Friday, April 27, 2007
Is our influence of Pakistan waning?
In a part of the world where it is very important to back the winning horse, this declaration by Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf certainly looks like bad news to me:
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf says Afghan and NATO-led forces in Afghanistan are losing the war against the Taliban.
It is unlikely that this is a plea for NATO to be more aggressive with the Taliban. Pakistan would much prefer not to be caught between a rock and a hard place. It may, however, be a sign of Pakistan's view that the recent improvement in its relations with India gives it more freedom to distance itself from the United States. If this were indeed the first hint of a public shift toward the Taliban it would be very distressing. Fortunately, this looks mostly like an extension of Musharraf's pissing contest with Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, who has accused Pakistan of failing to police its borders and hunt al Qaeda with sufficient diligence.
A couple of days ago, a friend of mine wondered allowed whether we would not have been better off stepping back in 2002 when India and Pakistan almost went to war. Would our ability to influence or even coerce Pakistan today be greater, or lesser, if we had?
22 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Fri Apr 27, 08:01:00 AM:
Notions of our having actual "influence" with Pakistan have always been suspect.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Apr 27, 10:04:00 AM:
Concur. The days of having real, honest client states ended with the fall of the USSR. With the absence of an overarching threat, everyone has suddenly grown a spine.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Apr 27, 10:58:00 AM:
A war between Pakistan and India is still possible, and an option. Very little would grind up more islamists than a war over Kashmir. Unfortunately, it would probably cost a few million innocent lives as well, and I think we would be better off as a planet without that.
Of course, it would put this little post war stabilization program in Iraq in proper context.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Fri Apr 27, 11:30:00 AM:
As this war in Iraq was always a political, not a strategic animal (nothing to do with 9-11; maybe we should have made Saddam our ally again--remember that?), perhaps the troops would have been spent, without much argument from many quarters, in Afghanistan? Palpably they'd see it was all about 9-11 and turning over Osama--not this b.s. in Iraq, cleaning out their security forces of Taliban sympathizers, stymying the clowns who decided to share their combat nuke processes.
Sad, very sad.
By enuff, at
Fri Apr 27, 11:58:00 AM:
Pakistan Government ‘Accepts’ Demands by Radical Mosque
Musharraf surrendered the country to - as I’ve been told but as yet without receiving full confirmation or details - all the demands of the Red Mosque and its two rabidly anti-American clerics. The original demands not only stated that Pakistan would be governed under Islamic law, Sharia, but also the demanded that the state end its cooperation with US forces and permitted Paki’s to join 'other' forces in jihad against US/Coalition forces.
Almost immediately on the heels of this announcement, Pakistan announced they were increasing their ties & cooperation(whatever that entails) with Russia and China; of the latter, this is one article. Given the already well acknowledged Russia, China and Iranian alliance, it’s certainly looking more-and-more like Pakistan is the newest member of the Axis.
What’s also been quite noticeable because of its absence, unless something has changed, is the complete lack of comment on part of our Admin.. So yes, on balance, I think we can say Pakistan recognizes a loser and doesn’t what to caught on the ‘wrong‘ side.
In view of other very notable events, I can't say I'm very optimistic that this story is going to have some happy, fairytale-type ending.
By 
, at
Fri Apr 27, 01:42:00 PM:
It gets worse. If Pakistan bails, how do we get our troops and civilians out of Afghanistan? Last time I looked, you had to overfly someone's airspace to get there - and the neighbors were unlikely to grant that - Even walking out won't work.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Apr 27, 01:44:00 PM:
"Given the already well acknowledged Russia, China and Iranian alliance"
In my view, you are thinking like a 20th-century person. Think like a 21st-century person. Mao was an aberration.
Starting in about 2050, China will began to dominate world affairs. The Chinese could care less about Iran's and Russia's ambitions.
In the 1600s, the Manchus ordered Chinese men to shave their hair into a queue. "Lose your hair and keep your head; otherwise, keep your hair and lose your head," the order said.
Somewhere between 150,000 men and 1 million men died in the ensuing massacres. According to the famous Chinese writer Lu Xun: "...the Chinese people in those days revolted not because the country was on the verge of ruin, but because they had to wear queues.”
The Chinese will continue to do things their way. Everybody else is simply a "foreign devil."
China is no threat to America. If anything, China will bring more discipline and harmony to the world.
My advice: Make China your new best friend.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Apr 27, 01:53:00 PM:
P.S. If you want to see China in 40 years, look at Singapore. More than 76 percent of Singapore's citizens are ethnic Chinese.
By Escort81, at
Fri Apr 27, 02:58:00 PM:
Fundamental to any analysis of Pakistan and how it interacts with the West is the apparent inability of Musharraf (as a military dictator) to dictate very much. Certainly the six distinct border regions with Afghanistan are presently ungovernable by any central authority, and are therefore not really part of the sovereign country of Pakistan in the same way that we understand northern Minnesota and northern North Dakota to be part of the United States (and the residents of those areas enjoying all of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens elsewhere).
It's not clear to me what percentage of the 170,000,000 people in Pakistan Musharraf can actually influence, so leaning on him may not be that fruitful. I am not sure what the best way of influencing or coercing Pakistan might be -- clearly the Indians believe that pointing nukes at them is the most effective method.
I agree with CP that we are better off as a planet without a Pakistan-India nuclear exchange over Kashmir. There's a basic humanitarian point of view in that belief.
CC - maybe we could rewind the tape all the way back to 1991 and decide not to do Gulf War I (remember, the Senate vote in January 1991 was a close 52-47 approving the use of force). Really, do we care which Arab regime is pumping the oil? Too bad if Kuwait, as a sovereign country, was overrun buy its larger neighbor because Saddam didn't want to repay the money he had borrowed to finance his war against Iran. George H.W. Bush could have sent over James Baker and said, "fine, keep Kuwait, keep a division or two on the Saudi border so you effectively dictate policy to them. Here's a seasonally adjusted price schedule for crude oil for the next 25 years, with plus or minus 5% price ranges, that is acceptable to us. We're happy to arrange for you to contract with whatever engineering support you need to maintain production levels, complete existing fields and explore new fields. Please, don't bother Israel in any way, though I am personally sympathetic with you on how tough it is to deal with those people; and cease all of your WMD programs, because, really, you don't need them anymore, you already have de facto control of your region. Oh, and if any of the foregoing presents a problem for you, you might want to review this tape of our last above ground hydrogen bomb test a few decades ago, and our latest drill involving a sub-launched GPS guided Tomahawk cruise missile." Think that might have worked? Iraq would still be Saddam's problem (with no hope of any kind of better future for Iraqis, at least from a humanitarian perspective), and gas would be $1.37/gallon.
I agree with DEC re: China -- our bilateral economic ties with China are already incredibly expansive and will likely be a multiple of our ties with the EU by the end of the next decade. The questions are: 1) whether the Chinese, as they gain a degree of economic freedom, will also want increasing political freedom as well (or whether there are natural tendencies in Chinese culture that counter that impulse); 2)to what extent the challenges in changing demographics (rural flight to the cities, lack of females to marry males of age because of the previous one baby policy and preference for males) influence political changes; and 3) how the Taiwan question gets resolved. I guess if Richard Gere is doing jail time in India for his "kiss," he won't be available to criticize China over Tibet. [Does that mean Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake are looking at hard time in India (since at least a few TV sets must have been tuned into the Superbowl half time show a few years back)?]
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Apr 27, 03:56:00 PM:
maybe we should have made Saddam our ally again
Why is it the leftists are always yearning for rape rooms, executions, mass graves, genocides etc? Can someone explain this to me?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Apr 27, 04:13:00 PM:
Escort81:
Here are my answers to your China questions:
1. Eastern democracies will not look like Western democracies. Eastern democracies will always put the needs of society ahead of the needs of the individual.
2. Unclear (the answer, not your question).
3. Taiwan is part of China. Nixon said it. Besides, it's not our decision to make.
We have to stay out of the Taiwan issue beyond demands for a peaceful resolution. The ethnic Chinese can work out the issue on their own.
Be careful of Taiwan's lobby in Washington, DC. For many years Chiang Kai-shek had the most powerful lobby in the U.S. The lobby still has influence, especially among some of the Democrats. (Look at Pelosi's generally skeptical and unforgiving attitude toward Beijing.)
Left-wing Democrats don't need to tell me about their deep concern for human rights. I'll believe that stuff when I see Castro treated like Pinochet.
By , at
Fri Apr 27, 07:38:00 PM:
Chambers -- the number of troops we have in Afghanistan (30K) are the upper limits we can put in. Every one of them requires food, water, medical supplies, weapons, ammo, support vehicles, and a bunch of other things.
Those supplies come in from one direction: AIR. Specifically from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey (our former air base operations in Central Asia are gone courtesy of Vlad).
We CANNOT put anymore troops in Afghanistan because we can't supply them.
It's a fools game anyway. We allow Iran and Syria to act as sanctuaries for bin Laden's forces in Iraq. And Pakistan and Iran for bin Laden's forces in Afghanistan.
We either decide to fight, and take the fight to them in both places, or decide to lose.
Dems cannot turn over Iraq to bin Laden fast enough and the same is true in Afghanistan. A Dem party that actually cared about American national security would argue for strikes against Pakistan and Iran to destroy their nukes, air forces, ground forces or at least concentrated ground forces, and cause as much trouble there as they do in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But no. Dems offer "Peace in our time." They'll "negotiate real hard." Then surrender.
Saddam our "ally?" We tried. He wouldn't make a deal on the inspectors and offered bin Laden sanctuary and collaborated with him and celebrated 9/11 and war commenced. Saddam was unstable, you could not make deals with him that would actually stick. Imagine Saddam and Ahmadinejad both racing towards nukes. Oh what fun.
DEC: I've been to China. Dirt poor interior where most are still illiterate, and hyper-rich coastal areas. Birth rate well below replacement. State Owned Enterprises propped up only by selling lots of cheap stuff to America. Billionaire oligarchies and a few middle class people. China is not a juggernaut but a nation with serious problems. Not the least of which is the Bare Branches. Decades of selective-sex abortion have left around 50 million young men with no hope of ever marrying.
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Apr 27, 08:34:00 PM:
Chambers -- the number of troops we have in Afghanistan (30K) are the upper limits we can put in.
Leftists have no concept of logistical limitations...or most things military for that matter.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Apr 27, 08:52:00 PM:
Anonymous: "I've been to China..."
And I've been to China more than 60 times, Anonymous (7:38 p.m.). I have done business there for more than 25 years--long before it became trendy to do so.
In many ways, you just described Singapore in 1971. Look at Singapore today.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Apr 27, 09:21:00 PM:
P.S. In 1971, Singapore's nickname was "the hellhole of Asia." The nation went from a "Third World country" to a "First World country" in a little more than a generation.
China is bigger so it will take longer. But China's officials don't have to "reinvent the wheel." They can look at the "Singapore model" for guidance (and they do).
By Escort81, at
Fri Apr 27, 09:33:00 PM:
Anon 7:38 -
You touched on the demographic issue I mentioned in my post above, so I think that is a fair topic for lots of speculation and analysis for someone more educated than I am in the application of sociological theory.
When you mention: "State Owned Enterprises propped up only by selling lots of cheap stuff to America," are you suggesting that these enterprises lack a genuine competitive advantage? My understanding is that generally, Chinese manufacturing firms make decent quality products at costs of production that can be up to an order of magnitude lower than the cost in the West, because of low wage rates. Setting aside that some of the manufactured goods infringe on Western IP, the wage rates should rise over a long period of time and the competitive advantage on the cost side will narrow.
Also, "Billionaire oligarchies and a few middle class people," I suppose could have described the U.S. in the second half of the 19th century -- well, not really. I was with a close friend of mine today who runs an international travel & leisure brand with revenues in the $billions, and he is headed to China for the third time in a year. He wouldn't be wasting his time there unless there was a significant potential market (made up of middle class travelers) in China, although you may be correct that much of it may come from the coastal area.
China is clearly a country with big challenges in front of it. China and India have a third of the world's population between them. Why wouldn't you focus your energies there?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Apr 27, 10:23:00 PM:
It goes beyond things like labor costs, Escort81.
Many world-class executives with experience on six continents will tell you that ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs as a group are probably the best businesspeople in the world.
Look at the Overseas Chinese (the Chinese who live outside China). There are roughly 40 million Overseas Chinese, mostly in Southeast Asia. According to high-level friends of mine in the banking industry, the 40 million Overseas Chinese have more assets than the country of Japan with its population of 127 million. (And most of the assets of the Overseas Chinese are liquid.)
In Indonesia, the Overseas Chinese make up less than five percent of the population and control more than 75 percent of the economy.
The Overseas Chinese are investing heavily in China. And they are providing expertise.
By the way, Overseas Chinese traders have a saying, "Never break anyone's rice bowl." They like to compete, but they don't like to put competitors out of business.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Apr 27, 11:05:00 PM:
P.S.The Chinese mainland surpassed the United States to become Japan's biggest trade partner in fiscal 2006, according to a report released by the Japanese Finance Ministry this week. Japanese officials expect the trend to continue.
By , at
Sat Apr 28, 03:37:00 AM:
"China is bigger so it will take longer."
DEC, while I respect the experience you have traveling in Asia, is it realistic to compare a city-state with an enormous country with the area of the US and 4-5 times as many people?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Apr 28, 08:33:00 AM:
Gary Rosen, you make an excellent point. We will have to wait and see. There really is no precedent for what China is trying to do on such a large scale.
No country solves all of its problems. (Have you been to East Saint Louis lately?) But one thing seems certain at this point. China will become the world's biggest economy. (Three decades is one estimate.)
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Apr 28, 09:01:00 AM:
P.S. Last year Lee Kuan Yew, the architect of Singapore's success, talked about the best way to nuture a new democracy: "A better start would be to educate their young, especially their women, and give them equal job opportunities. Next, build civic institutions, implement the rule of law, strengthen the independence of their courts, and build up the civic society institutions necessary for democracy. Only then will a free election lead to a more democratic society."
China's secretive government took steps this week to increase official transparency. New regulations call for the government to give out information of interest to the public and to explain administrative procedures.
Again, we have to wait and see. But I don't see the Chinese officials making a large number of silly mistakes right now.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Apr 28, 09:25:00 AM:
P.P.S. Twenty years ago Chinese govenment officials walked into my office and hand me a signed purchase order for 1,800 items. The officials left the price column blank for me to fill in the numbers. They sure don't do that anymore.
