over islands are fundamentally different in its nature from the battle over territory occupied by large populations.

I think the conflicts are quite serious because they are powered by the rise of nationalism in Korea, Japan, and China. Young people in each of these countries are growing more nationalistic than was their parents’ generation, and that trend is quite dangerous. Honestly, I am quite worried by what I see happening today. The territorial disputes are not inherently critical, but they take on tremendous symbolic significance and they are at the center of a struggle over geopolitical power. The fight over the future of the Senkaku Islands is not just about a few uninhabited rocks. It is a contest over who will set the rules in Asia, China or Japan. It is this larger question that absorbs the interests of both countries.

It’s still a different situation from, say, Alsace-Lorraine; no one lives there after all.

Sure, no one wants to start a war over a stupid bunch of rocks. But history shows that strange things like that can happen.

What are your thoughts about the U.S. and its position in East Asia? What do you think is the appropriate role for the U.S. to play in Asia going forward?

I think the U.S. needs to adjust to growing Chinese power but needs to be mindful of existing commitments. The accommodation of Chinese power cannot come at the expense of traditional allies – Japan, Korea, etc. Doing that is going to be very difficult. In the case of Japan, the Japanese have actually provoked a lot of the problems that they’re in right now, by the kind of nationalistic planes of revisionism that is going on there.

I am concerned by nationalist activities throughout East Asia. But as someone who taught Japanese studies for many years, I am disturbed especially by the purging of information about the Second World War from school history books and the shutting down of museums that provide an accurate narrative of what Japan did during the war. Japan is a sophisticated nation with a highly educated population. Such steps are just wrong.

There are definitely a lot of disturbing trends in Japan. The majority of the Japanese people do not support these actions, but there is a significant nationalistic right that has not accepted the outcome of the Second World War in the way that the Germans have.

You have grown up in the United States, but your family is from Japan. Does that impact your perspective?

My perspective on East Asia is completely American. I have no sympathy for the Japanese nationalists. The United States has an alliance commitment to Japan, but the position Japan has taken on many disputes with its neighbors has been self-defeating.

Coming back the U.S. role in East Asia, you suggest that the United States must engage China, and recognize its new status, but that there may also be some legitimate reasons for the United States to remain wary of China’s intentions. What specifically must the United States do to create stable security architecture in East Asia?

I feel that the U.S. needs to promote multilateralism in Asia and to consider multilateralism to be in its own long-term interests. The United States has certain advantages in its bilateral alliances. But the use of bilateral relations in Asia can also undermine American influence.

For example, China would like to deal with all ASEAN countries individually, through bilateral exchanges. But can we solve the complex multilateral disputes over coral reefs in the Pacific by a series of bilateral discussions? I think we need to do so through ASEAN, other international bodies, or new institutions that we will build.

I made a proposal inForeign Affairs about a decade ago for a multilateral structure related to diplomacy and security in which all countries, including China, can talk openly about defense budgets, confidence-building measures, and other topics and come to meaningful resolutions.

I have noticed thatKoreans, whether politically conservative or liberal, are committed to a multilateral vision of the future. Unlike the United States or Japan, there is no conservative faction that wants to dismantle multilateralism and pursue national military power without regard for international opinion. Perhaps this is a result of Korea’s position in multiple trade agreements that make its economy inherently multilateral.

I have noticed a strong interest in multilateral institutions in Korea. Such arrangements serve as a force-multiplier.

Let me close with a question about technology. How do you think evolving technologies (drones, cyberspace and other technologies with dual uses) are changing the nature of conflict and international relations, and what are the implications of those changes for East Asia?

I think you can see profound changes already in cyberspace. Already there are essentially no rules whatsoever. For example, if you hack into another country’s computer system, whether the computer belongs to a corporation or to the military, does that constitute an act of war? Who counts as a representative of the government of a country in cyberspace?

We have no agreement about the remedy to growing cybercrime. In fact we do not even agree on what kinds of responses are acceptable. Even if you do know who committed the crime, experts do not agree on how serious it is. And numerous reports of hacking have tended to make the public somewhat skeptical.

I suspect that rules and regulations about online crimes are going to be harder to enforce simply because the technology is so rapidly changing and often it is hard to show there has even been a crime.

Emanuel Pastreich is Director of the Asia Institute. Theoriginal versionof this article is available at Asia Today. This is the first of an interview series organized by theAsia Institute. 

Courtesy: The Diplomat

Gail Collins                                                                     November 7, 2015

The Newyork Times

IT’S officially one year until the presidential election. Amazing how time flies, isn’t it? Once again we’re watching debates featuring what appears to be the entire supporting cast of “Ben-Hur.” Once again we’re asking ourselves why Iowa always gets to be first. Once again we’re wondering whether Hillary Clinton will make history by becoming the first woman president.

“It’s hard to believe there’s another year,” Clinton said in a phone interview, taking the glass-half-empty perspective. She was on her way to the airport during a fund-raising swing through California, broken up by an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show. Her formula for making it through another 12 months, she said cheerfully, was pretty simple: “We’re just getting up every morning. Step by step.”

“It’ll be a long slog,” she added with what I believe the entire nation understands is total accuracy. “But it’s more fun this time because I feel like we’re doing better.”

We’ve all been here before — a Hillary campaign and the first-woman-president possibilities it entails. In a way it’s so familiar that it’s hard to remember that the whole idea of a major female presidential candidate is new.

Clinton is the only woman who’s ever won a presidential primary. The only others who ever featured as even remote factors were the Republican Margaret Chase Smith in 1964, and the Democrat Shirley Chisholm, who got 152 delegates in 1972. (There were lots of ways to get little chunks of delegates without winning a primary back then.)

When we look back at our women-running-for-president history, we always have to start with Victoria Woodhull, who was the candidate of the Equal Rights Party in 1872. Woodhull still holds what may be the record for unsuccessful outcomes — she spent Election Day in jail after federal marshals arrested her on charges of publishing an obscene newspaper. This all had to do with Woodhull’s attempt to demonstrate the nation’s sexual double standard by publicizing an adulterous affair the famous preacher Henry Ward Beecher was allegedly having with a parishioner. She eventually left the country, worn down by all her battles. Meanwhile, Beecher’s parish raised his salary to $100,000 a year, and he got an endorsement deal with Pears soap. (“If Cleanliness is next to Godliness, Soap must be considered as a Means of Grace.”)

Woodhull was followed by a longish list of other women who ran for president as third-party or protest candidates. Many of them were lovely people, but we’re not going down a path that would force us to discuss the fact that the comedian Gracie Allen ran in 1940 on the Surprise Party ticket. Or that Georgiana Doerschuck ran for the Republican nomination in New Hampshire in 1996 on an anti-technology platform, promising that if elected, she would immediately issue an executive order banning all computers. Her campaign was particularly notable given the fact that Doerschuck was a desktop publisher. But really, we’re not going there.

We do have to talk about Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman to have her name placed in nomination at the convention of a major party. “The first woman in politics I was aware of was Margaret Chase Smith,” Clinton recalled. “I can remember opening up Life magazine and reading about this woman who was in the United States Senate. I had no idea there was such a woman.”

Well, there certainly weren’t a whole lot. Smith, who spent much of the 1950s and 1960s as the only woman in the Senate, was the first senator with enough guts to stand up to Joseph McCarthy and his witch hunt. Her courage made such an impression that some Republicans talked about Smith as a possible vice-presidential nominee in 1952. But the party leaders thought a much sounder choice would be Richard Nixon.

Finally, in 1964, Smith tried running for president herself, and she did make it through three primaries. She campaigned only on weekends, a home-state newspaper reported, so “she would not break her record of never missing a Senate roll call since 1955.” Imagine living in a world so quaint that a presidential candidate cares about a perfect attendance record. And speaking of heartbreakingly old-fashioned, the paper also noted that Smith’s “whole campaign cost $355.”

Smith made history, but she didn’t make any real dent in the election. Most people didn’t seem to take her very seriously, and it didn’t help that her signature campaign tactic was passing out muffin recipes. The Republicans, in the end, nominated Barry Goldwater.

The Democrats’ first big moment came in 1972 when Shirley Chisholm ran for the presidential nomination. Chisholm, an African-American, would have been a double historic first. But her party was in no way ready to make symbolic gestures. They needed a winner! So they nominated George McGovern.

HAVE you noticed a pattern here?

While Carly Fiorina hasn’t been doing very well on the Republican side, she is their first serious female presidential candidate since — umm — Michele Bachmann? Let’s do the party a favor and say Elizabeth Dole, who ran briefly in 2000. Dole had been a cabinet official twice and ran the American Red Cross. While she was pretty clearly not going to beat George W. Bush for the nomination, many people did think she’d be picked for the vice-presidential slot. Instead, Bush chose Dick Cheney. Imagine how different our history might have been if things had gone the other way.

Yes, one of the running subtexts in this story is really, they couldn’t have done worse. Another is that when it comes to women winning political office, there’s a long line of wives in the cast of characters. Dole is married to the former presidential candidate Bob Dole. Margaret Chase Smith was both wife and office manager for Congressman Clyde Smith of Maine, and she took his seat after he died.

The first woman governor, Nellie Tayloe Ross, won a special election in Wyoming to succeed her husband in 1925. The first female senator was Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas, who was initially appointed to succeed her husband. (This doesn’t count 87-year-old Rebecca Latimer Felton of Georgia, who was appointed to fill a one-day vacancy in 1922, as a tribute to newly enfranchised womanhood.) Debbie Walsh of the Center for American Women and Politics says 25 of the first 60 women to win congressional elections were widows who filled their husbands’ seats.

Clinton’s historical heroine is Eleanor Roosevelt, the ultimate example of a wife who achieves enormous political power without ever becoming a candidate herself. When the question of whether Hillary would have risen to presidential status if she hadn’t been married to Bill comes up, her fans tend to argue that if she hadn’t gotten married at all, she’d probably have gotten to the same place quicker on her own.

“I’ve heard that,” Clinton said. “Who knows? Life is so unpredictable.” (On the Jimmy Kimmel show, Clinton confided that if her husband had not been barred from seeking a third term, he’d have gone for it. And if she ran against him, “would I win? Yeah.”)

Thinking about the spouse question a little bit more, Clinton told a joke about a successful businessman and his wife who drive into a gas station where her old boyfriend is working. The husband notes with satisfaction that if she’d married him, she’d be the wife of a gas station attendant.

“And then,” Clinton concluded, “the wife says: ‘No, if I’d married him he’d be a big success like you.’”

Another rule for women running for high office is that they have to give the appearance of being very, very qualified. That would seem to be a given, but it doesn’t necessarily work the same for both genders. The pollster Celinda Lake says that voters expect female candidates to prove they’re up to the job, while they’re more likely to assume the men are qualified just because they’re on the ballot.

Maybe that’s one of the reasons — besides family responsibilities — that women tend to wait longer before they run for office. Even now, Debbie Walsh of CAWP says, women who get elected to state legislatures tend to be “older than their male counterparts and less likely to have children under 18 at home.”

But it gets worse: a study Lake did for the Barbara Lee Family Foundation showed that women also have to demonstrate they’re likable. “Voters will vote for a man they think is qualified but don’t like. They won’t vote for a woman who they think is qualified but don’t like,” Lake said. “It’s another double-bind for women.”

You will remember the famous moment in 2008 when Clinton was asked what she would say to the voters of New Hampshire “who see your résumé and like it but are hesitating on the likability issue.”

“Well, that hurts my feelings,” Clinton responded, adding, “I don’t think I’m that bad.” Feel free to bring this up the next time someone says that debate moderators treat all Democratic candidates with kid gloves.

And then, of course, Barack Obama interjected, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” It was supposed to be a joke, but it sounded supercilious, and may have helped seal the deal for Clinton in the New Hampshire primary — the first major party presidential primary in history to be won by a woman.

“I don’t sense the level of either novelty or resistance that I encountered in ’07-08,” Clinton said. Although there was a recent event where she took questions from children, and one girl asked what Hillary would do to end gender stereotyping.

But so far this time around, no men have gotten up in the middle of a speech to yell “Iron my shirt!” like someone did in New Hampshire eight years ago.

“Not yet,” she added. “Who knows what will happen. I still have a year.”

Clinton — the wife of a former president, with the longest résumé in the room — is a perfect transitional figure, whether she wins or not. Maybe there had to be a heroic Senator Smith with a muffin recipe, too. Maybe — and this is taking a really huge jump — there also had to be a “Ma” Ferguson, who became the first woman to be elected governor of Texas in 1925 after her husband was convicted of financial corruption. Ferguson did promise voters “two for the price of one” long before Bill Clinton thought of the phrase.

We definitely needed Jeannette Rankin, the first woman ever elected to Congress, who managed to destroy her political career by voting against World War I, resurrect it, get re-elected to Congress and then destroy it again by voting against World War II.

Good grief, maybe people will look back in 50 years and say we needed a Sarah Palin before there could be President X, who brought peace to the Middle East and reversed climate change after first winning public attention with her astonishing moose-hunting skills.

Try to think positive. The bottom line is that as we move forward, we never quite know what pushes history along

Misc Subjs

Daily Times, July 11, 2011

Amanat Ali Chaudhry

The state needs to invest in correcting the religious approach of people. This calls for broad-based and well thought out reforms in the structure and syllabi of religious seminaries. These seminaries need to be brought within the mainstream by making economic opportunities available to their students

The ‘National Seminar on De-radicalisation’ organised by the Pakistan Army in Swat brought together scholars, academicians and experts on counter-insurgency and de-radicalisation from around the world. The moot also provided an opportunity to debate the phenomenon of radicalisation in Pakistan and suggest practical, effective and better models for the elimination of extremism and rehabilitation of radicalised mindsets.

While the proceedings of the three-day seminar covered multiple aspects of the radicalisation phenomenon, its major thrust was centred on working out a holistic de-radicalisation strategy through incorporation of the world’s best practices in the light of local needs, experiences and challenges. The mushroom growth of extremism and radicalisation is a global fact, which has been fuelled by deepening socio-economic disparities, lack of economic and educational opportunities, centralisation of decision-making processes and weak governance structures. These factors provide a conducive environment for radical tendencies to become rampant. Therefore, any strategy evolved to counter the radical mindset needs to be aware of these variables.

The occasion was also important as it provided Prime Minister Gilani and Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani an opportunity to dwell on a broad range of issues facing the country. In the concluding session, the prime minister threw light upon the regional and international context that bred extremism and radicalisation in the country. Emphasising the need for a ‘partnership approach’ to tackle the issue, the prime minister also warned the allies not to cross the ‘red lines’ to advance their narrow interests. Though he addressed the seminar in Swat, his audience mainly included India, the US and the global community on the whole. He also said that all state institutions of Pakistan have complete consensus on the country’s core interests.

Speaking on the occasion, General Ashfaq Kayani said that military action alone is not the solution to terrorism and extremism. He said that people were the mainstay of the armed forces and that the armed forces are answerable to the people and parliament. This contention of the army chief has dispelled all impressions about any ‘supposed dichotomy of views’ between the civilian government and the establishment. This appeared to be a carefully designed message for the international community that all elements of national power enjoyed consensus on issues of vital importance to the country. The prime minister’s stance that the establishment was supportive of the political process stood vindicated.

At a time when the US has shifted its policy from ‘deployment of huge armies’ overseas to the use of ‘strategic assets’ to dilute the terrorist threat with Pakistan likely to be the target of accelerated drone strikes, there are all indications that a review of the country’s priorities is underway within the strategic community of Pakistan. There is now an increasing acceptance of exploring more durable, long-term non-military solutions to the raging issues. What would supplement this effort is the presence of effective civilian administrative structures to efficiently manage areas cleared by the military. Without putting such strong structures in place, the efforts are not expected to bear fruit.

A well-structured de-radicalisation strategy should be informed by a combination of various factors. Some points are instructive in this regard: the success of FM radio employed by Maulana Fazlullah (known as Maulana FM) in Swat stressed the importance of sustained strategic communication to influence hearts and minds. Radicalisation is largely a process of internalisation of extremist ideas. It is a slow and gradual process, which takes place imperceptibly. The role of opinion leaders such as religious scholars, teachers and community elders is crucial in making the de-radicalisation strategy a success. The state needs to invest in correcting the religious approach of people. This calls for broad-based and well thought out reforms in the structure and syllabi of religious seminaries. These seminaries need to be brought within the mainstream by making economic opportunities available to their students.

As rightly pointed out by Prime Minister Gilani, an effective counter-insurgency and de-radicalisation strategy cannot succeed unless it is worked out in consultation with all the stakeholders. Unity within the broad set of mainstream opinion is the way forward to secure the country’s long-term interests and rehabilitate the extremist elements.

With the drawdown plan announced by President Obama, Pakistan must brace itself for graver challenges ahead. The US administration has made no bones about its determination to carry out unilateral surgical strikes if Pakistan does not fully ‘cooperate’. There is also a strong possibility of increased drone strikes on the Pakistani side of the border. The situation poses serious challenges to the country’s national security. The US, which is opposed to Pakistan reaching out to the Taliban, is already in talks with its leadership at different levels under its ‘outreach programme’. Coming in tandem with these developments is the statement by the Indian prime minister that Pakistan should “leave Kashmir alone” and focus on its internal problems, which further complicates the situation.

This is no doubt an extraordinary situation, which demands of all elements of state power and political parties to forge unity and find lasting solutions to the country’s problems by crafting a consensus. The seminar on de-radicalisation is a good beginning. It is hoped that its recommendations would be incorporated in the national counter-insurgency strategy.

The writer can be reached at amanatchpk@hotmail.com

Content Awaiting

Security of any State lies in its planning; where a state try to prevent an aggressor form its territorial integrity. Some states specify their national security goals which are not compromised in any case. Even the matters relating to the national security kept secret, even state do not allow media to highlight such issues. For example, for Pakistan the state sovereignty in a matter of national security which cannot be hurt in any case? Sometimes state is not aware of its national security goals due to its immense involvement in other cases. In that case Pakistan House is there to held such seminars which will aware to state that, this particular mater is related to national security and must be pursued on the preference basis.

Revisiting Counter-terrorism Strategies in Pakistan: Opportunities and Pitfalls

International Crises Group                                                                             Islamabad/Brussels, 22 July 2015

The 16 December 2014 attack on an army-run school in Peshawar, which killed 150, mainly children, claimed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (Taliban Movement of Pakistan-TTP), was ostensibly a game changer. A week later, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML-N) government unveiled a new counter-terrorism strategy, the twenty-point National Action Plan (NAP), with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Army Chief Raheel Sharif vowing to target all terror groups without distinction. Six months later, amid continued terror attacks, the NAP looks far more like a hastily-conceived wish-list devised for public consumption during a moment of crisis than a coherent strategy. Reliance on blunt instruments and lethal force to counter terrorism risks doing more harm than good when they undermine constitutionalism, democratic governance and the rule of law and provide grist to the jihadist’ propaganda mill. A reformed and strengthened criminal justice system is pivotal to countering terror threats and containing violent extremism.

The militarization of counter-terrorism policy puts at risk Pakistan’s evolution toward greater civilian rule, which is itself a necessary but not sufficient condition to stabilize the democratic transition. While the report addresses the coercive side of a counter-terrorism policy and how to make it more efficient, without structural and governance reform, the root causes of terrorism and extremism will remain unaddressed, and violent jihadist will continue to exploit the absence of rule of law. The military’s continual undermining of civilian authority since democracy’s restoration in 2008 will remain a major challenge to meaningful and sustained reform. Yet, the political leadership also bears responsibility for failing to push back and, as a result, undermining its credibility and authority.

After inaugurating the NAP on 24 December, the Sharif government implemented two major demands of the military without delay: lifting the predecessor government’s 2008 moratorium on the death penalty; and passing on 6 January 2015 the 21st constitutional amendment, empowering special military courts to try all terrorism suspects, including civilians. Yet, the vast majority of the 176 executions since late December have been for crimes unrelated to terrorism, and the military courts weaken constitutional protections and due process. Other newly-created parallel structures, including provincial “apex committees”, enable the military to bypass representative institutions and play a more direct role in governance. Armed with new legal tools, the military has further marginalized civilian institutions in devising and implementing counter-terrorism policy.

Unsurprisingly, there is little evidence of progress on many NAP targets. Groups and individuals banned in Pakistan and also blacklisted under UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1267, continue to operate freely. Efforts to regulate the madrasa sector curb hate speech and literature and block terrorist financing have been haphazard at best.

A reformed and strengthened criminal justice system could have helped to achieve NAP’s objectives. The Sharif government still has an opportunity, albeit fast shrinking, to reverse course and meaningfully overhaul counter-terrorism strategy, but this necessitates revoking major policy concessions to the military. The government should take on that challenge in order to replace an overly militarized response with a revamped, intelligence-guided counter-terrorism strategy, led by civilian law enforcement agencies, particularly the police. Dismantling terror networks, detaining and trying jihadist leaders and foot soldiers, disrupting terror financing and ending radicalization through hate speech and literature will require reallocating limited resources in order to strengthen the capacity of the provincial police forces. While the three basic bodies of law, the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act, need to be modernized, it is even more urgent to build police capacity to enforce them. That capacity has been gravely eroded due to the inadequacy of resources, training, internal accountability and autonomy.

An empowered, resourced police force remains the most credible tool for enforcing a sustained and successful counter-terrorism strategy. The current emphasis on revenge and retribution and the emasculation of fundamental rights and rule of law are undermining citizen confidence in the state to deliver justice, a flawed approach that also fuels grievances that benefit the violent extremists the NAP is aimed at combating.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To develop a civilian-led and intelligence-based counter-terrorism strategy

To the federal and provincial governments:

1.  Make the expansion, modernization and effectiveness of local and provincial police forces’ investigation branches a top counter-terrorism priority, including through training and technology in crime-scene investigation and case building.

2.  Disband the new parallel counter-terrorism forces and absorb their personnel and functions into regular police cadres after requisite training.

3.  Reform the Evidence Act to shift focus from witness testimony to modern scientific evidence; and invest in strong state-protection programs for witnesses, investigators, prosecutors and judges in terrorism and other major criminal cases.

4.  Enhance police operational autonomy and accountability, including by ensuring that the provincial police inspector general (IG) is appointed on merit and granted full authority over the force.

To the provincial police leadership:

5.  Undertake a comprehensive examination of their force to determine staffing and training needs, with particular emphasis on developing effective investigation cadres; and establish career progression paths that depend on performance.

6.  Review comprehensively and reform the training curriculum, in consultation with in-house and external experts, so as to create learning modules for intelligence-led counter-terrorism operations that include an emphasis on the police role in curbing hate speech and literature and enforcing the law against clerics, mosques and madrasas advocating or supporting violence.

For robust monitoring of banned groups and individuals

To the federal and provincial governments:

7.  Reconcile Pakistan’s list of banned groups under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997 with the UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1267 committee blacklist; and make both lists available to the federal and provincial police, other law enforcement agencies, financial institutions and the public.

8.  Develop a regularly-updated list of officers and members of banned groups, and enforce requisite curbs on travel, bearing arms, financial transactions and other proscribed activities.

9.  Update periodically the ATA’s Fourth Schedule, listing known suspects belonging to banned organizations, and requires police stations and district police superintendents to account regularly for the individuals on the Fourth Schedule in their jurisdictions.

10.  Ensure that the police investigate and monitor all madrasas, mosques and charities with known or suspected links to banned groups under the ATA or the UNSC 1267 blacklist, as well as those that maintain armed militias, or whose administrators and/or members propagate hate and/or incite violence and other criminal acts within or from the country.

To curb terrorist financing and money laundering

To the federal and provincial governments:

11.  Develop a specialized cell within the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to investigate terror financing and money laundering; and establish concurrent jurisdiction over such cases between the FIA and specialized provincial police units and counter-terrorism departments.

12.  Make anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing methods an integral part of the police training curriculum, based on international standards.

13.  Require banks and other financial institutions to install, with international assistance, software for crosschecking names of existing and potential clients against those sanctioned under the ATA; and ensure provincial police are given this information and information gained from comprehensive audits of madrasas, mosques and charities with known or suspected affiliations to violent jihadist.

14.  Enhance the state’s ability to curb terror financing within and from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) by extending the jurisdiction of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) province police, FIA and other relevant civilian law enforcement agencies to the tribal belt.

To achieve a sustainable counter-insurgency strategy in FATA

To the federal government and parliament:

15.  Pass Senator Farhatullah Babar’s constitutional amendment bill extending the jurisdiction of the superior judiciary to FATA; and follow up with another constitutional amendment that repeals Article 247, ends FATA’s separate legal status and extends the jurisdiction of the police and other civilian law-enforcement agencies to FATA.

16.  Abolish the 1901 Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), replacing it with the Pakistan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.

Sultan M. Hali

CHINESE President Xi Jinping has made positive overtures for peace in the region as well as peace in the world. His meetings with US President Barrack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron as well as the other world leaders have been a one-point agenda: to shed rivalry and join forces to establish world peace. President Xi Jinping’s proposal has been devoid of rhetoric and based on genuine concern for the uplift of the less developed countries, which have been caught in the crosshairs of superpower contentions.
Believing that charity begins from home, China has endeavored to settle its disputes with its neighbors amicably through dialogue. Taiwan, which is a breakaway province of China and is expected to rejoin mainland China sooner than later, has never faced physical antagonism or threats from China. Instead, China is maintaining trade, tourism, and economic ties. The recent meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou on the
sidelines of a state visit by President Xi to Singapore, was an epoch making event. China’s reaching out to Taiwan speaks volumes for its policies of ‘live and let live’ and reunification of Taiwan and China.
In the near past, the unprovoked incursion of a US Naval warship in the territorial waters of China adjacent to the disputed Spratly Islands, did not raise tempers in Beijing, instead the US and Chinese navies held high-level talks and agreed to maintain dialogue and follow protocols to avoid clashes. US chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson and his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Wu Shengli, during their meeting agreed on the need to stick to protocols established under the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea and confirmed that the scheduled port visits by US and Chinese ships and planned visits to China by senior US Navy officers will remain on track.
With the display of such maturity, South Asia, which unfortunately has become a hotbed of conflict and tension, necessitates sagacious counseling by peace loving China. Notwithstanding the strategic cooperative Sino-Pak partnership, one would expect China to take a neutral stand and urge India to accede to international and regional overtures for Indo-Pak peace talks. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear weapons equipped states and any armed conflict between them will spark the flashpoint which will be disastrous for the entire region. The world has stood by and observed China’s peaceful rise to development. India, which is also desirous of achieving the same level of development as China, has unfortunately adopted the path of confrontation with its neighbors. Such a jingoistic and belligerent attitude is not only contrary to principles of humanity but will also prove counterproductive towards India’s aspirations for prosperity, besides stunting the growth of its neighbors.
India’s industrial development and its energy requirements including the peaceful use of nuclear resources are understandable. US has favored India with a civil nuclear energy deal, while denying Pakistan the same. Were it not for China, to have extended its support to Pakistan and expand its civil nuclear co-operation under IAEA safeguards, Pakistan would have been suffering even worse energy shortage. China understands and appreciates that Pakistan is a proponent of peaceful use of nuclear technology and supports objectives of nuclear non-proliferation and safety and security of its nuclear assets. While China is investing heavily in economic development of its neighbors through its One Belt One Road (OBOR) project and China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), it is simultaneously reaching out even to India to support it in its development projects despite Indian animosity towards China.
In this milieu, where China understands and appreciates the multiple security challenges in South Asia and envisions a common, co-operative, comprehensive and sustainable security framework for the region, it is hoped that China also takes cognizance of South Asia’s two major challenges. These challenges are firstly in the form of India’s unprecedented and unwarranted quest for weapons and secondly conflict resolution.
An inclusive, non-discriminatory and criteria based approach needs to be adopted to treat regional states like Pakistan and India. This, however, is easier said than done. While Pakistan envisions a peaceful neighborhood, India is reluctant to improve relations with Pakistan. It has made it a state policy to avoid engaging Pakistan in peace talks. Even the four point proposal for structural dialogues submitted by Pakistan has been rejected by India. Under the circumstances,
calling on the sagacity of Chinese leadership and in view of China’s constructive role in South Asia and East Asia, it would not be out of place to solicit Chinese support for urging India for a dialogue for peace with Pakistan.
In the post 9/11 era India and the US have edged closer to each other. They enjoy a strategic partnership and despite India’s sovereignty, pride and independence, India is open to suggestions and recommendations of its well wishers. As China and Pakistan enjoy a deep rooted strategic partnership, India and the US too have developed close links. To ensure world peace, avoid an accidental Indo-Pak nuclear conflict, both China and the US can play a positive role. The US can urge India to sit at the negotiations table with Pakistan and resolve their outstanding issues including the core issue of Kashmir. Pakistan will need little prodding and would engage diplomatically with India willingly.

 It is understandable that India is averse to third party role in conflict resolution but friends and allies can support peace talks without intervening directly. Sometimes a bit of cajoling and a slight nudge can do wonders. If the US and China can sink their differences and instead of competing with each other, resolve to support peace initiatives, Pakistan and India are prime candidates for such an undertaking. It is strongly recommended that the major powers of today the US and China, which are also major economic giants, can make concerted efforts for ensuring political stability in the region by resuming composite dialogue and resolving disputes between Pakistan and India.
—The writer is retired PAF Group Captain and a TV talk show host.

Courtesy to Pakistan Observer

The News, February 23, 2012

National security vs welfare

Iqbal Haider

Should the priority and focus of the state be national security or the security and welfare of the people who live in it? This is an issue, which is being debated particularly in Pakistan and in other South Asian countries.
I belong to the school of thought which believes that social welfare should not be compromised by national security considerations. No doubt, territorial integrity and stability within the states and from inter-state conflicts must be secured, but the paramount consideration ought to be welfare of the people. If social welfare is not secured then the people tend to secure their economic interests in other countries.
Regrettably, in India and Pakistan our budget allocation priorities have remained riveted on the defence sector. If we cannot afford to make such huge allocations for the defence, we readily indulge in borrowings in billions of dollars, which makes our future generations also heavily indebted. This obviously results in neglect of the social sector. These arguments constitute simple common sense but unfortunately certain vested interests and the establishments of our countries, which thrive on promotion of hatred and conflicts, reject such simple logic and reasoning.
The prudent and advisable policies to secure both national security and social welfare of the people, is to establish warm, cordial relations and cooperation in all spheres with our neighbouring countries, rather than placing reliance on distantly located the US or the western block. China, in my opinion, appears to be a more trustworthy neighbour to secure not only defence but also equitable economic developments.
Last year in July a conference was held in China to discuss ways and means to promote collaboration between China and Saarc through Enhanced People to People Exchanges. It is obvious from the very decision to hold this Conference in China that both the government its think tanks are equally desirous of promoting more close and cordial relations with the Saarc countries. Greater cooperation and closer ties of the Saarc countries with China, in my opinion, would not only serve our national security concerns but also enable us to give greater priority and allocation to the social sector, which is the critical need of the oppressed people of the entire South Asia region.
It is very heartening to note that in the post-Cold War era, both the Congress Party and the BJP of India have wisely pursued a consistent policy of reconciliation and engagement with China. The past prime ministers of these parties and other leaders of India have repeatedly expressed that “India had no wish to hold China as an enemy or a threat.” They reinforced the desire to establish friendly relations with China.
At no point has the diplomatic engagement between India and China ceased. Even the 1998 nuclear tests by India did not cause any harm to India’s policy and relations with China. To my knowledge, India has also succeeded in making some territorial adjustments with China. Lately, the economic ties between India and China have attained new heights, perhaps China is the biggest trading partner of India.
On the other hand, China is the most trusted ally and strategic partner of Pakistan for close to five decades. China, being the common denominator between India and Pakistan, is well placed to play a significant role in promoting cordial relations, peace and progress not only between our three countries but also in the entire South Asian region. China’s high profile in economic interactions at both bilateral and regional levels has most favourable implications for the region as a whole.
It is necessary to highlight a most potent threat to our security: the curse of terrorism. It is not only destroying peace and security of both India and Pakistan, but also harming trust and confidence between the two. The incidents of terrorism are creating very serious impediments in the badly needed peace process between India and Pakistan. I want the people of India to realize that the “jihadis” and their terrorist activities are our common enemies.
It is imperative for Pakistan and India, being next-door neighbours, to devise a joint strategy with sincerity of purpose for combating terrorism in our region. Terrorism is not only a threat to our national security but also to the life and property of our people from within our respective countries. Those terrorists, who were involved in one of the worst tragedies of 26/11 in Mumbai, or in the terrorist attack on the Houses of Parliament in Delhi on Dec 13, 2001, or in the commission of the same barbaric acts of terrorism every other week in all nooks and corners of Pakistan, are enemies of Pakistan, and equally of India. Pakistan, in particular, is the worst victim of religious extremist terrorist organisations.
According to unofficial sources since 2002 more than 7,000 members of our military and paramilitary forces, including one lieutenant general, one major general, five brigadiers, and police have sacrificed their precious lives in confronting these terrorists. More than 70,000 innocent citizens in various part of our country have died in innumerable attacks by the terrorists during the same period. Terrorists are our number-one enemy. The two governments must clear the perception or allegations about any state actor or non-state actors in our respective countries involved in such unforgivable acts of terrorism.
The imperatives of the foreign policy of both India and Pakistan must be focused on the principles of peaceful coexistence and economic collaboration and to put an end to the blame-game strategy and the hate propaganda by state or non state elements.
The Kashmir dispute should not be allowed to prevent forever the existence of cordial relations between our two countries. One of the viable, realistic and pragmatic solutions for resolving the Kashmir dispute, at least for the time being and without prejudice to the respective stands of the two countries on Kashmir, is to accept the Line of Control with some adjustment as the international border.
In my view, this is also the spirit and objective of the Shimla Agreement of 1972. This must, however, be followed by a treaty between India and Pakistan containing firm and sincere commitments: (a) that both countries must discourage and prevent aggressive actions, militancy or terrorism or policy of blame-games against each other; and (b) the border between the two countries and between the two Kashmirs should be opened to the people at large with free access, free trade, exchange of cultural activities, academics, intellectual groups, sports events, free access to the electronic and print media, etc.
We can draw incalculable dividends by establishment of peace, harmony, open borders, an environment of trust, cooperation and collaboration between the Saarc countries, and with China. This will usher in a new era of prosperity and peace. It will also provide free access between the Saarc countries and the Central Asian countries as well to serve our basic needs and interests.

The writer is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and former senator and federal minister. Email: ihaider45@yahoo.com

Shamshad Ahmad

Given our colossal economic mess-up under the present government, we always thought there is no real economist available to it. But we have now discovered it does have one. He happens to be the head of the now almost defunct Planning Commission. The story goes that last week this distinguished economist, who had never been heard of ever since this government came to office, was to present the blueprint of a plan for Pakistan’s economic recovery and development.

The story further goes that the venue of his presentation was to be the prime military institution, the National Defence University (NDU), regarding the contents of the notorious May 10 memo. Ironically, this was also the place where our civil and military leadership had assembled 13 years ago to take the decision to go ahead with our nuclear tests on May 28, 1998.

Symbolically, therefore, it would have been a blow delivered to the nation by this government through an inconsequential functionary. Timely detection of the radioactivity from the ill-designed “testing device” even before its explosion seems to have pre-empted an embarrassing event. The economist was told not to come to the NDU. The testing device he was to explode was certainly not compatible with the location, a university. No wonder, the planned presentation was aborted.

This brings us to the issue of the memo in which its authors solicited Washington’s behind-the-scenes intervention to put the Pakistani army on the spot. Those who have no competence and credibility of their own – and as per their own admittance in the memo, are devoid of any strategic vision or calibre to be able to assert any civilian control over the military – had been seeking US involvement in Pakistan’s internal affairs from the very beginning. This had beenevidenced in the intrusive conditionalities incorporated at their behest in the Kerry-Lugar Bill three years ago.

The disgraceful memo now crosses all limits by virtually inviting a foreign power to come and take over the country’s control, including its national security apparatus. It envisaged Washington’s intervention with political-military backing, involving not only a revamp of the civilian government but also a wholesale replacement of the national security adviser and other national security officials. The replacements would have been “trusted advisers favourably viewed by Washington, each of whom has long and historical ties to the US military, political and intelligence communities.”

Point four of the memo pledged: “The new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the Pakistani government – initially civilian but eventually all three power centres – to develop an acceptable framework of discipline for the nuclear programme. This effort was begun under the previous military regime, with acceptable results. We are prepared to reactivate those ideas and build on them in a way that brings Pakistan’s nuclear assets under a more verifiable, transparent regime.”

This commitment, if translated into reality, would have inevitably led to the gradual dismantling of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, a process that Gen Musharraf had already begun to secure his presidency for life, and which the authors of the memo, with similar ambitions of lifelong rule, now apparently wanted to carry forward to its logical conclusion. No wonder the treasonous memo case is now under judicial probe at the highest level. A commission has been constituted to investigate the reality behind Memogate.

If proved genuine, as it appears to be from its published transcript and related forensic details, this would perhaps be the most sophisticated version of a Byzantine intrigue in which the state itself is seen to be conspiring against its own sovereignty, and against national security and national honour. The purported six undertakings in the transcript in question simply amount to nothing but ransoming of the state of Pakistan and its independence to a foreign power.

But this is not the first conspiracy of its kind in our land. We have seen umpteen of them before. Thanks to Wikileaks, in recent years, conspiracies of all sorts against the state and its people by our self-serving corrupt rulers with foreign collusion are no longer secret. The most notorious was the NRO deal brokered by the US at the request of a military dictator for a manipulated power-sharing arrangement that would have allowed him to continue in power in a regime with a pleasant civilian face, in the iconic person of Benazir Bhutto, who would have been his prime minister.

A first-hand account of the making of the shady NRO deal is revealed in detail by former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in her book No Higher Honor. What is clear from this historical account is that the US secretary of state did everything to pull it off, because that was in her country’s interest. Lamentably, on our side, each player in the game did what was only in his or her personal interest. This has been the tradition of the US-Pakistan relationship. Benazir Bhutto’s tragic death changed the very scene, bringing to power in Pakistan an accidental NRO beneficiary leadership. It was nothing but a political scandal with far-reaching legal implications for Pakistan. Ironically, the Supreme Court’s Dec 16, 2009, verdict on the NRO’s illegality remains unimplemented even though the apex court reaffirmed its ruling in the government’s review petition.

This brings us back to our economist who believes our nuclear programme is obstructing his socio-economic development plans. Unfortunately, the same voices of doom and gloom which opposed Pakistan’s nuclear tests 13 years ago are again questioning the very raison d’etre of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. They have also been seeking to detract from Pakistan’s credible minimum deterrent requirement and trying to suggest that Pakistan is paying a heavy price for its nuclear capability. There couldn’t be a greater insinuation. Given the magnitude of our threat perception, we just cannot afford to lower our guard. We must preserve, protect and consolidate our credible minimum deterrent capability.

Instead of seeking to undermine the country’s national security, our economist friends should have been using their professional skills to control governmental spendings, rooting out corruption from all segments of our society, promoting self-reliance, simplicity and austerity in all spheres of life, and eliminating the VIP culture, including the lavish perks and privileges extended at government expense to holders of public office. What is needed is tightening of belts at the top levels, reducing governmental borrowings, controlling inflation, rationalising of GDP targets, restoring macro-economic balance, and banning non-essential imports and luxuries to reduce the trade gap.

Sustainable economic growth is always predicated on sound macro-economic policies, optimum utilisation of country’s natural and human resources and full exploitation of its agricultural, industrial and technological potential. None of these policies is visible in the present economic governance. Instead of using our nuclear programme as an easy scapegoat for their own failures, our economists should have been exploring judicious planning, effective strategies and homegrown, not foreign-dictated, solutions to our economic problems.

In the ultimate analysis, one thing is clear. All these skeptical assumptions and apprehensions over the necessity of our nuclear programme are totally misplaced, if not mala fide and baseless. Our economic problems are not because of our nuclear programme. Our economic problems are because of flagrant governance failures, endemic crime and corruption, absence of rule of law and justice, poor economic planning, flawed fiscal management, inconsistent macro-economic policies and lack of public safety and peaceful environment.

The writer is a former foreign secretary. Email: shamshad1941@ yahoo.com