Pakistan: US "Public Relations Disaster" in Gates Mission

Juan Cole is scathing about the most recent political effort by the Obama Administration in Pakistan:

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates's trip to Pakistan this weekend has in many ways been a public relations disaster, and I think it is fair to say that he came away empty-handed with regard to his chief policy goals in Islamabad. Getting Pakistan right is key to President Barack Obama's policy of escalating the Afghanistan War, and judging by Gates's visit to Islamabad, Obama is in worse shape on the AfPak front than he is even in Massachusetts [after the unexpected Republican victory in the US Senate vote]. Since he has bet so heavily on Afghanistan and Pakistan, this rocky road could be momentous for his presidency.

In one of a series of gaffes, he seemed to admit in a television interview that the private security firm, Blackwater, was active in Pakistan.

The Pakistani public has a widespread resentment against US incursions against the country's sovereignty (64% say the US is a danger to the country's stability). But it also has a sort of paranoid obsession with Blackwater, which they suspect of covert operations to disrupt security in the country (i.e. they blame Blackwater for bombings that Americans see as the work of the Taliban). Thus, Gates's statement produced a media frenzy. (Jeremy Scahill has alleged in The Nation that Blackwater is in fact in Pakistan in a support role to CIA drone attacks in the country's mountainous Northwest on Taliban and al-Qaeda targets).


Dawn, a relatively pro-Western English daily, quoted the exchange, saying Gates was asked by the interviewer on a private television station,

' “And I want to talk, of course, about another issue that has come up again and again about the private security companies that have been operating in Iraq, in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan. . . Xe International, formerly known as Blackwater and Dyncorp. Under what rules are they operating here in Pakistan?”

Gates replied,

' “Well, they’re operating as individual companies here in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and in Iraq because there are theatres of war involving the United States.”

The Urdu press concluded that he had admitted Blackwater is active on Pakistani soil, while noting denials from the US embassy in Islamabad that that was what Gates had meant. The News, the mainstream English-language sister of Jang, was also insistent that Gates had let the cat out of the bag.

Gates had one strike against him, since he came to Pakistan from India. Moreover while in New Delhi he clearly was a traveling salesman for the US war materiel industries, who would like to pick up some of the $60 billion India is planning to spend on weapons in the next few years. During the Cold War, the US had mainly supplied Pakistan's military, and had been lukewarm to India, which Washington felt tilted toward Moscow. The current shift of US strategy to wooing India to offset growing Chinese power in Asia is taken by some Pakistanis as a demotion.

Then, he encouraged a greater Indian role in Afghanistan, including, according to the Times of London, possibly in training Afghan police. Pakistan considers Afghanistan its sphere of influence and the last thing it wants is a role for Indian security forces in training (and perhaps shaping the loyalty) of Afghan police. Germany is currently in charge of the police training program, but India is afraid that in the next few years NATO will depart, and that Pakistan will then redeploy its Taliban allies to capture the country for Islamabad's purposes. India is also concerned about significant Chinese investments, as in a big copper mine, in Afghanistan. So New Delhi is considering the police training mission.

In addition, Gates had praised Indian restraint in the face of the fall, 2008 attack on Mumbai (Bombay) by the Pakistani terrorist organization, the Lashkar-i Tayyiba [Army of the Good]. He warned the Pakistani leadership that India's forbearance could not be taken for granted the next time. That is a fair point, but it is not the sort of thing you say publicly on your way to Islamabad from Delhi if you want to be received as an honest broker. Pakistanis feel that India has inflicted many provocations on them, too, not least of which was the Indian security forces' often brutal repression in Muslim-majority Kashmir, where thousands have died since 1989 in a separatist movement with which Pakistanis deeply sympathize. (Pakistani guerrilla groups also did routinely slip into Indian Kashmir in support of local separatists).

Prominent members of the Pakistani Senate denounced Gates for setting up Pakistan as a sort of patsy and hostage to communal violence in India, and of fomenting a Washington-New Delhi 'conspiracy' against Islamabad. What if some Indian terrorist group carried out an attack in India? wasn't Gates giving New Delhi carte blanche, they asked, to blame Pakistan for it even in the absence of any evidence, and then to launch a war of aggression on Pakistan with the incident as a pretext?

The Los Angeles Times said that "Gates, on the first day of a visit here, urged government officials to build on their offensives against militants . . ."

In fact, Gates was careful not to over-emphasize such demands, but there was a general public perception that he was doing so. The editorials in Urdu newspapers on Jan. 23, which the USG Open Source Center analyzed, complained bitterly about this further demand. Express sniffed that the US should establish security in Afghanistan and then everything would settle down in Pakistan's northwest. Khabrain rather cleverly pointed out that Pakistan has concentrated on limited territory in fighting its Taliban, which is wiser than the US policy of opening several fronts at once and getting bogged down.

Jang, which is mildly anti-American, said,

Describing Robert Gates' pro-Indian statements irresponsible, the editorial says: "It is believed that the political and military leaderships of Pakistan, with one voice, have made it clear to Gates and the titanic-size delegation accompanying him that in the present circumstances, it is not possible for Pakistan to accede to the persistent US demands of 'do more' and to further expand military operations in the tribal areas, because Pakistan not only has to secure the areas that it has taken control of from the militants but also has to strengthen and stabilize its position there."

Then the Pakistani military spokesman came out and flatly told Gates that the Swat and South Waziristan campaigns were it for now. The BBC reports, 'Maj Gen Abbas, head of public relations for the Pakistan army, told the BBC: "We are not going to conduct any major new operations against the militants over the next 12 months. . . The Pakistan army is overstretched and it is not in a position to open any new fronts. Obviously, we will continue our present operations in Waziristan and Swat." '

To be fair, the Pakistani military committed tens of thousands of troops to these two campaigns, in Swat and South Waziristan, and is in fact attempting to garrison the captured areas so as to prevent the return of the Pakistani Taliban. In the past two years, the Pakistani army has lost over 2,000 soldiers in such fighting against Taliban in the Northwest, a little less than half the troops the US lost in its 6-year Iraq War.

The Pakistani military campaigns of the past year, however, have not targeted those radical groups most active in cross-border raids into Afghanistan-- the Quetta Shura of Mullah Omar's Old Taliban, the Haqqani Network of Siraj Haqqani in North Waziristan, or whatever cells exist in Pakistan of the largely Afghanistan-based Hizb-i Islami (Islamic Party) of Gulbadin Hikmatyar. Washington worries that the effectiveness of its own troop escalation in Afghanistan will be blunted if these three continue to have havens on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. And, Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani worries that the US offensive in Afghanistan will push thousands radicals over the border into Pakistan, further destabilizing the country's northwest.

Gates made a clumsy attempt to mollify Pakistani public opinion over the very unpopular US drone strikes on suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban cells in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, by offering the Pakistani military 12 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or drones of its own. But the Pakistani military pointed out that the outdated RQ-7 Shadow UAV's on offer were unarmed and merely for aerial reconnaissance, and maintained that Pakistan's arsenal already contained such drones.

Gates addressed the Pakistani cadets at the National Defense University, attempting to emphasize that he wanted more of these future officers to study in the US, and that Pakistan is in the driver's seat with regard to the anti-Taliban counter-insurgency campaign. Its message was largely missed in the civilian Urdu press.

Does it matter? One sometimes see Americans dismiss Pakistan as "small" or "unimportant." Think again. Pakistan is the world's sixth-largest country by population (170 million),just after Brazil (200 million). It is as big as California, Oregon and Washington state rolled together. Pakistan's 550,000-man military is among the best-trained and best-equipped in the global South. Pakistan has within it a middle class with a Western-style education and way of life (automobiles, access to internet and international media) of some 37 million-- roughly 5 million families. (Pakistan has over 5 million automobiles now and is an emerging auto producer and market, with auto production at 16 percent of its manufaturing sector). If we go by local purchasing power, it is the world's 27th largest economy. It is a nuclear power with a sophisticated if small scientific establishment, and produced a Nobelist in physics.

Gates went to Pakistan to emphasize to Islamabad that the US was not again going to abandon it and Afghanistan, as it had in the past. Pakistan, he wanted to say, is now a very long-term ally of Washington. He hoped for cooperation against the Haqqani, Taliban and Hizb-i Islami guerrillas. He wanted to allay conspiracy theories about US mercenary armies crawling over Pakistan, occasionally blowing things up (and then blaming the explosions on Pakistanis) in order to destabilize the country and manipulate its policies.

The message his mission inadvertently sent was that the US is now increasingly tilting to India and wants to put it in charge of Afghanistan security; that Pakistan is isolated; that he is pressuring Pakistan to take on further counter-insurgency operations against Taliban in the Northwest, which the country flatly lacks the resources to do; and that Pakistani conspiracy theories about Blackwater were perfectly correct and he had admitted it.

In baseball terms, Gates struck out. In cricket terms, Gates was out in the most embarrassing way a batsman can be out, that is, leg before wicket.

Iran and Israel: The Start of a Beautiful Friendship?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vY-4zWKsJM[/youtube]

It happened not in Casablanca but in Madrid, during a tourism fair....

An Israeli delegation, headed by Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov, was taking a stroll around the other exhibits when they stumbled upon the Iranian booth, manned by Tourism Minister and Vice President Hamid Baghaei. Baghaei was shy at first but he then presented Iran's wonders and invited Misezhnikov to see them first-hand.

This is the second beautiful encounter between Iranian and Israeli officials this month. The director of foreign relations for Iran's football team, Mohammad Ali Ardebili, began 2010 with a New Year's greeting to the head of the Israel Football Association's legal department, Amir Navon. The Israelis replied with "happy new year to all the good people of Iran" and hopes for "a happy soccer year".

Alas, as with every new relationship, there are lows as well as highs. Iranian state media quickly denied the flirtation in Madrid, insisting, "(The) Zionist regime published a blatant lie in order to distract global attention from its crimes in Gaza." And football's Mr Ardebili also backed away from the special moment during his phone call, "Are you talking from Israel? I can't speak with you. It's a mistake, it's a mistake."

To which we can only reply, "Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry."

Israel-Palestine: United Nations "Stop the Occupation of East Jerusalem"

On Thursday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned Israelis about the continued settlement construction in East Jerusalem.

Having already expressed concerns over the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, Ban said at a meeting in New York:

Settlement construction violates international law and contravenes the Road Map, under which Israel is obliged to freeze all settlement activity, including the so-called ‘natural growth.’

This is in no one’s interest, least of all Israel’s. Settlement activity undermines trust between the two parties, seems to pre-judge the outcome of the future permanent status negotiations, and imperils the basis for the two-State solution.

Gaza: Israel Pays $10.5 Million to UN for War Damage
Israel-Palestine: George Mitchell’s “Fail, Fail, Fail” Middle East Tour?
Gaza: United Nations Warning on Health Situation

In the absence of talks, confidence between the parties has diminished. Tensions have risen in East Jerusalem. People in Gaza and southern Israel continue to suffer from violence. If we do not move forward on the political process soon, we risk sliding backwards.

It bears repeating that the international community does not recognize Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, which remains part of the occupied Palestinian territory. A way must be found, through negotiations, for Jerusalem to emerge as the capital of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all.

Gaza: Israel Pays $10.5 Million to UN for War Damage

Israel has paid the United Nations $10.5 million for damage to UN properties in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.

“With this payment, the United Nations has agreed that the financial issues relating to those incidents referred to in the terms of reference of the Board of Inquiry are concluded,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman Martin Nesirky told a news briefing on Friday. “The Secretary-General would like to record the cooperative approach that the Government of Israel has shown in the course of the discussions that led to this settlement.”

Iran Analysis: Should the Greens Be Waiting for Economic Collapse?

Mr Khiabani stops by to offer this analysis for EA:

One often hears proclamations, or perhaps hopes, that the success of the Green Movement is linked to the decline of the Iranian economy. The logic is that an economic collapse would bring informal workers, bazaar merchants, wealthy businessmen, once comfortable pensioner widows, perhaps even Afghan migrants, all into the streets along with the current membership of the demonstrations.

This is not a unique wish. Iran's democracy movement shares this assumption with almost every left/liberal democratic movement in history, be it the socialists in Weimar Germany or Mondale Democrats in Reagan's America. They are often proved wrong, because an economic collapse leads to calls for order at any social cost, not further deliberation, debate, and respect for constitutional process. It also suffers from a fallacy known as the "relative deprivation thesis", whereby those who perceive themselves as most deprived are the ones most likely to rebel. (I'm not saying the thesis is always wrong, but it is not a general law). In truth, those most likely to rebel can come from a variety of social backgrounds, from small-landholding peasants to middle-level bureaucrats, depending on the situation.



This expectation that "it will get worse before it gets better" is compounded by the swirl of hearsay and inaccurate stories about the Iranian economy. If one only listened to the critics over the last 30 years, one would believe that Iran is some kind of economic wasteland, on par with Haiti or Yemen. The calls of economic doom were ratcheted up over the five years of the bumbling Ahmadinejad presidency. And, now, we are again hearing that a catastrophe is imminent.

This sometimes is tied to the success of the Green Movement itself. Mohsen Sazegara told The Times of London that he estimated 80% of the Iranian currency had anti-regime slogans on it, which would eventually lead to a currency withdrawal and a shutdown of the economy. As a resident of Tehran, and a user of Iran's sweaty currency (always in someone's hand), I find this rather amusing. Few people here have ever seen more than one or two "green bills", and the only person I know who has seen more is a guy who stamps them himself with green symbols. Yet this is a sexy story and gets repeated ad infinitum in the Western press, in lieu of real reporting on substantive issues which would be much more beneficial to keeping the Greens in the news cycle.

Those who spend hours each day picking apart the statements and even facial expressions of Iran's (admittedly fascinating) political elite rarely devote even a fraction of that time to equally careful analysis of Iran's economy, especially in comparison with its neighbors and other oil producers to see what is a possible range of economic outcomes for a middle-income country. Instead, we tend to believe the words of Iranian politicians, who use this or that economic figure to proclaim Iran's economy either as the strongest in the world (the line on the chart always going up) or as dead on arrival.

If one had believed that Iran's economy was doing so horribly the last five years, for instance, then one would have a hard time making sense of the current downturn, which began when the Central Bank of Iran hiked up interest rates (against the President's desires) ito bring down inflation to reasonable levels. Now there finally is a real crisis, both in domestic investment and in personal incomes, which may be exacerbated by the subsidy reforms as (or if) they are implemented as planned. Yet those who cried wolf for so many years are the least able to explain this particular crisis, whom it will negatively affect the most, and whom it will benefit.

This is not to imply that all Iranians did wonderfully since 2005 --- property owners benefited from housing inflation while wage-earners saw their real purchasing power whittled away by rising prices. The massive import boom, allowed by Ahmadinejad's government without any thought as to the effects on domestic industry, introduced a wide range of inexpensive East Asian goods to Iranian households, which they certainly gobbled up. But this was conspicuous consumption that sacrificed long-term economic growth in non-oil sectors in exchange for a slice of the "western" life. Any development economist could tell you that there would be a coming hangover.

The current downturn should thus be analyzed and discussed in hard-nosed ways by Green strategists, without romanticizing the "inherent" rebellion supposedly visible on each day's horizon. Anything less, including the usual calls for "once the economy goes...", ill-serves this historic democratic movement.