Pakistan’s grand march

[Creder]

The writer is a former diplomat ..of course calling pakistan a "failed state" to indian writers is like reciting prayer..but anyways read the article tis pretty interesting

Pakistan’s grand march
By M K Bhadrakumar

Often derided as a ‘failing state,’ Pakistan presses ahead with a foreign policy agenda that meets the country’s national priorities.


The Pakistani diplomacy has been presenting some stunning success stories. It is coolly cruising toward a ‘nuclear deal’ with China. The deal doesn’t involve any Hyde Act prescribing the contours of Pakistan’s Iran policy or a Nuclear Liability Bill freeing Beijing of culpability for faulty performance.

Nor has Pakistan agreed to have a ‘minimum deterrent’ or shown willingness to cap its inventory of nuclear weapons already exceeding India’s. It seems no power on earth can stop Pakistan getting a ‘waiver’ from the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG). Not even the United States.

Compare it to how the UPA government tied itself in knots to conclude a nuclear deal with the US. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh staked the survival of his government and resorted to dubious methods to re-charter the course of coalition politics for reaching his destination. He is still to explain his failure to fulfil his assurances to parliament. Of course, the ENR technology will not flow to India.
Why is Pakistani diplomacy doing so well? The army chief Pervez Kayani has just concluded a 5-day visit to China, which raises Sino-Pak defence cooperation to new heights. Yet, Islamabad is preparing for the second round of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue for which secretary of state Hillary Clinton is visiting Pakistan next month.

Hardly three months after the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue in Washington, the Obama administration is sitting down with the Pakistani leadership — civilian and military — for another round of high-voltage diplomacy. Against this backdrop, Kayani’s visit to Beijing underscores that Islamabad is not lacking in foreign-policy options if the Obama administration resuscitates the Bush-era doctrine pampering India’s regional vanities.

The self-assuredness of Pakistani diplomacy is such that on the eve of the strategic dialogue with the US, Islamabad ambled across the final lap of negotiations to sign an agreement with Tehran over a $7 billion gas pipeline from Iran. It was done with such manifestly cavalier abandon. The agreement came hot on the heels of the latest UN sanctions against Iran that the Obama administration robustly pushed through.

Why is it that Indian diplomacy chooses to settle for vacuous rhetoric and grandstanding in the ties with the US — a gala state dinner for Singh or an elegant pair of gold cuff links for external affairs minister S M Krishna? India lives in its region and can the US ensure its preeminence?

Our smaller western neighbour, which we often deride as a ‘failing state,’ presses ahead with a purposive foreign policy agenda that meets the country’s national priorities of energy security. The Iran gas pipeline project throws into relief the dismal truth that India lacks a foreign policy that serves its national objectives of growth and development.

Spin masters
Every time the subject comes up, the spin masters serving the establishment come up with some lame excuse or the other. The latest thesis is that India could be ‘floating on gas reserves’ and might indeed be ‘energy-secure.’ True, Reliance is developing new gas fields under lucrative pricing conditions provided by the government and competing Iranian gas imports are, arguably, best avoided. But that has nothing to do with the country’s energy security as such. An honest discussion about the cost of Iranian gas becomes practically impossible, given the opaqueness of the government’s pricing policy.

Then, there is shale gas, which is lately touted by our spin masters as a promising energy source ‘likely to overtake’ — in the womb of time — both conventional gas as well as liquid fuels. Unsurprisingly, Reliance bets on shale gas. And needless to say, shale gas extraction, which involves tapping natural gas trapped between layers of shale rock, requires latest American technology and the Reliance is currently buying into it in a significant way.

Of course, Reliance’s emergence as a ‘diversified, vertically integrated player’ in the energy sector could be a matter of national pride. But can national pride be equated with the government’s energy security policy? The heart of the matter is that India needs both the Reliance fuelling wealth as well as Iran’s fabulous South Pars gas fields feeding the gargantuan Indian economy for decades to come.

Quite obviously, the US disfavours Iranian gas feeding the Indian market on a long-term footing as it could deprive the Big Oil of lucrative business. Two, the US seeks to block Iranian energy exports until such time as US-Iran normalisation materialises. Three, the US is fundamentally opposed to the emergence of an Asian energy grid involving Iran, Pakistan, India and China, which would have potentially far-reaching strategic implications for American global strategy.

The Indian leadership has failed to show the transparency that a ‘failing state’ like Pakistan possesses in defining its hardcore national interests vis-à-vis Iran. Pakistan also has a political elite that is corrupt and which may harbour a sense of vulnerability to American pressure.

But what distinguishes its foreign-policy making is that the GHQ in Rawalpindi as the custodian of national interests, draws the bottom line. Which, in turn, enables Pakistani diplomacy to turn to its advantage the growing Sino-American rivalries in the central, south and west Asian regions.

Ironically, the Obama administration doesn’t object to Pakistan’s independent foreign policy. Nor does it seem to mind if Pakistan disagrees with its agenda towards the situation around Iran. The Indian leadership’s fear psychosis is clearly unwarranted.
(The writer is a former diplomat)

 

[Old School]

But what distinguishes its foreign-policy making is that the GHQ in Rawalpindi as the custodian of national interests, draws the bottom line. Which, in turn, enables Pakistani diplomacy to turn to its advantage the growing Sino-American rivalries in the central, south and west Asian regions.

(The writer is a former diplomat)

Surely , it is and we like to keep it that way. New Delhi is better off dealing with GHQ than spineless/characterless politicians which can even turn to TTP if necessary.

 

[Jackdaws]

The writer is a bit off the mark. Fact of the matter is that at the moment Pakistan is indispensable to the US and this enables Pakistan to screw around a little with the Americans. And Pakistan has another all-weather friend in China - the 2nd most powerful/important country in the world. So Pakistan has a back-up plan. India on the other hand pissed off the Yanks by allying with the Russians in the Cold War. It was akin to a blind man holding the hand of another blind man to cross the street. Pakistan has both the Big 2 - USA and China in its corner - the former reluctantly because it has no choice and the later mainly to put India in its place and show Americans their clout. India sure as hell doesn't have China in its corner. It needs Americans. There is no way around it.

 

[PracticalGuy]

The writer is a former diplomat ..of course calling pakistan a "failed state" to indian writers is like reciting prayer..but anyways read the article tis pretty interesting

Pakistan’s grand march
By M K Bhadrakumar

Often derided as a ‘failing state,’ Pakistan presses ahead with a foreign policy agenda that meets the country’s national priorities.


The Pakistani diplomacy has been presenting some stunning success stories. It is coolly cruising toward a ‘nuclear deal’ with China. The deal doesn’t involve any Hyde Act prescribing the contours of Pakistan’s Iran policy or a Nuclear Liability Bill freeing Beijing of culpability for faulty performance.

Nor has Pakistan agreed to have a ‘minimum deterrent’ or shown willingness to cap its inventory of nuclear weapons already exceeding India’s. It seems no power on earth can stop Pakistan getting a ‘waiver’ from the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG). Not even the United States.

Compare it to how the UPA government tied itself in knots to conclude a nuclear deal with the US. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh staked the survival of his government and resorted to dubious methods to re-charter the course of coalition politics for reaching his destination. He is still to explain his failure to fulfil his assurances to parliament. Of course, the ENR technology will not flow to India.
Why is Pakistani diplomacy doing so well? The army chief Pervez Kayani has just concluded a 5-day visit to China, which raises Sino-Pak defence cooperation to new heights. Yet, Islamabad is preparing for the second round of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue for which secretary of state Hillary Clinton is visiting Pakistan next month.

Hardly three months after the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue in Washington, the Obama administration is sitting down with the Pakistani leadership — civilian and military — for another round of high-voltage diplomacy. Against this backdrop, Kayani’s visit to Beijing underscores that Islamabad is not lacking in foreign-policy options if the Obama administration resuscitates the Bush-era doctrine pampering India’s regional vanities.

The self-assuredness of Pakistani diplomacy is such that on the eve of the strategic dialogue with the US, Islamabad ambled across the final lap of negotiations to sign an agreement with Tehran over a $7 billion gas pipeline from Iran. It was done with such manifestly cavalier abandon. The agreement came hot on the heels of the latest UN sanctions against Iran that the Obama administration robustly pushed through.

Why is it that Indian diplomacy chooses to settle for vacuous rhetoric and grandstanding in the ties with the US — a gala state dinner for Singh or an elegant pair of gold cuff links for external affairs minister S M Krishna? India lives in its region and can the US ensure its preeminence?

Our smaller western neighbour, which we often deride as a ‘failing state,’ presses ahead with a purposive foreign policy agenda that meets the country’s national priorities of energy security. The Iran gas pipeline project throws into relief the dismal truth that India lacks a foreign policy that serves its national objectives of growth and development.

Spin masters
Every time the subject comes up, the spin masters serving the establishment come up with some lame excuse or the other. The latest thesis is that India could be ‘floating on gas reserves’ and might indeed be ‘energy-secure.’ True, Reliance is developing new gas fields under lucrative pricing conditions provided by the government and competing Iranian gas imports are, arguably, best avoided. But that has nothing to do with the country’s energy security as such. An honest discussion about the cost of Iranian gas becomes practically impossible, given the opaqueness of the government’s pricing policy.

Then, there is shale gas, which is lately touted by our spin masters as a promising energy source ‘likely to overtake’ — in the womb of time — both conventional gas as well as liquid fuels. Unsurprisingly, Reliance bets on shale gas. And needless to say, shale gas extraction, which involves tapping natural gas trapped between layers of shale rock, requires latest American technology and the Reliance is currently buying into it in a significant way.

Of course, Reliance’s emergence as a ‘diversified, vertically integrated player’ in the energy sector could be a matter of national pride. But can national pride be equated with the government’s energy security policy? The heart of the matter is that India needs both the Reliance fuelling wealth as well as Iran’s fabulous South Pars gas fields feeding the gargantuan Indian economy for decades to come.

Quite obviously, the US disfavours Iranian gas feeding the Indian market on a long-term footing as it could deprive the Big Oil of lucrative business. Two, the US seeks to block Iranian energy exports until such time as US-Iran normalisation materialises. Three, the US is fundamentally opposed to the emergence of an Asian energy grid involving Iran, Pakistan, India and China, which would have potentially far-reaching strategic implications for American global strategy.

The Indian leadership has failed to show the transparency that a ‘failing state’ like Pakistan possesses in defining its hardcore national interests vis-à-vis Iran. Pakistan also has a political elite that is corrupt and which may harbour a sense of vulnerability to American pressure.

But what distinguishes its foreign-policy making is that the GHQ in Rawalpindi as the custodian of national interests, draws the bottom line. Which, in turn, enables Pakistani diplomacy to turn to its advantage the growing Sino-American rivalries in the central, south and west Asian regions.

Ironically, the Obama administration doesn’t object to Pakistan’s independent foreign policy. Nor does it seem to mind if Pakistan disagrees with its agenda towards the situation around Iran. The Indian leadership’s fear psychosis is clearly unwarranted.
(The writer is a former diplomat)

what Big oil? can he name one US oil giant with any investment in India? He should have written this article after pakistan received Iran's gas.. until then it's all rhetoric.. and India's stance on IPI is security related as pakistan cant guarantee it's safety from it's "non-state" actors...

 

[Jazzbot]

What China wants, China gets

China is the new USA and, unlike India, has a nearly 20-century-old history of clout to pursue an aggressive and independent foreign policy line, especially when it comes to dipping into the natural resources in the neighborhood. In fact, an ongoing Sino-Indian “energy war” in the corporate boardrooms is what’s probably souring Sino-Indian relations more than China’s unstinting military support for Pakistan.

China’s economy is projected to reach $123 trillion within 30 years, more than three times the economic output of the entire globe in 2000. Only for two of the past 20 centuries has China not been the world’s top economy. Its appetite for sustainability is, hence, arguably unparalleled.

Earlier this week, much to India’s dismay and ahead of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, China announced that it plans to sell two nuclear power-generating reactors to Pakistan..

The proposed sale appears to break NSG guidelines and is similar to the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal which was clinched under a special NSG exemption pushed through by the US.

China’s plan is also a slap in the face of India that was beginning to brighten up at the thought of being dehyphenated from Pakistan as being among nuclear weapons powers that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Why is China, at this point, aggressively reinforcing its historic hold on Pakistan that has a sordid history of selling nuclear weapons technology and that is arguably at its nadir today, ranked 10th this week in the 2010 Failed State Index released by the presigious Foreign Policy magazine?

Fact is, Pakistan is the fulcrum of China’s regional reach for new sources of energy and minerals to sustain its high growth rate. Its announcement of the proposed sale comes only days after the New York Times suspiciously revealed the discovery by the United States of nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan.
The report cited an internal Pentagon memo as stating that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material for use in the manufacture of hydrogen fuel cells and batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

It’s quite unlikely that the US has only just discovered Afghanistan’s massive potential mineral wealth, what with the jury still out on whether a trans-Afghanistan oil pipeline to the Arabian Sea was the reason for the 2002 US invasion and the toppling of the Taleban regime. Political analysts suspect that the minerals report was leaked to the NYT by the Obama admistration in a bid to pave the way for its next move in Afghanistan. If that’s the case, then China had no choice but to overtly checkmate the move by playing the Pakistan wild card and getting to the nucleus of the issue: access to the regional riches.

Afghanistan is critical to the regional plans of the US, China, Iran, India and Pakistan, not necessarily in that order though the US has been having its way in the war-torn country for quite a while now. Of late, Washington got Kabul to agree to build a $7.6-billion natural gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India.

The Asian Development Bank is considering financing the project. Reports say the Obama admistration is pushing the project so as to counter a proposed Iranian pipeline for gas supply to Pakistan and India.

China’s influence in the region has weakened after the 2002 invasion, and especially after the US troop surge in Afghanistan last year and subsequent air control of Pakistan’s troubled northwest tribal region.
Nonetheless, China has invested heavily in building Pakistan’s Gwadar port that will be the regional hub for trans-shipping Central Asian oil. But if the US gets a stronger foothold by leading the way in exploiting Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, China might not be assured of its Gwadar spinoff.

Besides, China has an eye on Afghanistan’s mineral wealth as well. It plans to invest $3 billion in the Aynak copper mine, south of Kabul, and millions more to build a railway route from Gwadar north through Afghanistan and Tajikistan. A brand new highway through Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan already links China’s western Xinjiang province to Afghanistan. Additionally, Wardak province has also been connected to the Chinese road map.

As for the US, it has spent $1.8 billion on Afghan road projects since 2002. Iran, meanwhile, has invested up to $220 million, and millions more have come from India.

In effect, the battle lines are already drawn into Afghanistan’s fledging road network that could become the future “Silk Route.” One study, titled “The Key to Success in Afghanistan: A Modern Silk Road Strategy”, prepared by the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, describes post-conflict Afghanistan as a transit route for energy-rich Central Asia.

As things stand, however, it’s all still a very ambitious dream for Afghanistan where the Taleban are becoming more and more relevant for the shaping of the country’s future.
For India, control of the region by the US is a better prospect than staunchly pro-Pakistan China.

For Pakistan, Afghanistan is indispensable as a backyard offering strategic depth, with or without US support.

For the US, Afghanistan may well be already in the bag but for that niggling problem of getting the Taleban on board. Iran shudders at the thought of a US stronghold in its eastern neigborhood.
And for China, as the new USA, there seems no reason why the old USA, now debt-ridden, financially defanged and war weary, must have its way in the region anymore.

 

[TechLahore]

Very interesting article written by a retired Indian diplomat. He concedes that Pakistani diplomacy has delivered "stunning successes" and despite opposition, it has managed to prevail. He chides Indian "fear psychosis" and suggests that Indian learn from how Pakistani diplomacy has conducted itself.

I have always maintained that if Pakistanis were even slightly less harsh on ourselves (if there was a self-harshness index published by Transparency, undoubtedly we would be #1), we would find *many* things to celebrate, and *many* achievements to feel happy about. Every time I look down on Islamabad from the absolutely beautiful Daman-e-Koh resort I tell myself, "We built this fabulous city, all on our own, in just a few years..." and that's just one of our many achievements.

It's ironic that we have to listen to an Indian diplomat to realize how well we play the game, but hey, enlightenment is welcome regardless of its source!

Good read.

Pakistan’s grand march
By M K Bhadrakumar

Often derided as a ‘failing state,’ Pakistan presses ahead with a foreign policy agenda that meets the country’s national priorities.

The Pakistani diplomacy has been presenting some stunning success stories. It is coolly cruising toward a ‘nuclear deal’ with China. The deal doesn’t involve any Hyde Act prescribing the contours of Pakistan’s Iran policy or a Nuclear Liability Bill freeing Beijing of culpability for faulty performance.

Nor has Pakistan agreed to have a ‘minimum deterrent’ or shown willingness to cap its inventory of nuclear weapons already exceeding India’s. It seems no power on earth can stop Pakistan getting a ‘waiver’ from the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG). Not even the United States.

Compare it to how the UPA government tied itself in knots to conclude a nuclear deal with the US. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh staked the survival of his government and resorted to dubious methods to re-charter the course of coalition politics for reaching his destination. He is still to explain his failure to fulfil his assurances to parliament. Of course, the ENR technology will not flow to India.
Why is Pakistani diplomacy doing so well? The army chief Pervez Kayani has just concluded a 5-day visit to China, which raises Sino-Pak defence cooperation to new heights. Yet, Islamabad is preparing for the second round of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue for which secretary of state Hillary Clinton is visiting Pakistan next month.

Hardly three months after the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue in Washington, the Obama administration is sitting down with the Pakistani leadership — civilian and military — for another round of high-voltage diplomacy. Against this backdrop, Kayani’s visit to Beijing underscores that Islamabad is not lacking in foreign-policy options if the Obama administration resuscitates the Bush-era doctrine pampering India’s regional vanities.

The self-assuredness of Pakistani diplomacy is such that on the eve of the strategic dialogue with the US, Islamabad ambled across the final lap of negotiations to sign an agreement with Tehran over a $7 billion gas pipeline from Iran. It was done with such manifestly cavalier abandon. The agreement came hot on the heels of the latest UN sanctions against Iran that the Obama administration robustly pushed through.

Why is it that Indian diplomacy chooses to settle for vacuous rhetoric and grandstanding in the ties with the US — a gala state dinner for Singh or an elegant pair of gold cuff links for external affairs minister S M Krishna? India lives in its region and can the US ensure its preeminence?

Our smaller western neighbour, which we often deride as a ‘failing state,’ presses ahead with a purposive foreign policy agenda that meets the country’s national priorities of energy security. The Iran gas pipeline project throws into relief the dismal truth that India lacks a foreign policy that serves its national objectives of growth and development.

Spin masters
Every time the subject comes up, the spin masters serving the establishment come up with some lame excuse or the other. The latest thesis is that India could be ‘floating on gas reserves’ and might indeed be ‘energy-secure.’ True, Reliance is developing new gas fields under lucrative pricing conditions provided by the government and competing Iranian gas imports are, arguably, best avoided. But that has nothing to do with the country’s energy security as such. An honest discussion about the cost of Iranian gas becomes practically impossible, given the opaqueness of the government’s pricing policy.

Then, there is shale gas, which is lately touted by our spin masters as a promising energy source ‘likely to overtake’ — in the womb of time — both conventional gas as well as liquid fuels. Unsurprisingly, Reliance bets on shale gas. And needless to say, shale gas extraction, which involves tapping natural gas trapped between layers of shale rock, requires latest American technology and the Reliance is currently buying into it in a significant way.

Of course, Reliance’s emergence as a ‘diversified, vertically integrated player’ in the energy sector could be a matter of national pride. But can national pride be equated with the government’s energy security policy? The heart of the matter is that India needs both the Reliance fuelling wealth as well as Iran’s fabulous South Pars gas fields feeding the gargantuan Indian economy for decades to come.

Quite obviously, the US disfavours Iranian gas feeding the Indian market on a long-term footing as it could deprive the Big Oil of lucrative business. Two, the US seeks to block Iranian energy exports until such time as US-Iran normalisation materialises. Three, the US is fundamentally opposed to the emergence of an Asian energy grid involving Iran, Pakistan, India and China, which would have potentially far-reaching strategic implications for American global strategy.

The Indian leadership has failed to show the transparency that a ‘failing state’ like Pakistan possesses in defining its hardcore national interests vis-à-vis Iran. Pakistan also has a political elite that is corrupt and which may harbour a sense of vulnerability to American pressure.

But what distinguishes its foreign-policy making is that the GHQ in Rawalpindi as the custodian of national interests, draws the bottom line. Which, in turn, enables Pakistani diplomacy to turn to its advantage the growing Sino-American rivalries in the central, south and west Asian regions.

Ironically, the Obama administration doesn’t object to Pakistan’s independent foreign policy. Nor does it seem to mind if Pakistan disagrees with its agenda towards the situation around Iran. The Indian leadership’s fear psychosis is clearly unwarranted.
(The writer is a former diplomat)

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/77127/pakistans-grand-march.html

 

[desiman]

Very interesting article written by a retired Indian diplomat. He concedes that Pakistani diplomacy has delivered "stunning successes" and despite opposition, it has managed to prevail. He chides Indian "fear psychosis" and suggests that Indian learn from how Pakistani diplomacy has conducted itself.

I have always maintained that if Pakistanis were even slightly less harsh on ourselves (if there was a self-harshness index published by Transparency, undoubtedly we would be #1), we would find *many* things to celebrate, and *many* achievements to feel happy about. Every time I look down on Islamabad from the absolutely beautiful Daman-e-Koh resort I tell myself, "We built this fabulous city, all on our own, in just a few years..." and that's just one of our many achievements.

It's ironic that we have to listen to an Indian diplomat to realize how well we play the game, but hey, enlightenment is welcome regardless of its source!

Good read.

Pakistan’s grand march
By M K Bhadrakumar

Often derided as a ‘failing state,’ Pakistan presses ahead with a foreign policy agenda that meets the country’s national priorities.

The Pakistani diplomacy has been presenting some stunning success stories. It is coolly cruising toward a ‘nuclear deal’ with China. The deal doesn’t involve any Hyde Act prescribing the contours of Pakistan’s Iran policy or a Nuclear Liability Bill freeing Beijing of culpability for faulty performance.

Nor has Pakistan agreed to have a ‘minimum deterrent’ or shown willingness to cap its inventory of nuclear weapons already exceeding India’s. It seems no power on earth can stop Pakistan getting a ‘waiver’ from the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG). Not even the United States.

Compare it to how the UPA government tied itself in knots to conclude a nuclear deal with the US. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh staked the survival of his government and resorted to dubious methods to re-charter the course of coalition politics for reaching his destination. He is still to explain his failure to fulfil his assurances to parliament. Of course, the ENR technology will not flow to India.
Why is Pakistani diplomacy doing so well? The army chief Pervez Kayani has just concluded a 5-day visit to China, which raises Sino-Pak defence cooperation to new heights. Yet, Islamabad is preparing for the second round of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue for which secretary of state Hillary Clinton is visiting Pakistan next month.

Hardly three months after the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue in Washington, the Obama administration is sitting down with the Pakistani leadership — civilian and military — for another round of high-voltage diplomacy. Against this backdrop, Kayani’s visit to Beijing underscores that Islamabad is not lacking in foreign-policy options if the Obama administration resuscitates the Bush-era doctrine pampering India’s regional vanities.

The self-assuredness of Pakistani diplomacy is such that on the eve of the strategic dialogue with the US, Islamabad ambled across the final lap of negotiations to sign an agreement with Tehran over a $7 billion gas pipeline from Iran. It was done with such manifestly cavalier abandon. The agreement came hot on the heels of the latest UN sanctions against Iran that the Obama administration robustly pushed through.

Why is it that Indian diplomacy chooses to settle for vacuous rhetoric and grandstanding in the ties with the US — a gala state dinner for Singh or an elegant pair of gold cuff links for external affairs minister S M Krishna? India lives in its region and can the US ensure its preeminence?

Our smaller western neighbour, which we often deride as a ‘failing state,’ presses ahead with a purposive foreign policy agenda that meets the country’s national priorities of energy security. The Iran gas pipeline project throws into relief the dismal truth that India lacks a foreign policy that serves its national objectives of growth and development.

Spin masters
Every time the subject comes up, the spin masters serving the establishment come up with some lame excuse or the other. The latest thesis is that India could be ‘floating on gas reserves’ and might indeed be ‘energy-secure.’ True, Reliance is developing new gas fields under lucrative pricing conditions provided by the government and competing Iranian gas imports are, arguably, best avoided. But that has nothing to do with the country’s energy security as such. An honest discussion about the cost of Iranian gas becomes practically impossible, given the opaqueness of the government’s pricing policy.

Then, there is shale gas, which is lately touted by our spin masters as a promising energy source ‘likely to overtake’ — in the womb of time — both conventional gas as well as liquid fuels. Unsurprisingly, Reliance bets on shale gas. And needless to say, shale gas extraction, which involves tapping natural gas trapped between layers of shale rock, requires latest American technology and the Reliance is currently buying into it in a significant way.

Of course, Reliance’s emergence as a ‘diversified, vertically integrated player’ in the energy sector could be a matter of national pride. But can national pride be equated with the government’s energy security policy? The heart of the matter is that India needs both the Reliance fuelling wealth as well as Iran’s fabulous South Pars gas fields feeding the gargantuan Indian economy for decades to come.

Quite obviously, the US disfavours Iranian gas feeding the Indian market on a long-term footing as it could deprive the Big Oil of lucrative business. Two, the US seeks to block Iranian energy exports until such time as US-Iran normalisation materialises. Three, the US is fundamentally opposed to the emergence of an Asian energy grid involving Iran, Pakistan, India and China, which would have potentially far-reaching strategic implications for American global strategy.

The Indian leadership has failed to show the transparency that a ‘failing state’ like Pakistan possesses in defining its hardcore national interests vis-à-vis Iran. Pakistan also has a political elite that is corrupt and which may harbour a sense of vulnerability to American pressure.

But what distinguishes its foreign-policy making is that the GHQ in Rawalpindi as the custodian of national interests, draws the bottom line. Which, in turn, enables Pakistani diplomacy to turn to its advantage the growing Sino-American rivalries in the central, south and west Asian regions.

Ironically, the Obama administration doesn’t object to Pakistan’s independent foreign policy. Nor does it seem to mind if Pakistan disagrees with its agenda towards the situation around Iran. The Indian leadership’s fear psychosis is clearly unwarranted.
(The writer is a former diplomat)

Pakistan’s grand march

What a waste of time, Pakistani Diplomats have been known to have the worst reputation around the world. Deals with Iran have little to do with diplomacy but more to do with Iran trying to globalize its presence. The nuclear deal with China is not big also as its like a replacement tire when Pakistan could not negotiate a deal with more prominent nations. Its more of a desperation deal to somehow get the same treatment that India gets on the world stage. Even if the deal goes through with China, getting an nsg approval is next to impossible for Pakistan. Pakistan might as well forget about the NSG as even the slimmest chance of an approval will take atleast 5 years. Pakistani diplomats have failed the nation at many points and are one of the major reasons why Pakistan has always been weak at the international level. The Kargil incident, 1971, WOT, The AQ Khan fiasco, The Kashmir issue, and many other cases have shown that Pakistan diplomats lack the ability to get their country’s message out to the world. The unnecessary comparison with India in this article is just attempt at chest thumping when there is nothing to thump at all. The brilliance of Indian diplomats is well known around the world and their professionalism is applauded all around. Getting an NSG waiver, negotiating nuclear deals with the best nations, huge defense deals, strong political ties, heavy presence at the UN, and many other things have shown how well the Indian diplomats have performed. This is just another article to somehow compare India and Pakistan again when frankly speaking there is no comparison in terms of the quality of diplomats. Pakistan has a lot to catch up on.

 

[Bill Longley]

What a waste of time, Pakistani Diplomats have been known to have the worst reputation around the world. Deals with Iran have little to do with diplomacy but more to do with Iran trying to globalize its presence. The nuclear deal with China is not big also as its like a replacement tire when Pakistan could not negotiate a deal with more prominent nations. Its more of a desperation deal to somehow get the same treatment that India gets on the world stage. Even if the deal goes through with China, getting an nsg approval is next to impossible for Pakistan. Pakistan might as well forget about the NSG as even the slimmest chance of an approval will take atleast 5 years. Pakistani diplomats have failed the nation at many points and are one of the major reasons why Pakistan has always been weak at the international level. The Kargil incident, 1971, WOT, The AQ Khan fiasco, The Kashmir issue, and many other cases have shown that Pakistan diplomats lack the ability to get their country’s message out to the world. The unnecessary comparison with India in this article is just attempt at chest thumping when there is nothing to thump at all. The brilliance of Indian diplomats is well known around the world and their professionalism is applauded all around. Getting an NSG waiver, negotiating nuclear deals with the best nations, huge defense deals, strong political ties, heavy presence at the UN, and many other things have shown how well the Indian diplomats have performed. This is just another article to somehow compare India and Pakistan again when frankly speaking there is no comparison in terms of the quality of diplomats. Pakistan has a lot to catch up on.

some thing is burning...I smelllllllll Smoooooke

I know its very hard to digest...and you are an indian

 

[FlickerSingh]

more of indian self criticism for being an international player. wld the writer prefer us to become a pariah nation like pakistan ?

 

[Trisonics]

I have to agree with the author. Indian diplomacy sounds weak because we are so verbose! We Claim, We Opine, We shout out ideas even before things materialize. Added to that the not so professional media have their own agendas and twisted opinions that the world reads out.

The Iran-Pakistan pipeline may be a victory for Pakistan when you regard the situation in Pak but as far as India is concerned, it was wise not to get in between, but where India failed in this matter was getting itself back on the drawing board! What are the feasible options now? ok we can talk about a under sea pipe line but that may in fact never leave the drawing board! so yes we failed, since we wasted a lot of time on something we knew was not feasible when we could have already started work on 'plan B'.

The nuclear deal, as far as needs are concerned, which is the correct way to look at it, Pakistan has won! It did try something on the same lines like India did with the US and failed! It had to go to China which was no surprise, the result was not a surprise either , but this just proves how strong China is on its front ..Other countries remain to keep hush or at the most whisper.

All in All Pakistan has one all weather friend and a bigger super power that can be milked due to circumstances where as India speaks, is heard but nothing much is happening.

As an Indian I only wish India would indulge more in closed door diplomacy, not as easy but wish they did!

 

[TechLahore]

more of indian self criticism for being an international player. wld the writer prefer us to become a pariah nation like pakistan ?

Haha! This is wonderful! You guys are so sour about the diplomatic successes cited by one of your own that you are resorting to one-liners. I guess there's nothing much else to resort to.

If you think Pakistan is a "pariah" nation, then you need to acquaint yourself with a dictionary. Don't flame here, because nonsense is not well tolerated. Cogent, on-topic arguments are welcome, on the other hand.

 

[LightsHope]

Excellent read.. Thank you for posting.

 

[TechLahore]

What a waste of time, Pakistani Diplomats have been known to have the worst reputation around the world.

I suppose it is a waste of time if you prefer to indulge in delusional proclamations that are self-assuring, but not in line with reality. You are welcome to that sort of content.

As far as the reputation of Pakistani diplomats goes, not only do you have one of your own diplomats disagreeing with you - and I will take his word over yours, unless you turn out to be the Indian Ambassador to China, or something like that - you are even otherwise quite ill informed. You can begin your education on this topic here:

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency ) - Ex-US envoy praises Pakistan’s Munir Akram in his book

Deals with Iran have little to do with diplomacy but more to do with Iran trying to globalize its presence. The nuclear deal with China is not big also as its like a replacement tire when Pakistan could not negotiate a deal with more prominent nations. Its more of a

No, and no.

Being able to keep good relations with Iran, China and the US all at the same time is quite unprecedented. India had to sell itself short when it was forced to oppose Iran in return for the US pat on the back that allowed the NSG waiver to come through. There was much hollering and hooting within and without the Indian media on that. Short-term memory on this topic too?

The nuclear deal with China is all-encompassing. The military angle was already there and is sufficient to allow many analysts to speculate that the size of the Pakistani arsenal is larger than India's. The civilian aspect is exceptional, because it comes not only with reactors and transfer of technology, but also with funding.

desperation deal to somehow get the same treatment that India gets on the world stage.

Sour grapes.

Even if the deal goes through with China, getting an nsg approval is next to impossible for Pakistan. Pakistan might as well forget about the NSG as even the slimmest chance of an approval will

No approval needed. The NSG cannot block this deal.

take atleast 5 years. Pakistani diplomats have failed the nation at many points and are one of the major reasons why Pakistan has always been weak at the international level. The Kargil incident, 1971, WOT, The AQ Khan fiasco,

In the war on terror, if one listens to Indians talk on the subject, they appear perturbed that the US continues to side with Pakistan and continues to provide free economic and military assistance. They also despair that Pakistan has been designated a major non-NATO ally and far from being pushed away, has been embraced in the attempt to find a final solution in Afghanistan. Hillary keeps visiting Islamabad, not because we are isolated, my dear fellow. You have a strange and rather twisted take on reality.

AQ Khan: ah, yes. The great story of proliferation and Pakistani governmental involvement in providing nuclear weapons to rogue states. Wonderful spy novel stuff, but how did this affect Pakistan? Which nuclear deal with Pakistan got cancelled because of this? Which sanctions were imposed on Pakistan because of this? Which assistance program was cancelled because of this? KL got passed after this event. The China nuclear deal happened after this event. An increased engagement with the US happened after this event. The IP (C) pipeline was finalized after this event. If India was trying to exploit this event against Pakistan, then it failed miserably.

On the Kargil incident, once again, we would not have reopened the Kashmir issue and gotten as close to a settlement as we did during the Musharraf/Vajpayee era, were it not for Kargil. By the way, did you know that Pakistan continues to hold several features which were taken over during this time? Once more, Kargil internationalized Kashmir. This is not in India's interest, and it is absolutely in Pakistan's interest. The more Kashmir is in the limelight the less credible India's claim about it being a part of India. The more maps gets printed with a dotted boundary and "DISPUTED TERRITORY" written on top of Kashmir, the more India's position is compromised. So I don't know what the heck you are going on about.

1971. Wasn't Bangladesh supposed to be an Indian ally? Didn't India fight the "war of liberation" for Bangladesh? Is Bangladesh an Indian ally today? Is it an enemy of Pakistan? What went wrong there, my friend. Who killed Mujib, Indira's ally? Why did they kill him? Shall we ask our Bangladeshi friends on this board, such as Al-Zakir, to come and share their opinion of India? Doesn't sound like a diplomatic success to me.

The Kashmir issue, and many other cases have shown that Pakistan diplomats lack the ability to get their country’s message out to the world. The unnecessary comparison with India in this article is

UN resolutions stand on this subject, against India's wishes.

The OIC regularly bashes India on this topic too. You may not want to pay attention - and that's fine - but diplomacy is measured by how well you were able to get other people to come to see your point of view.

Has India been able to get the world to censure Pakistan on the AQ Khan issue? No. Was India able to get the kind of reaction it wanted against Pakistan on the Mumbai issue? No. Was India able to prevent muslim countries from regularly slapping it on the Kashmir issue? No. Was India able to out-do Pakistan with the recent overtures to Turkey? No. Was India able to sell its "Pakistan vs. Iran" story on the Afghan subject to Iran and cause an alienation resulting in a sabotaged pipeline? No. Was India able to win out on the Afghan front and sideline Pakistan there despite its aid and embrace of the Northern Alliance warlords? No. Was India able to prevent Russia from supplying RD-93 engines for the JF-17? No. Was India able to prevent the Ukraine - a former soviet state - from refusing to supply MBTs to the Pakistan Army? No.

I tire listing out instances...

just attempt at chest thumping when there is nothing to thump at all.

Who is thumping their chest? This article is written by an Indian diplomat, no? Will you pronounce him a traitor because you are frustrated that he doesn't reinforce your delusional notions?

The brilliance of Indian diplomats is well known around the world and their professionalism is applauded all around.

Now, what were you saying about chest thumping???

This is just another article to somehow compare India and Pakistan again when frankly speaking there is no comparison in terms of the quality of diplomats. Pakistan has a lot to catch up on.

Once again, the guy writing the article is an Indian diplomat. I guess if it is just another article to somehow compare India and Pakistan then people manning the Indian diplomatic corps must be pretty obsessed with Pakistan!

Argue with your own diplomat all you want, even though it doesn't appear your are qualified to. [Caveat Emptor: that you don't turn out to be the Indian ambassador to China! ]

 

[desiman]

I have to agree with the author. Indian diplomacy sounds weak because we are so verbose! We Claim, We Opine, We shout out ideas even before things materialize. Added to that the not so professional media have their own agendas and twisted opinions that the world reads out.

The Iran-Pakistan pipeline may be a victory for Pakistan when you regard the situation in Pak but as far as India is concerned, it was wise not to get in between, but where India failed in this matter was getting itself back on the drawing board! What are the feasible options now? ok we can talk about a under sea pipe line but that may in fact never leave the drawing board! so yes we failed, since we wasted a lot of time on something we knew was not feasible when we could have already started work on 'plan B'.

The nuclear deal, as far as needs are concerned, which is the correct way to look at it, Pakistan has won! It did try something on the same lines like India did with the US and failed! It had to go to China which was no surprise, the result was not a surprise either , but this just proves how strong China is on its front ..Other countries remain to keep hush or at the most whisper.

All in All Pakistan has one all weather friend and a bigger super power that can be milked due to circumstances where as India speaks, is heard but nothing much is happening.

As an Indian I only wish India would indulge more in closed door diplomacy, not as easy but wish they did!

Sadly i have to disagree with each and every point you have made. India has nuclear deals in progress with Canada, US, France, The UK, Russia and a whole club of other nations, where Pakistan only has China is negotiate with. Secondly this deal still needs an NSG approval which is basically impossible right now for Pakistan. In regards to the Iran pipeline deal, India does not need it urgently and if it does not work out on our condition we dont want it. Please check the details on such deals before you make assumptions as there were many things that we need to consider. Coming from Iran and going through international borders is a risky prospect for a gas line as any attack on that can cripple India at the wrong time. Unlike Pakistan India has many choices in regards to everything and that is the biggest success story of Indian diplomats. Just a decade has passed since India's nuclear test and we are already negotiating nuclear deals all over and are being offered arms from the best there is. What else do you need ?

 

[Icarus]

Quite an interesting read, I can see it is ringing some bells among our Indian friends.

And thank you Tech Lahore for that brilliant follow up response.