Why India and China both should maintain a distance from NATO

US losing its war in the AfPak: Why India and China both should maintain a distance from NATO

At the recently concluded Munich Security conference, NATO’s chief Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen---for the first time recognized the importance of China and India in the AfPak region. Mr. Rasmussen expected the two countries to take interest in the Afghanistan-Pakistan (AfPak) region and behave like the so called “responsible stakeholder”. The head of NATO said Sunday its troubles in Afghanistan showed it was vital to boost ties with nations like China, India and Pakistan and transform the alliance into a global security hub. The response from the Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi was also come as a great surprise to many western commentators. It was evident at the scene that China is asserting her role as a great power, and US or any other country could no longer bully it. Washington was expecting greater Chinese support on a number of issues—not just Iran, but also Afghanistan/Pakistan, trade, climate change, trade talks, etc. The United States has pressed for tighter sanctions against Iran, something China has resisted. Under such an agreement, Iran would send low-enriched uranium to the West and receive higher-grade uranium in return for use in a reactor that would produce isotopes for medical use. As the latest report suggested Iran may be near Uranium deal.
The situation in the AfPak region is deteorating and US soldiers are dying everyday. It is evident even to a by stander of strategic affairs that America is losing the battle at the all fronts. The US & NATO coalition is now systematically undermining what's left of the Afghan state. Karazai is largely fiction. The US is now indiscriminatingly arming a wide variety of Civilian Militias in Afghanistan; Repeat of Iraq. The London conference on Afghanistan organized by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was aimed at finding an alternate solution to the AfPak issue. The Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai also stunned every one present at the London conference -- by using his speech to call for high level negotiations with the Taliban leadership that would result in permanent political reconciliation. Karzai has opened this door repeatedly before, and there have been several attempts to engage Taliban leaders seriously in talks. But activity in the last few months has been much more intense. Washington, Paris and Berlin made their best efforts to keep up appearances during the London Afghanistan conference here, but the gap between official rhetoric and reality could not have been wider. Participants called for reintegrating members of the Taliban who accept the Afghan constitution. The real game now is negotiating with the Taliban leadership in Quetta. Karzai and the Afghan government are trying to open some negotiations with the head of the Afghan Taliban Mullah Omar, as is the U.N., through special representative Kai Eide.

From the New Delhi’s perspective, the “AfPak” debate is all about Pakistan. India was the lone dissenter at last week's Afghanistan conference in London. As representatives from more than 60 countries convened at the historic Lancaster House, New Delhi's representative to the summit, Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, emphasized to his British counterpart that it would be a monumental folly, at this juncture, to make a distinction "between a good Taliban and a bad Taliban" or to legitimize the former through reaching out. From India's perspective, because the Taliban was originally an extension of Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI) and because it has been used by Islamabad to mount attacks against India, there can be no "good Taliban." The contours of the Afghanistan debate as it plays out in Washington, London, and Islamabad are well known. But India arguably has just as much at stake as the Western countries -- if not more. New Delhi is worried that legitimizing elements of the Taliban may increase India's vulnerability to terrorist attack. While the world discusses security strategies for Afghanistan, India focuses on how these proposals will impact its relationship with Pakistan. For New Delhi, the "AfPak" debate is really just about "Pak."
Indian foreign minister Mr. Krishna was also present in the London conference on Afghanistan gave some hints about restarting the composite dialogue at the foreign secretary level between India and Pakistan. After his return from the London conference, Govt. of India formally announced to get back to the negotiating table which was canceled after the terrorist strike on the Taj hotel and railway station in Mumbai on 26 Nov. 2008. The offer for foreign secretary-level talks comes as Union Home Minister P Chidambaram prepares to travel to Pakistan on February 26 to attend the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Interior Ministers' Conference, which will mark the first high-level visit from India since the November 2008 attack.
The people in India were stunned and expressed their surprise with the govt. sudden decision to restart the talk with Pakistan. No one expected at this juncture that a decision like this will be taken from the government side to initiate a new round of talk. India Pakistan already held 131 rounds of talks on the bilateral issues but there has been no substantive outcome or resolution. Columnists in Indian media wrote that the decision to renegotiate with Pakistani establishment was taken under Uncle Sam’s instructions. It is the US strategy to pressurize Pakistan for conceding more troops to the SWAT valley. Indians are not satisfied because Pakistan hardly took any step with regard to investigations into the 26/11 carnage. A tiny but vocal band of skeptics in India is already questioning the wisdom of New Delhi's alignment with the United States over the last ten years. Of course, it is unlikely that New Delhi would directly oppose U.S. policy in the region. India needs its alliance and commercial relations with the US not only for her economic development but also for the peace and security in the region. India is under pressure from US with regard to her Gas pipeline project with Iran.

The white house spokes person gave the statement those US Pak-India talks to stabilize region. But if we seriously examine this will find that talks are just aimed to pressurize Pakistan to increase the offensive in the Wazirstan region. Indian government is looking at all the variables in the Afghan conundrum. But the Indian offer to renegotiate with Pakistan is nothing but giving way to US tactics to bring Pak army on Afghan front. Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Kiyani will swiftly oblige. But while the Pakistan's game plan couldn't be very clearer, therefore the outcome is far from assured. Can India not effectively use its soft power & economic muscle to promote the idea in its own interest & that of others?

The answer is yes. Currently, New Delhi is the fifth-largest donor of civilian aid to Kabul. As NY times reported it recently, India has constructed the new parliament building, the Palace of Democracy; trained the country's parliamentarians; and donated aircraft to resuscitate Afghanistan's national airline, Ariana. Its workers are engaged in major infrastructure projects ranging from highways and electricity grids to dam projects, telecommunications, and the expansion of a TV network. The reason that Kabul has 24 hours of electricity a day is because of Indian engineers who have actually delivered the power supply. Besides, the wild popularity of Indian cinema and TV shows in Afghanistan means that India enjoys a soft-power edge over every other country currently engaged there. Unsurprisingly, in the most recent opinion poll, India emerged with the highest favorability rating of any country involved in Afghanistan: 74 percent. Although India is the only stable secular democracy in the region, is being actively prevented from helping in Afghanistan in order to appease the Pakistani regime. Washington is keenly aware of the benefits that New Delhi brings to Afghanistan. But so far it has been wary of openly embracing India as a partner. Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people.

But, Pakistan will never accept an India-friendly government in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s Army chief argues that India is not physically connected to Afghanistan. It does not have a porous border with Afghanistan. So India shouldn't worry about Afghanistan. The attack on Mumbai and Indian embassy in Kabul is a clear evidence of Pakistan unhappiness with India’s rising influence over Afghanistan. Washington's critics trace the origins of today's crisis to the United States' abrupt abandonment of Afghanistan in the late 1980s. The trouble with this version of history is that it skips over the 1990s. But contrary to what is now conventional wisdom in the West, the Taliban in its current incarnation is not a remnant of the Cold War. It is a creation of Pakistan. It was during the 1990s that the Taliban -- actively backed by Pakistan -- seized control of Kabul. Since then New Delhi has witnessed Afghanistan becoming a launching pad for anti-India terrorist attacks. At this rate, when it withdraws, Washington may leave nothing behind in Afghanistan but warring factions -- a mess not unlike the one that precipitated the Taliban's rise to power in the first place. India and Pakistan need to settle their dispute between themselves. Right now, the issue of Afghanistan is caught in the gears of conflict between the rivalry of India and Pakistan.

The United States has been pressuring Pakistan for several months to extend its counterinsurgency operations to North Waziristan, but Pakistan has not yielded on the ground that most of its forces are focused on defending its border with India. Despite preoccupation with fighting the war on terror, for Gen. Kayani and the institution he leads the major worry remains India. He said that he had made it clear to NATO commanders in Brussels that the Pakistani army would remain India-centric. Owing to the threat perception from India and the unresolved issues between the two nations, he highlighted Kashmir and the water dispute in this context. Kayani opposes any Indian role in the Afghanistan and believes that being Afghanistan neighbor, Pakistan has long-term goals and interests in that country. He will reiterate that “Afghanistan is my past present and future,” Pakistan has drawn a redline, stating that predominant Indian influence in Afghanistan is not acceptable. He confirmed that there have been more terrorist attacks in Pakistan during the past year than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Pakistan is paying for its role in the war in terror in terms of loss of life, infrastructure and to its fragile economy. He even asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her last year trip to Pakistan for the US to invest in a 1,000-megawatt power project. Ironically, the $1.5 billion a year earmarked under the Kerry Lugar Bill, $300 million will be spent on a monitoring mechanism alone, and in the end not much will be left for economic development with a visible impact.
India as always believes that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won without winning hearts and minds of the people. The military solution will lead to no man’s land. Beyond any doubt, India has moved closer to the US interest not by allying to it, but this year will cement India-United States defense ties like never before. But despite public & private assurances given us in past the US was unable to prevail on Pakistan to end the terror in Kashmir. In the immediate aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, New Delhi even acceded to Washington's requests and took no action against Islamabad in order to facilitate the war in Afghanistan. But now that dynamic is changing. As control of Afghanistan is being gradually handed back to the Taliban, an increasingly alarmed New Delhi will start looking for ways to prevent trouble. Although deployment of troops has been categorically ruled out by Defense Minister A.K. Antony, pressure will probably mount on the government to reconsider that decision. New Delhi will actively work to resuscitate remnants of the Northern Alliance, India's longstanding allies against the Taliban. Most immediately, India will apply pressure on Pakistan, demanding that Islamabad act against the plotters of the Mumbai attacks. While New Delhi's recent offer to resume diplomatic talks with Pakistan is a positive sign, should another terrorist attack take place, India will not be as patient as it was last time.

My conclusion here is very clear. In the event of NATO forces retreating from the AfPak region a great chaos will emerge which will pose a threat to the peace and stability in the whole Asia and the world. But this should not become an excuse for India and China to send its troops to AfPak region and fight the Taliban. China and India should never fight America’s War. The War in AfPak is not the Global war on Terrorism. It’s clearly America’s vs. Bin laden. China and India should not fall in the trap of NATO’s grand design and should pay no heed to the request of contributing their troops to the region. The two countries have immensely contributed to the UN peace keeping forces in Sudan, Congo and Many other regions. The recent death of 8 Chinese peace keeping solders in Haiti earth quake was a very sad incident and heart touching story. So is the death of Indians embassy officials and engineers in Kabul. Our soldiers should not be sacrificed for American interest.