Obama’s victory: what does it mean really?

S P SETH

Barack Obama’s re-election as the US President reinforces the historic nature of his election first time around in 2008. He is the first Afro-Asian to be elected and re-elected the country’s President. Despite history being made in America, one cannot say that it marks the country’s progression into a post-racial era. This is because many Americans have never regarded him as a legitimate President by questioning his true American identity (whether or not he was born in the United States) and his patriotism  (being a closet Muslim). As a result, they have cast his policies, whether domestic or foreign, as designed to harm the United States.

Take, for instance, his domestic policy. Obama’s advocacy of a fairer tax system where rich pay more to help the country’s economy has been characterized by his opponents as an attempt to destroy the American dream and usher in a socialist system in the country. In other words, he is not a true American. In the foreign policy arena, as a closet Muslim, he is not hard enough on Iran and is not supportive enough of Israel on the Palestinian question. Which means that he will continue to struggle with the legitimacy issue, as much in his second term as he did in the first.

Identity issue apart, his situation vis-à-vis the US Congress remains unresolved. Which is to say that the Senate retains its Democratic majority but not enough to impede the Republican filibustering of important legislation by the Obama administration. And in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party retains its comfortable majority. In other words, the political gridlock, imposed on the country by the Republicans, will continue as before, unless they reach out to Obama’s overture of a bipartisan solution to the country’s problems made in his victory speech. If his first term experience is any guide, the Republicans are not likely to respond positively to this to legitimize Barack Obama and his Democratic administration.

This will soon be tested on the question of resolving the “fiscal cliff” the US must traverse requiring mandatory spending cuts and tax increases on the rich, unless the Congress works out a compromise. And if this measure goes ahead on January 1, as it will if the Democrats and Republicans cannot work out a compromise before that, it is estimated to cut growth by 4 per cent pushing the US economy into recession, costing another 2 million jobs. This will create a very messy situation, having serious ripple effects on the global economy. Besides it will set the tone for political infighting for the next four years of Obama presidency.

But in foreign policy arena, President Obama has relatively more freedom, especially in his second term. And this might, hopefully, allow him to reach out once again to the Muslim world, as he did in 2009 during his then famous Cairo speech. Which enraged Israel. And with this began a certain testiness in US-Israeli relations, particularly between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that has persisted and indeed deepened with Netanyahu featuring in Mitt Romney’s election advertising.

Now that Obama will have more leeway, one might hope for some forward movement on the Palestinian issue, regarded by him, early in his presidency, as an important area of bridging differences with the Islamic world. Israel, and its US lobby, has succeeded in crowding out the Palestinian issue to put the spotlight on stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.  Netanyahu indeed wanted the Obama administration, and the west in general, to commit to military action were Iran to cross some redlines in its nuclear programme. Which, sensibly, the Obama administration refused to do, though further tightening economic sanctions against Iran. And this is starting to bite Iran. At the same time, Obama has said that the US wouldn’t allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Therefore, Israel is assured that, short of immediately bombing Iran into submission on the nuclear question, the US would stop it from reaching the nuclear status. Even that was not enough for Netanyahu, and he sought to pressure Obama into a specific commitment to attack Iran to tap into Obama’s electoral vulnerability.  Despite the Netanyahu factor, Obama is likely to maintain US’ strong commitment to Israel’s security because it is an issue that cuts across the party lines. But the personal chemistry between Obama and Netanyahu is unlikely to make them into close partners.

Though it is difficult to envisage any significant change in the US policy in the Middle East, with Washington continuing to follow the contradictory policies of supporting monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms and being cautious about changes elsewhere in the wake of the Arab Spring, Obama should now prevail on Israel to implement the policy of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.

Another useful initiative would be to promote a nuclear free zone in the Middle East to also include Israel that has the largest nuclear arsenal. That will create a pathway for Iran to move in that direction. Any regional security architecture shouldn’t simply be premised on presumed threats to Israel’s security but also threats to the region from Israel. There is need for a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, including Israel. Otherwise, the region will continue to lurch from one crisis to another. The re-elected President Obama has an opportunity to take some bold initiatives in this direction.

As for Pakistan, Obama is not likely to relent on drone strikes, as well as maintaining pressure on Pakistan to do more against the terrorists. In some ways, Obama has come to personify, for most people in Pakistan, their hatred for the United States, intensified with the killing of Osama bin Laden and compounded with drone strikes. The impending US withdrawal from Afghanistan is likely to further test this relationship. There is a strong belief in the United States that Pakistan’s military, especially its intelligence agency, ISI, has never been a serious partner in the fight against al Qaeda and terrorism. They are said to continue to harbor Taliban leadership with a view to foster a friendly Taliban regime in Afghanistan after American withdrawal.

Another area demanding Obama’s attention will be China’s increasing assertion of its regional leadership, bringing it into conflict with some neighboring countries that are also US allies. Obama has already reset the button on his country’s regional strategy in favour of a “pivot” to Asia-Pacific region. China is deeply unhappy about it and the region is likely to see some difficult times ahead.

All in all, even though Obama will have fewer constraints in refashioning some of the United States key foreign policies, he might not have much time and energy, in the country’s highly polarized political landscape, to expend his political capital in this area. In other words, expect more of the same nationally and internationally. 

Muddling in Europe

S P SETH

When Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, recently visited Athens, it is as well that she didn’t see the Greek protestors carrying posters depicting her as Hitler with his trademark half moustache. She was obviously shielded from any exposure to what has now become a regular feature in Greece, with its citizens protesting against more and more austerity measures imposed by the European Union. Otherwise, they won’t get the bail out money and the country will go broke, with all the nasty consequences.

Greece and, for that matter, Spain and other euro zone countries that have mounds of debt, are furious with Germany for insisting on a severe austerity regime to receive European credits. Because Germany has to contribute much more for the bailouts being Europe’s strongest economy, it insists that the debtor countries commit themselves to put their financial house in order. Which translates into austerity for the recipient countries, making Germany highly unpopular in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and much of Europe. A case is made that an undue emphasis on severe austerity will further depress these economies, and that won’t help them generate enough revenues to pay back their debts. Hence, too much austerity will be counter-productive.

The problem, though, is that Germany has to foot the major part of any further debt relief and it is not convinced that stimulation will produce the necessary results. In any case, it will be a long-term solution, if it works, and German citizens are not ready to carry the can for an indefinite period.  Besides, even though Germany has a sound economy, even the soundest economy can invite disaster on itself by becoming the ultimate banker of half-a-dozen or so sick economies in the euro zone.  Germany is also conditioned by its experience of run away inflation that created conditions for the rise of Hitler. Which explains Germany’s caution against throwing good money after bad.

Having said that, it is certainly as much in Germany’s interest as the rest of Europe that the eurozone should survive because its unraveling will have severe consequences, both politically and economically. It is important to remember that the progression of Europe into a European Union not only managed to keep peace in Europe but also led to an era of great economic prosperity.  And coming after the great disaster of WW11, it is no mean achievement.

Were eurozone to unravel, the European project is unlikely to survive the consequent economic turmoil of competitive devaluations and much more.  It is difficult to imagine how the existing debts and credits denominated in euro will be sorted out or settled. Greece’s exit alone, if that were to happen, will have a cascading effect on other debt-ridden countries, with Spain already under terrible strain. Italy too is wobbly, and if it were to need rescuing, Europe alone, even with Germany’s commitment, will not be able to cope. Spain and Italy are the fourth and third largest European economies respectively. The consequences of their failure for the global economy, mired as it is in the throes of the 2008-9 financial crisis, will not be pretty.

Until the financial crisis hit Europe in the last few years, every country in the project Europe gained from it. Germany was a major winner. Its membership of the European Union and NATO made it into a normal country overcoming its Hitlerist legacy. As a comparison, Japan still has to confront criticism of its wartime atrocities from neighbors. In economic terms, with its strong economy and competitiveness, Germany gained considerably from a larger European market for its goods. At the same time, as with other European countries, it bought its security cheap within Europe from NATO’s umbrella, with the United States footing much of the defense bill-- though for its own great power ambitions and security considerations.

For the rest of Europe, project Europe was important in containing Germany’s European ambitions and harnessing them to continent’s common good. And for Europe’s relatively poorer members the agricultural subsidies they received, with Germany paying a major share, significantly improved their living conditions. It is, therefore, apparent that project Europe has been a win-win situation for all, until now. And if it crumbles, Europe might take a long time to put itself together, if at all.

 However much the European countries want to keep Europe together, there is undoubtedly a lurking fear that they might not succeed. And greater the articulation of that determination to keep the eurozone intact, the more shrill the language becomes. Take this open letter, published in the New York Review of Books, from Alain Minc, President of the French consultancy firm A M Conseil.  In this he takes issue with “the financiers of America” about  “prophesies” regarding “the imminent death of the euro”. He writes forcefully that, “ …there is not one European political leader… who would be willing to take the blame in the eyes of posterity for signing the death warrant of the euro. “

And this is because, “The memory of the wars that ravaged European society is still too strong for anyone to be willing to undo the process that led to European unity…” In other words, despite all the emphasis on austerity, he seems to suggest, even Angela Merkel and German politicians might not let euro collapse, whatever the economic costs. The passion of such statement(s) indeed seeks to still the doubts that keep cropping up.

On the other hand, another high profile business magnate, George Soros, a Hungarian-American who is chairman of the Soros Fund Management, writes in a long article that if Germany were unwilling to underwrite euro and stimulate European economies, it might be best if it were to quit the eurozone. He believes that, “After the initial disruptions the euro area would swing from depression to growth. “ His hope is that faced with such a prospect, Germany would prefer to stay on.

Because:“…Germany would fare much better if it chooses to behave as a benevolent hegemon [like the United States did with its Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after WW11] and Europe would be spared the upheaval the German withdrawal from the euro would cause.” Imagine eurozone without the strongest European economy! Soros can’t be serious. In whatever way Europe’s economic travails are resolved, or not resolved, the uncertainty is proving disastrous for Europe, and doing much harm to the world economy still mired in the aftermaths of global financial crisis.

 Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Obama: a dangerous socialist?

S P SETH

Even as the presidential debates hog the limelight to the real contest next month, the surreal world of American politics is a bewildering exercise. Take, for example, the claim of the American right and its corporate world that President Barack Obama is a dangerous socialist bent upon starting a class war in the country. In most other countries, Obama’s “socialist” credentials will be laughed off. After all, he is the President who bailed out America’s beleaguered banks and other financial institutions and gave the rich of America another lease of life. At the same time, America’s 46 million poor (they don’t count in the country’s ever-raging political debate) and the middle class are the biggest losers. With these kinds of facts, one has to seriously question the socialist epithet thrown at Obama by the rich and powerful in the Republican Party.

Obviously, this is meant to sharpen the ideological divide between the two contending political parties in the US, made worse by the racial innuendo and identity issue (whether or not he was born in the US?) that has plagued Barack Obama all through his term. Therefore, his “socialism” is somehow sinister and unwholesome in the eyes of his many critics. For instance, Mitt Romney has said “this president doesn’t understand freedom.” Another Republican, Mike Coffman, reportedly said that “in his heart,…[Obama] is just not an American.” And Rush Limbaugh, a popular conservative radio host has come to the conclusion: “I think it can now be said, without equivocation… that this man [Obama] hates this country.” And: “He is trying… to dismantle, brick-by-brick, the American dream.”

Let us look at why socialism is hated so much by so many Americans? First, for many Americans socialism is an evil creed associated with the failed Soviet Union. Therefore, even a suggestion that an American president might be espousing it is considered dangerous and even un-American. It is meant to stir class war in the United States, turning one section of the society against the other—the rich against poor. And what is the proof that Obama is doing this? Because he is making a case that America’s well off and rich should pay a bit more tax to repair the country’s damaged economy.

His critics call it “a philosophy of disdain toward wealth creation.” There is a concerted political movement, funded and articulated by the country’s ultra-rich, to bring down Obama by throwing all their weight and resources behind Mitt Romney.  One of the leaders of this club of rich men, described as “pope of this movement”, is Lee Cooperman, a hedge fund billionaire. In a letter to President Obama in November last year, decrying his provocative tone against the country’s rich people (partly reported in New Yorker), he said, “… Capitalism is not the source of our problems, as an economy or as a society, and capitalists are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be.” He added, “As a group we employ many millions of taxpaying people, pay their salaries, provide them with healthcare coverage, start new companies ...”

In other words, instead of praising and encouraging the capitalist class for their tremendous contribution to the country’s economy and society, President Obama’s framing of “the debate as one of rich-and-entitled versus poor-and- dispossessed is to both miss the point and further inflame an already incendiary environment.”

What most worries America’s rich is that Obama’s mild advocacy of fairness in paying taxes by the rich is somehow debunking the much-hyped up myth of the American dream. Which means that any American, however low, has the potential to reach the top because this country is special. It is true that now and then even a poor and disadvantaged person can make it to the top in any society, but such examples are few and far between in the US or anywhere else. The US’s economic mess, with the rise in the numbers of poor (now numbering about 46 million) and the unemployed and under-employed  (at 23 million), is stripping bare this myth. The recent spontaneous rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement against the “one per cent” that hogs America’s wealth has created fear among the country’s rich. And they fear that Obama’s talk about fairness might create an environment of popular insurrection against the rich and their powerful political allies, the Republican Party.

The point, though, is that Obama’s so-called socialism is not the real danger. What is dangerous, according to Joseph E. Stiglitz, an American Nobel laureate economist, as he says in his book The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future, is: “In important ways, our own country has become like one of these disturbed places serving the interests of a tiny elite.” And he seems to suggest that unless these inequalities are addressed, the United States might not be able to avoid for long the kind of popular revolts that are engulfing the Middle East.

But this is not the kind of stuff the Republicans and their rich supporters are interested in. If anything, they just want to forget the 47 per cent Americans who, they believe like Mitt Romney, look to the state for handouts and pay no taxes. In his view, they will not vote for him because his party is against welfare spending by the government, of which they are the beneficiaries. In other words, Mitt Romney, if elected, will work only for nearly half the population; others might have to fend for themselves.

The absurdity of US political debate is further highlighted when some of his rich opponents are even starting to see a Hitler in him. For instance, Stephen Schwarzman, a billionaire businessman, has compared President Obama’s proposed measures to eliminate some of the preferential tax treatment of the rich, to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.  If you think that Schwarzman might be one of those odd people seeing Hitler everywhere, it is not so. He is not alone. Cooperman, a hedge fund founder, shares the same broad view, though he doesn’t want to be that blunt. He told the New Yorker’s Chrystia Freeland, “You know, the largest and greatest country in the free world [USA] put a forty-seven-year-old guy [Obama] that never worked a day in his life [which is not true] and made him in charge of the free world.” Which, in his view is: “Not totally different from taking Adolf Hitler in Germany and making him in charge of Germany because people were economically dissatisfied.”

Elaborating on this, he said, “Now, Obama is not Hitler… But it is a question that the dissatisfaction of the populace was so great that they were willing to take a chance on an untested individual”. And look what happened in Germany. In other words, Obama is creating an inflammatory situation in the United States by turning the poor against rich, when the country’s rich have been at the forefront of creating jobs et al. Therefore, Obama is not only a dangerous socialist but also an agitator and provocateur trying to stir up things like Hitler did in Germany.

This level of debate in the United States, where the electors are pilloried for electing Barack Obama who, in turn, is pilloried for his “socialist” and Hitlerist views, is a sad reflection on the state of politics in the “largest and greatest country in the free world”. No wonder, the United States is in such a parlous state.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and the US

S P SETH

When you are pitted against a superpower like the United States, as Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization are, your odds of escaping that net are pretty low. Assange’s supposed crime is that by allowing WikiLeaks to release a multitude of US diplomatic cables, as well as the sordid crimes of its military in the Iraq war, he has earned the ire of the US government. Even though he is not a US citizen and hasn’t committed any cognizable crime, the US reportedly has a judicial process against him in motion, if he were ever to fall into their clutches. The result of such a process will be a foregone conclusion with the US military reportedly regarding Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States. According to Julian Assange’s US attorney, Michael Ratner, “An ‘enemy’ is dealt with under the laws of war, which could include killing, capturing, detaining without trial etc…”

Understandably, Assange is not keen on this for simply exercising his right to disseminate information for public good.  And to avoid being possibly extradited to the US from Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on sexual assault charges made by two women when he was in that country, he is now holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London having been granted asylum by that country’s government. After having exhausted all the legal avenues available in UK to stop his extradition to Sweden, he broke his bail conditions to take refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy. And that is where he is now stranded, unable to go anywhere for fear of arrest by the British authorities for breaching bail conditions, and extradition to Sweden.

Whether or not Sweden will extradite him to the US if asked,   is not quite clear. But considering that there is reportedly a grand jury indictment against him in the US, Sweden might not be able to resist the US request. As for the sexual assault case,  Assange was questioned on this when he was in Sweden, but at the time nothing incriminating was found and he was allowed to leave the country. However, not long after that, the sexual assault case was reopened in Sweden and Assange was asked to return for questioning. To avoid extradition, he jumped bail and sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. At no stage did Assange deny the sexual encounter with the women, maintaining that it was consensual. The only complaint is that he used a torn condom in the act against the said female’s wishes, which in Sweden might border on rape.

Whatever the legal merits or otherwise of the case, it is a bit odd, if not outrightly suspicious, why when Assange was first found not to have any case to answer, the Swedish authorities subsequently sought his extradition from UK for further questioning? It is important to note that at no time has Assange been actually charged with sexually assaulting the two women. It still is a matter of investigating the complaint against him. For which he is prepared to be questioned in London. But the Swedish authorities have insisted on his return to Sweden to complete their enquiries.

It is this juxtaposition of events, which raises questions of what transpired in the intervening period. Not unreasonably, Assange and his supporters fear the worst suspecting he would end up in a US jail like Private Bradley Manning, who was put into solitary confinement for allegedly leaking the US material to WikiLeaks. Considering that Julian Assange has reportedly been declared an ‘enemy’ of the US, it is not an unreasonable fear.

Considering further that no less a person than the US Vice-President, Joe Biden, called him “a high-tech terrorist”.  Biden’s opposite number in the 2008 presidential election and leader of the US Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin, has urged that Assange should be “hunted like bin Laden.” Not surprisingly, Assange is refusing to oblige without credible assurances that he wouldn’t be extradited to the United States by being lured into Sweden on a sexual assault complaint.

Now and then there are individuals and organizations that stand up for certain principles. In Assange and WikiLeaks’ case, they have sought to throw some light on the dark recesses of the US’s secret world of policy making, and the impunity with which it acts against its own much publicized human rights advocacy. Sadly, they have to pay a high price to promote larger public good. This is not right.

In a different era, Daniel Ellsberg, a former US defence department official, took on himself to release the Pentagon Papers in 1971 about the murky side of the US involvement in the Vietnam War, suffering utmost persecution by the then Nixon Administration. Recalling his experience recently, he said, “If I released the Pentagon Papers today, the same rhetoric and the same calls would be made about me.” He added, “I would be called not only a traitor, which I was [called] then, which was false and slanderous, but I would be called a terrorist” too. Now Ellsberg is a highly admired living legend. Will Assange also have a happy ending? Let us hope so. But at present he finds himself a hunted man.

 The sad thing is that his own Australian government has abandoned him, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard calling the WikiLeaks disclosures “grossly irresponsible” and illegal. It is not surprising, though, because when an Australian citizen has fallen foul of the US government, Canberra has tended to line up with its powerful ally.

But it is not all that bad in Australia. Commenting on the Assange affair against a backdrop of American policies, the Sydney Morning Herald said editorially, “As it is, we now have an American president who continues with indefinite detention outside the protection of the US constitution, who orders the killing of US citizens, who allows punishment of Manning [the US soldier who allegedly passed on the cables to WikiLeaks], and who continues to keep American officials immune from prosecution in the International Criminal Court for war crimes.”

With implied praise for Ecuador, it added, “With Assange, we now have a democratic government in the American hemisphere granting asylum to someone on the basis of well-grounded fear of political persecution in the United States.”  In other words, Canberra might have abandoned him, but many people in Australia would like their government to be proactive on his behalf.

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times.

Looming China-Japan conflict

S P SETH

China-Japan relations are at a crisis point. The trigger this time is the ownership of the Senkaku islands (known as Diaoyu in China) in the East China Sea, with both China and Japan claiming sovereignty. Japan first acquired the islands after the Sino-Japanese war in 1896. During WW11, these were lost to the United States. But since 1971, when the US returned the Senkakus to Japan, these are under Japanese control. Beijing claims that these islands were historically part of China, and the US had no business returning them to Japan.

The recent escalation of tensions in China-Japan relations started with the Japanese government’s purchase of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands from their private Japanese owners to reinforce its state sovereignty. Which has led China to send naval patrol boats to the area to affirm the seriousness of its own claim. There are reports that Chinese fisherman will soon be going to the contested waters for fishing, possibly under protection of Chinese naval vessels.

These developments have occasioned an unprecedented show of national anger in China targeting Japanese establishments, big and small, leading them to shut down their operations. Apparently, there was an element of state encouragement behind all this. But these are being carefully controlled lest such public anger turn on state institutions for unrelated reasons.

There are several aspects to China-Japan hostility. First, on China’ side, there is the century of humiliation starting with the Sino-Japanese war of 1895-96, the 1930’s occupation of Manchuria followed by the brutality and atrocities of WW 11. The Japanese invasion of China was a horrendous affair and the memories are still fresh with the Chinese. China believes that Japan never made suitable and adequate amends for their wartime crimes, and remains unrepentant. Instead, it is still clinging on to old relics like the Diaoyu islands, as China would see.

Over and above China’s historical claim to the islands, they are also seen now as valuable real estate in terms of potential oil and gas resources on the ocean surface. Besides, they are rich in fisheries. Tokyo feels that this is indeed the real reason for China’s new interest in the islands. These two, history and prospective gas and oil discoveries, are important factors behind China’s sovereignty claim. A resurgent and powerful China is seeking to assert its claim and thereby announce a new Chinese era in regional politics and strategy, as it is doing in regard to other maritime disputes with some of its neighbors.

Japan raises China’s ire for its perceived arrogance in refusing to come to terms with its wartime crimes with suitable contrition. Such arrogance comes up time and again when some Japanese prime minister or minister visits the Yasukini shrine, which is a memorial to Japan’s war dead, including some of its WW11 generals charged with war crimes. Similarly, there is the issue of Japanese school textbooks that tend to whitewash Japan’s wartime record. Another problem that has cropped up, from time to time, is Japan’s attempt to ignore, as much as it can, its disgraceful record of “comfort women” (local prostitutes) it requisitioned for its soldiers during its occupation of Asian countries.

What it means is that the current crisis over the Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands has a history involving China’s deeply felt humiliation when it was weak with Japan treading all over it.  Now that it is strong and powerful, it might be going overboard to right the wrongs of the past. As for Japan, it is not willing to give any ground on its ownership claim on the islands, which is under its control. On both sides it is a question of national pride, even more so in China with seething anger over Japan’s wartime record.

It is also a difficult political time in China with the leadership transition in the country to be formalized at the 18^th Party Congress to be held soon. Because of the Bo Xilai factor and his wife’s murky murder verdict, there is a certain political shadow hanging over the country needing clear resolution. The expulsion from the Party of Bo Xilai, followed by his likely trial on criminal charges, is supposed to clear the political climate. That would remain to be seen. For instance, only recently there were all sorts of rumors when the presumptive president Xi Jinping was not seen publicly for two weeks. Against this political backdrop, the national outrage against Japan, involving attacks on Japanese businesses and establishments in China, is a useful distraction and a mobilization technique.

The CPC, however, is always mindful of keeping popular demonstrations under close watch because nationalism is a beast that might take an unwelcome turn, even turning on the Party, for all sorts of reasons. The Party appears to be already taking steps to dampen down some of the anti-Japanese hysteria. But these protests serve a useful purpose from time to time to distract, as at present, from the country’s slowing economic growth, internal political wrangling from Bo Xilai affair and the leadership transition.

Whatever might be China’s internal political imperatives and compulsions, its external ramifications are quite worrying by way of increased regional tensions. Japan has its own ultra nationalists like the Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara who wanted to buy the Senkakus from its Japanese owners, thus forcing the national government to pre-empt him with its purchase. Indeed, Japan’s centrist ruling Democratic Party of Japan looks like it will lose the ensuing election to a right-leaning Liberal Democratic Party that has just elected Shinzo Abe, a fervent nationalist, as its president. With Abe becoming the next prime minister of Japan, the political temperature between the two countries is likely to rise further.

Beijing, however, is not interested in Japan’s internal political dynamics and is furious over the islands’ deal. While this is essentially an issue between China and Japan, any military conflict between them is likely to involve the United States on behalf of its ally, Japan. The US secretary of defense, Leon Panetta, has visited both Tokyo and Beijing emphasizing the need for both countries to sort out the islands’ issue peacefully, lest it develops into a military conflict that could involve the United States.

The People’s Daily of China has observed that Beijing might take punitive economic measures against Japan, if it doesn’t back off. Highlighting Japan’s economic paralysis of the last two decades, further compounded by the global financial crisis, it warned that, “Japan’s economy lacks immunity to Chinese economic measures”, even though admitting that it was a “double-edged sword” for China as the two countries’ economies are interdependent in many ways. It added,“ Amidst a struggle that touches on territorial sovereignty, if Japan continues its provocations China will inevitably take on the fight.” And it doesn’t take long for economic warfare to take on the shape of a military conflict.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Obama versus Romney
S P SETH

The recent political conventions of the two US political parties, 
Democrats and the Republicans formally nominating their presidential 
contenders, were designed to directly appeal to the American people 
through the electronic media, which is now the nerve centre of 
political campaigning. Despite all the razzmatazz of the conventions, 
the contest remains tight. By choosing Paul Ryan as his 
vice-presidential candidate, Mitt Romney has sought to consolidate his 
party’s conservative base as he has lacked their trust with his 
flexible views in the past over issues such as abortion, health care 
and so on. In other words, he is now locked into Paul Ryan’s economic 
and political orthodoxy of unfettered capitalism, small government, and 
maximum role for individual enterprise. Which means that there should 
be tax cuts for the rich to encourage private investments, combined 
with spending cuts on social entitlement programs.
It is amazing that despite the global financial crisis brought on by 
capitalism gone berserk, the Republicans have managed to restore its 
“efficacy” considering that Romney has an even chance of becoming the 
new president. That in itself is a miracle of sorts that shows that the 
Wall Street, banks and the big business have not only washed off their 
sins, but are promising to do it all over again. And that the 
Republicans have convinced almost half of the country’s electorate that 
their narrative is still the right course for a still ailing United 
States.
The Democrats are, therefore, throwing everything into their campaign 
for Obama’s re-election. The enlisting of Bill Clinton’s help at the 
recent Democrats convention was a brilliant move for several reasons. 
First, it showed the Democrats as a united party, considering that 
Clinton had said some unsavoury things about Obama as a presidential 
candidate in 2008, when he was pitted against Hillary Clinton for 
Democratic presidential nomination. Second: Clinton is rated as the 
most popular American politician today. And his testimony of Obama’s 
political credentials should rub on the President. Third: he sought to 
demolish any slur on Obama’s American identity and patriotism by 
extolling his passion for the country. Fourth, Clinton extolled Obama’s 
desire and patience to reach out to his Republican opponents. But it 
hasn’t worked because “the far right that now controls their party 
seems to hate our President and a lot of other Democrats.”
On the other hand, Obama’s commitment to reach across the political 
divide for national good was evident when: “He appointed Republican 
secretaries of defence, the army and transport…. Heck, he even 
appointed Hillary” as secretary of state after she lost the Democratic 
nomination. Fifth: he put the best spin on Obama’s economic record by 
describing him as “a man who stopped the slide into depression and put 
us on the long road to recovery.” And it was vintage Clinton with his 
folksy political style. With the election so tight, Clinton’s charisma 
might eventually be the difference between victory and defeat for 
Obama, although it wasn’t so visible in opinion polls after the 
convention.
The country’s non-performing economy remains Obama’s big problem with 
nearly 25 million unemployed and under-employed. Among the voter 
demographics, Obama is not so popular with many white males. Many of 
them find the world slipping out of their comfort zone with new 
confused social values of gay marriage, legalized abortion, humane 
treatment of some of the young Latino immigrants, not to speak of an 
Afro-American as the country’s President.
And these people and their likes in the country’s Bible belt are the 
natural constituency of the even more than usually conservative 
Republican Party under the influence of the Tea Party movement. They 
have in Paul Ryan, a vice-presidential running mate to Mitt Romney, 
someone who not only shares their conservative social values but also 
is the new poster boy of the Republican party advocating public 
spending cuts, tax cuts for the rich, reduced government and even 
lesser regulation of private enterprise. In other words, Republicans 
want more of the same that has created the present economic mess. And 
they seem to have managed to confuse many people into believing that 
Barack Obama’s four years as President has somehow been at the root of 
all the country’s economic misery.
This narrative of Obama’s economic failure seems believable to many 
Americas because, having promised high heaven during the 2008 election 
campaign, the country seems to have hardly moved ahead for millions of 
Americans caught in the maelstrom of America’s worst economic crisis 
since the Great Depression of the thirties. The American election drama 
is the theatre of the absurd where real issues are ignored to dwell on 
shadows. For instance, both the parties are ignoring the plight of 
America’s about 46 million poor who hardly rate a mention.  For Obama, 
it is all about the middle class. And the Republicans focus on the rich 
who supposedly will pull the economy out of morass with their 
investments encouraged by low taxes and virtually no regulation.
And then there is the God factor, with the Republicans having a special 
relationship with Him. Mitt Romney pounced on the Democrats for 
initially leaving God out of their platform that has since been 
rectified. Which led Romney to pronounce that, “ I will not take God 
out of…our platform. I will not take God out of my heart. We are a 
nation that’s bestowed by God.” He knows the importance of keeping on 
the right side of God in the United States where people strongly 
believe that God blesses the United States. And the Republican Party is 
the conscience of the country. They are banking on mobilizing all these 
people imbued with special American values to keep out the supposed 
Obama mob of crazy youth, women who long for abortion, Latinos, 
Afro-Americans and gays.
A rainbow coalition of such diverse groups might still take Obama 
across the winning line. According to some polls he has a small, though 
not significant, lead over Romney.  His biggest problem, though, 
remains the economy. A close second is the virtual absence this time of 
committed young volunteers who put so much into his 2008 election 
campaign. And that kind of apathy will affect voters’ mobilization for 
Obama’s cause. At the same time, the Republican state governments have 
been making sure that many of the marginalized groups that usually vote 
Democrats are unable to cast their votes with new requirements of voter 
identification.
As if this weren’t enough, the fury in the Muslim world over a 
documentary made by some crazy guy in the United States that defames 
Prophet Muhammad is likely to be politicized in the US presidential 
election, with Romney already making some noises. How it will all play 
out will also have a bearing on the Obama-Romney contest. In other 
words, it is all up in the air.




 



  

Australia’s China dilemma

Sushil Seth

Because of its historical beginnings as a British colony, Australia didn’t need to make hard choices on the international stage. It simply followed Britain, the mother country.

During WW11 when Japan was over-running one Asian country after the other pushing Britain out of the region, Australia feared for its security drawing closer to the United States. After WW11, it became part of the US-led ANZUS alliance.

But now with the rise of China and the resultant strategic competition between it and the United States, Australia is in a serious predicament.  China is now its biggest trading partner, with much of its export income coming from trade with that country.

The predicament is, therefore, centered on how best to balance its relationship with both these countries to maximize Australia’s advantage.

This is where it becomes tricky, because Australia not only wants to keep its strategic alliance with the United States but also is seeking to further strengthen it against the backdrop of China’s rise and the perceived security threat.

To this end, it is providing new base facilities for the US military as part of its new energized Asia-Pacific policy, as announced by the US President Barack Obama in an address to the Australian parliament when he was last visiting Australia.

Predictably, China is not happy, as it fears that this new development is directed against it. And Beijing has let it be known in no uncertain terms. Australia, of course, denies this. It regards its ties with the United States as part of its long-standing strategic relationship with the United States without any anti-China connotation.

The problem though is that even within Australia, there are some important voices that counsel against aligning too much with the United States in US-China strategic rivalry.

But they are not politically important enough to make any difference so far because Australia’s political establishment, by and large, favors US strategic connection.

This is for two reasons. First is that Canberra’ US alliance is an insurance against any security threat to Australia, and China is seen as a potential threat as indicated in its 2009 defense white paper.

Second, by being welcoming of the US presence and engagement in the Asia-Pacific region, Canberra hopes that the United States wouldn’t one day simply walk away from the region, leaving Australia to its own devices.

 However, those in Australia who would like a more nuanced relationship with the US argue that Canberra should rather play a role in persuading the United States to share power with a rising China.

In this way, the US-China relationship would be managed peacefully, thus avoiding a potential military conflict sometime in the future as happened in the past between a rising Germany and the established European powers in WW1, and to Hitler’s rise leading to WW11.

An important proponent of this broad argument is Professor Hugh White at the Australian National University, formerly a senior defense department official. He has argued his line in his book, The China Choice: Why America Should Share Power.

It is believed that China will become the world’s biggest economy in a decade or so, thus leaving the US behind. Its military power is also growing, though the US will still remain the world’s strongest military power for many years to come.

Even at this stage China has amassed a strong military deterrent, if not denial, capability to make the United States cautious about exercising or using its superior military power against China.

Therefore, to avoid any mischance of a US-China strategic rivalry breaking into a war, it is considered necessary that US should accommodate China into a power-sharing arrangement.

Paul Keating, a former Australian prime minister, is another one cautioning his country against drifting towards confrontation with China as a US ally. He recently said that peace in the region lay in accommodating China as a “great power”.

He added, “The presumption has been that the foreign policy of Australia is somehow synonymous with the foreign policy of the United States.”  Which “could never have been broadly true, notwithstanding the points of coincidence from time to time in our respective national interests.”

He, therefore, advocates a more independent approach for Canberra in its relations with the United States. Incidentally, Keating chairs an international advisory council of the China Development Bank.

There are problems with this thesis, not with the idea of sharing power but its feasibility. First, it assumes power sharing as if it is there for the US to give and for China to partake.

International relations do not operate like that. The US might be the dominant power in the region but there are other regional actors that might not go along with a regional duopoly between the US and China. 

A solution to this might lie through creating a concert of powers as in the Europe of the 19^th century to create balance of power. Even that didn’t stop military conflict eventually leading to WW1.

In its supposed Asian reincarnation, this might involve other regional heavy weights like Japan and India. But China might regard it with suspicion as Japan and, probably, India too is tilted toward the US. Therefore, Beijing is unlikely to relish the balance of power idea tilted against it.

China might also find the idea of being assigned a power-sharing role as condescending hearkening back to the days when the European powers, including the US, decided what was good for China.

The humiliation of 200 years of European domination of China is too fresh in Chinese mind to accept arrangements, even of an enhanced power-sharing role, as demeaning.

Besides, who decides what sort of power sharing is involved? For instance, China basically wants the US out of the Asia-Pacific region that it regards as its own political and strategic space since 14^th and 15^th century. And the European colonial meddling, in their view, was a historical aberration.

Now that China is powerful, it wants to restore, what it sees as, its historical destiny. It, therefore, wants the US, as Beijing sees it, to stop interfering and/or encouraging some regional countries to put forward their rival sovereignty claims to South China Sea islands. The US is not willing to abandon its regional allies to China’s wishes.

In other words, it might be difficult for both China and the United States even to go beyond the first base of a regional sovereignty issue.

It would, therefore, seem that strategists like Hugh White and former politicians like Paul Keating are barking up the wrong tree.  In international relations, where national interests are involved, there are no neat solutions. 

US’ downward trajectory

S P SETH

The landing of the space vehicle, Curiosity, on the Mars by the United States is a brilliant achievement by any standard. Which testifies to the tremendous scientific and technological creativity in, what is still, the world’s most powerful country. But it might not continue like that. Look at some of the statistics. According to one report, the US is seventh in literacy, 27^th in mathematics, 22^nd in science, 49^th in life expectancy and so on. These are not the rankings of a great power.

And when even the US’s closest ally, Australia, starts to worry about its intractable problems, it is obviously time to take notice. During a recent US visit, Australia’ foreign minister, Bob Carr, pointed to it even as he praised the country’s underlying strengths in several sectors.  And he posed the question: “What is holding you [US] back? Debt and deficit. America is one budget deal away from banishing talk of American decline”

Bob Carr made it sound like a simple solution to stem the US decline, but it is not as simple as that. The debt and deficit is not a sudden phenomenon. It is the accumulation of a whole series of wrong policies to control the world with the dictum that: what is good for the US is good for the world. Its results are there for all to see from the Korean War to the folly of the long war in Vietnam and on to the Iraq and Afghan wars. And it is not over yet with the threat of military intervention to stop Iran from its nuclear ambitions.

Apart from considerable cost in human lives of these wars---the Vietnam War alone is estimated to have cost up to 2 million Vietnamese lives--- these wars added significantly to US debt and deficit over a period. The total cost of Iraq and Afghan wars alone for the US, including health care of wounded soldiers and other related expenses, is estimated at $3 trillion, a hefty contribution to an ongoing crisis brought about by a capitalist system run amuck.

It is a systemic crisis but the US continues to believe that it can work its way out by printing more money and raising more debt against US bonds.  Because the US is in a unique position as the world’s reserve currency, this enables it to raise ever more debt at relatively low borrowing costs. The money markets are prepared to bet on the US as credit worthy. But as the US debt is approaching 100 cent of its GDP, if it is not already there, something is going to snap somewhere in confidence chain to create a trigger effect to bring down the house. And this is even more so because the political gridlock in the US to deal seriously with its debt and deficit shows no way of sorting itself out, with the Republicans swearing by their mantra of tax cuts and spending cuts, and the Democrats favoring a mix of the two--- with rich paying more taxes and some cuts in welfare entitlements.

Even this might not solve the problem, but a political breakthrough might be a good beginning. As Gina Despres, the vice-chairwoman and principal executive officer of four large global mutual funds, has reportedly said, “We’re [the US] the least-ugly pig [compared to Euro zone] in the pen right now. But at some point that will change, and then we’ll be in trouble.” Because: “…when that happens you start to face rising interest rates, and then the interest on the debt component of gross domestic rockets, and then you’ve sort of lost the game.”

The point is that by letting things reach where the US is now in the ugly-pig race with Euro zone would suggest that the US’ best days might be behind it. And if you are the President of the United States you will feel constrained to assure all and sundry that this is not true, as Obama did recently. He said, “Anyone who tells you that America is in decline, or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they are talking about.” And if you are the presumptive president like Mitt Romney you might even go one further to declare that the 21^st century will be another American century. But, as the US columnist E.J.Dionne has argued, “American decline is the specter haunting our politics.”

Tom Switzer, an Australian columnist, commenting on the US decline, says, “The dollar is weak. Debt is of European proportions. Infrastructure is ageing…” He adds, “If the next president does not prepare his fellow citizens for this reality [of US decline], the American people’s reaction to setbacks at home and abroad is more likely to be angry and irrational.” And that really is the danger because the momentum of America’s past glory in political-power terms is likely to blind the US to real limits on its power. The specific blind spot in question, at the present time, is the confrontation with Iran, with growing pressure from Israel to bring it to its knees on the nuclear question. Israel will like to fight to the last American soldier to ensure its security against Iran or from anywhere else in the Middle East.

Even though the US has been on the downward trajectory for a long time, with the financial crisis of 2008 and continuing economic problems exposing it more markedly, the election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 raised all sorts of expectations about the US renewal. For instance, the US was said to have entered the post-racial phase with the election of an Afro-American, thus radically transforming the racial divide that sapped its national energies. But nothing of the sort really happened as Obama’s election is increasingly proving to have been largely a symbolic change. All through his term he faced questions about his American (whether or not he was born in the US) and religious (if he is Muslim) identity. These questions wouldn’t have been relevant if he were white.

Even as the country’s President, Obama had to cite proof of his American birth (birth certificate) to hopefully quash rumors.  But the doubters were never satisfied. And during the current election campaign, such sniping is still going on by the Romney camp. For instance, a Romney confidante recently said that he wished ”this president would learn how to be an American.” Another Romney advisor explained why the presumptive president had a special understanding of the “special relationship” between the US and UK because Romney is “part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage.” He was highlighting this when Romney recently visited London. In other words, Obama is still the target of race politics.

Even as the United States continued to face all sorts of problems, Obama’s election as president in 2008 appeared to be a game changer in renewing the US society. But all the racial sniping is likely to continue. The celebrated American writer, Gore Vidal, who died recently, expressed his utter frustration with the way his country was functioning or non-functioning in a 2009 interview with the Times of London. He said that America is “rotting away at a funereal pace.” In this way, “We’ll have a military dictatorship pretty soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together.”

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times. 

Flashpoints in Asia-Pacific

S P SETH

While Mao Zedong was the founder of communist China, Deng Xiaoping was the architect of its economic miracle and great power resurgence. Even as China was going through spectacular economic growth during the eighties and nineties, Deng cautioned the country’s leaders to “bide your time and hide your capabilities.” The first part of his advice was spot on as China was navigating the difficult task of building and modernizing in an international environment not entirely favorable to the country. By concentrating on economic growth while maintaining relatively low international political profile right up to the beginning of the new century, China is now the world’s second largest economy with its high international political and military profile on display for any country or countries doubting its resolve and strength.

While China’s leaders did bide their time as suggested by Deng, there is some argument if they are a bit hasty in projecting and asserting their power. The argument arises in the context of China’s increasingly tense relationship with some of its regional neighbors on the question of contested sovereignty over the island chains in the South China Sea that it claims in entirety. China’s parliament passed a law to this effect in 1992, thus excluding any regional claimant(s) from what it regards as its internal jurisdiction. In other words, any external interference to thwart Chinese sovereignty will be resisted and excluded. But China was still lacking in political and military muscle to enforce its sovereign control. Therefore, while continuing to insist that South China Sea was its territorial sea, Beijing also let it be known that it was willing to sort out issues through negotiations and/or through some sort of joint exploration mechanism for its rich underwater resources.

But nothing came of it as Beijing continued to claim exclusive sovereignty over the island chains of Spratly and Paracel islands. This island chain(s) is also contested by Vietnam, as well as the Philippines, among other regional countries.  And this has led to some naval incidents between China and Vietnam, as well as between China and the Philippines. Like China in the early nineties, Vietnam has recently passed legislation enshrining its sovereignty over these islands. Which, in turn, has led China to deploy a garrison on the islands to assert and safeguard its territoriality. It has also founded Sansha city in the South China Sea to cement its control over 2 million square kilometers of territorial waters. How all this will play out is difficult to say, but South China Sea is becoming a regional flashpoint with unpredictable consequences.

Vietnam and the Philippines are obviously no match for a resurgent and powerful China. But their growing security ties with the United States will raise the stakes. While the US maintains a neutral position on the sovereignty issue, it favors a code of conduct between China and the 10-member Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) for dealing with disputes in the South China Sea. China, on the other hand, is not willing to formalize the issue to give it the character of a territorial dispute. China had a victory of sorts when a recent ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in Cambodia failed to issue an agreed communiqué to avoid any mention of the South China Sea issue. Being considerably beholden to China for economic aid and political support, the host of the meeting, Cambodia’s foreign affairs minister, ruled out a communiqué because “ I have told my colleagues that the meeting of the ASEAN foreign ministers is not a court, a place to give a verdict about the dispute.” With its growing power and considerable economic leverage, China is seeking to shape the regional agenda to its advantage.

Will it prevail? It will obviously be a tough fight, as the United States is not wiling to be edged out of the region. The US regards itself as a Pacific power with its considerable economic and strategic interests. It is still the dominant military power, with a large naval fleet deployed in the region and a nexus of security ties with a number of regional countries, including Japan, South Korea and Australia. In expounding the US interest to see a peaceful South China Sea, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has maintained that, “No nation can fail to be concerned by the increase in tensions, the uptick in confrontational rhetoric and disagreement over resource exploitation.” And she has urged that the disputes between China and its regional neighbors be resolved “without coercion, without intimidation, without threats and without use of force.” China’s message for the United States basically is to butt out of the region. But that is where the issue has the potential of starting an accidental military clash or, even, something bigger. For instance, China’s shadowing of US naval movements through South China Sea might create an ugly situation, as there have recently been some naval incidents.

China is a rising power. And it is determined to make it to the top. The United States and its regional allies in Asia-Pacific are determined to check and counter-balance it. China appears confident. There is a sense that China might have to tough it out for some years until the United States is too tired from its financial woes and military overreach to pick up a fight. Even if this analysis is true, the transitional period of 5 to 10 years that China might need to establish its primacy will be hazardous, as the United States and its regional allies seek to confront China. The situation remains tense both with the Philippines and Vietnam. There have already been some naval incidents. In the midst of it all an arms race is going on, with countries in the region buying the latest in weaponry. China’s own defense expenditure has been rising at double digit figures in the last few years. The South China Sea ownership issue is also tied up with freedom of navigation, as a significant part of international trade, including oil, passes through these strategically important waters.

At the same time, there are problems between China and Japan in the East China Sea over ownership of Senkaku islands, resulting in some unpleasant naval incidents. And Japan happens to be an important security ally of the United States. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and the unresolved issue of Korean unification is another live issue, with China committed to protect North Korea. The status of Taiwan is also a flashpoint, with China regarding it as a renegade province and determined to use force to bring about unification if Taipei were to declare independence.

The immediate flashpoint is likely to be South China Sea centered on the status of the Spratly and Paracel islands, and the passage through it of US naval ships that China might seek to impede or intercept at some point. In other words, the great game in the Asia-Pacific is starting in earnest and there is no knowing how it will end.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times

Where is Afghanistan headed?

By S P SETH

The question many people would ask: where is Afghanistan headed, now that the United States and its allies are already packing their bags with final departure by end-2014? Before we examine this question, it might be pertinent to ask where Afghanistan is today and might be over the next 2 years? The answer to the second question is that Afghanistan is in the same state of utmost misery as it has been during the decade-long war in that country. True, there have been some indicators of progress, like making a start with girls’ education. But in the absence of an environment of physical and economic security, even these small gains are easily and violently reversible. In other words, it is difficult to build on something with such shaky foundations.

Of course, those who are planning for Afghanistan’s future in the post-American phase will argue that, even though Afghanistan is one of the most unstable and poor societies in the world, it certainly is much better than it was under the Taliban that was hosting the al Qaida leadership leading to the 9/11 attacks in the US and the beginning of the war on terrorism. If not contained, al Qaeda-sponsored terrorism would have continued unabated. It is arguable if and how much terrorism has been contained during over a decade of US military operations in Afghanistan.  The country, though, remains in a precarious condition.

However, those wanting to see the US and its allies quit Afghanistan will be happy that the day is not far off.  The Taliban, for instance, believe that all Afghanistan’s problems stem from the US invasion of the country. They hope that, with the US withdrawal, the Karzai government will collapse and the Taliban will be back in power. But that might not happen so easily. True, the Taliban’s hold in eastern and southern parts of the Pashtun majority areas might be further strengthened where they already have a strong presence directly and indirectly. At places they are also in close contact with elements in the Afghan army, avoiding military encounters.

However, it is important to note that the Taliban is not a homogenous category. For instance, the Haqqanis are unlikely to submit easily to a centralized Taliban authority like Mullah  Mohammad Omar and his group. Pakistan’s ISI might play a bridging and mediating role, with its considerable patronage, to fight a common enemy, the Karzai government. But as the recent International Donors Conference in Japan has shown, the post-US Karzai government or its successor won’t be without friends willing to help, though avoiding troops’ involvement. Apart from pledging development aid of $16 billion over 4 years, US and its allies are also likely to commit about $4 billion a year to fund and support an estimated 352,000 Afghan army and police force over the next ten years.

It is true that because of the US’ and Europe’s fragile economic situation the promised economic and military aid might not be sustained. Even at the best of times pledges and estimates of aid are rarely met. With economies of pledging countries in all sorts of troubles, the post-American Afghanistan might be lucky to receive enough to keep going.  But even with scaled down pledges, an army and police force of around or less than 350,000 men will be pretty handy to face up to a Taliban offensive. Even though the Afghan army is unlikely to reach the standards of a professional army, and might not be as committed to their cause as the Taliban, it will have the advantage of employing a large number of young people in a country where poverty is rampant. They might not be so easily sabotaged if the alternative is to hit the road. Of course, some will desert and join the Taliban and be rewarded. But for many,  it might not be the option. What it means is that many in the military and police might develop a stake in what they already have--a regular slot in another otherwise fractured environment. In other words, the Taliban might not find it easy going and just walk into office.

This scenario, of course, presumes a regular and stable government and administration in the post-American period. Which is not guaranteed considering that even with the US troops around, the writ of the Karzai government doesn’t run all over the country. Indeed, they don’t seem to have any effective control beyond cities. Even in the cities, the insurgents are able to stage dramatic killings in the most secure areas of Kabul and Kandahar. They even managed to kill Karzai’s half brother, then governor of Kandahar, and Rabbani, Karzai’s peace council head and a former president of the country.

But the capacity of the insurgents to create mayhem will not necessarily work to their advantage, because Afghan people seem to crave for security and stability. Any advantage the Taliban might seek to wrest from this situation will simply push the country into a full scale civil war, pitting Pashtuns against Taziks, Uzbeks and other minorities.  And these minorities, particularly the Taziks, dominate the military, at least at the higher level. In a long piece on post-American Afghanistan in the New Yorker, reporter Dexter Filkins quotes an Afghan governor who says: “Mark my words, the moment the Americans leave, the civil war will begin. This country will be divided into twenty-five or thirty fiefdoms, each with its own government.”

Writing about the balance sheet of the US military intervention over a decade, Filkins comments, “…By the end of 2014, when the last Americans are due to stop fighting, the Taliban will not be defeated. A Western-style democracy will not be in place. The economy will not be self-sustaining…. And it’s a good bet, even Al Qaeda, which brought the United States into Afghanistan in the first place, will be carrying on.” As one former US counterinsurgency adviser to American forces in Afghanistan has been quoted to say, “ It appears we’re just trying to get out and avoid catastrophe.” It is a pretty depressing and disastrous situation for the Afghans to sort out between themselves. Which might take years to work out, if at all, with prolonged and protracted civil war.

In the midst of it all, Pakistan would like to play a determining role in the post-American Afghanistan, as it did before the US military invasion 11 years ago. Pakistan played a crucial role in putting the Taliban in power. But it hasn’t quite worked out in its favor. The Taliban went ahead hosting the al Qaeda that led to 9/11. That, in turn, brought in the US invasion of Afghanistan, putting Pakistan right in the middle of what is still unfolding and likely to continue in the post-American period as a prolonged civil war. Pakistan has been destabilized by the country’s own version of the Taliban. And things are likely to get worse, before they get any better at all, when Pakistan takes sides to determine the course of events to its advantage.

The overlap between the Taliban on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border is making Pakistan part of the Afghan imbroglio, further destabilizing the country. Therefore, in the post-American period, much will depend on how Pakistan is able to draw a line between its own polity/society and the goings on in Afghanistan. If not, Pakistan might swim or sink with Afghanistan.       

 Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.