The Undead Chicken

April 26, 2011 · By John Feffer

With Libya, the Obama administration has followed the Chinese adage: kill the chicken to scare the monkeys. But the chicken still rules the roost in Tripoli.

Muammar Gaddafi is the undead chicken. Bashar al-Assad of Syria and King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain are the unscared monkeys.
The United States has shaped its policy toward the evolving situation in the Middle East according to the Chinese proverb of “killing the chicken to scare the monkey.” The Obama administration has intervened in the conflict in Libya with the apparent goal of punishing Gaddafi for cracking down on the emerging protest movement back in February. This intervention was designed to send a message to other autocrats in the region: don’t fire on your unarmed opposition — or else.
But the United States and its allies are having problems with the "or else" part of the equation. Despite going beyond a no-fly zone, they have only struck a glancing blow against Gaddafi. The chicken is bleeding, but it hasn’t yet flown the coop. Rebel forces have regained their edge in the key city of Misurata, but Gaddafi’s air strikes have also knocked out oil production in the rebel-held zone for a month. There are voices inside NATO calling for more: more U.S. involvement, a surge in air strikes, even boots on the ground. The talk of where to send Gaddafi into exile has shifted to how to handle him if he survives the onslaught.
The Obama administration continues to insist that the mission is all about protecting civilians, not instigating regime change. But that position has become ever more difficult to maintain, especially with the recent introduction of unmanned drones and their dubious record of killing large numbers of civilians in Pakistan. In Vietnam, we destroyed villages to save them; in Libya, are we killing civilians to save them? Or is U.S. policy, as in Kosovo, more about protecting U.S. soldiers by dispensing death from a distance? Humanitarian intervention is not a dinner party, as Mao Zedong might have said under the circumstances. It’s not for the squeamish. And monkeys are not scared by chickens that have only been roughed up.
In Syria and Bahrain, the authorities may well be under siege, but the unfolding of the Libya scenario has not prompted them to step down, institute major reforms, or otherwise demonstrate their fear of outside pressure.
In Bahrain, for instance, Washington has given the ruling al-Khalifa family little more than a slap on the wrist. Since the protests began in February, the government has cracked down hard. Government forces killed more than 20 protestors; several have died under suspicious circumstances in custody; more than 30 medical personnel have simply disappeared. “U.S. pressure was crucial in advancing democratic revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, but Washington has been far from helpful for Gulf protesters,” writes Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Richard Javad Heydarian in The Economics of the Arab Spring. “This has reinforced many protesters’ views of the United States as a staunch supporter of oppressive regimes rather than a democracy promoter.”
In addition to hosting the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet — and thereby holding it hostage — Bahrain has spooked Washington by identifying the hand of Iran behind the opposition’s activities. “With reference to Iran’s alleged covert intelligence activities in Bahrain, the leader of the National Unity Gathering party, Shaykh Abd-al-Latif al-Mahmud went so far as to claim that the Iranian charge d’affaires himself was distributing weapons to Shi’a protesters in Manama,” writes FPIF contributor Bernd Kaussler in Gulf of Mistrust.
In Syria, Assad knows that the Obama administration is not going to take on yet another military intervention, particularly in a country that could easily disintegrate into a nasty civil war. Even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the Hill's greatest champion of military intervention in Libya, is not calling for something similar in Syria. The Syrian government has already killed several hundred protestors and sealed off the city of Dara’a, where major protests began. As a result, the Obama administration is considering targeted sanctions. But even pulling the ambassador from Damascus is not yet on the table. If the demonstrators eventually dislodge Assad or his family or the Alawite minority that rules the country, it will not likely be because of a no-fly zone or similar military action. The most that the United States has done is fund an anti-government TV station. After all, Washington is not even sure that it wants Assad gone, since the alternatives might be less palatable.
Those who hope that the Arab Spring will turn into an Arab Summer can take some heart from the turn of events in Yemen. Readers of Dexter Filkins’ in-depth piece on Yemen in The New Yorker might come away with the impression that President Ali Abdullah Saleh could retain power forever through a mixture of brutality, pay-offs, and careful manipulation of a variety of après-moi-le-deluge threats including an emboldened al-Qaeda and a Somali-like failed state. And yet, even as Assad was sending in the tanks in Dara’a and Gaddafi was battling the rebels in Misurata, Saleh offered to meet a key opposition demand by stepping down. The catch is that he wants immunity from prosecution. The opposition, however, wants to see Saleh on trial, and who can blame them? Poles had to stomach a transition period with the much-reviled Wojciech Jaruzelski as president in 1989. In contrast, Egyptians have had the distinct pleasure of seeing Mubarak and sons go to prison. The Yemenis were aiming for an Egyptian solution but it now appears that they are settling for a Polish one.
Saleh’s sudden vulnerability stems largely from the courageous efforts of the opposition movement. He certainly didn't learn the lesson of Libya, which was that a tyrant can oppress his people, stand up to the international community, and live to rule another day. Like his fellow authoritarians in Syria and Bahrain, Muammar Gaddafi is not yet taking the golden parachute option. By maintaining his status as an undead chicken, he aims to make a monkey out of the Obama administration.

From Asia to Latin America

Shortly before the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan, a crisis hit the Japan section at the State Department. Kevin Maher, head of the Japan desk, was quoted in the Japanese press saying some very unflattering things about Okinawa and Okinawans. Maher resigned but has recently claimed that the quotes were fabricated. FPIF contributor David Vine was present at the meeting with American University students where Maher made his comments, and he corroborates the reports that Maher called Okinawans “lazy” and “extortionists.”
“Among the many ironies in Maher’s words was his characterization of Okinawans as extortionists when U.S. negotiators like Maher have long pressed the Japanese government for larger and larger contributions to support the U.S. military presence in East Asia,” Vine writes in Smearing Japan.
While the United States tries to mend fences with Japan, China is increasing its influence in Latin America. Chinese trade with the region has skyrocketed, and it has extended considerable aid as well. But China too has met with some of the same accusations of arrogance that the United States has in Asia. “Despite the strides that China has made in the region, countries remain apprehensive,” writes FPIF contributor Sebastian Castaneda in Chinese Take-Over of South America? “The WikiLeaks diplomatic cables highlighted the level of suspicion. One Colombian trade representative based in Beijing noted that his country would not be ‘walked all over’ by China ‘like Africa.’ A Mexican official stated that ‘we don’t want to be China’s next Africa.’”
Mexico, meanwhile, is being rocked by wave after wave of drug-related murders. The Mexican government has long accused the United States of lax gun laws that encourage the flow of weapons south. Now it turns out that the U.S. government itself has been secretly sending guns to drug cartels in Mexico.
“The operation, called ‘Fast and Furious,’ was run out of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) office in Phoenix, Arizona,” explains FPIF columnist Laura Carlsen in Obama’s Mexicogate? “ATF sanctioned the purchase of weapons in U.S. gun shops and tracked the smuggling route to the Mexican border. Reportedly, more than 2,500 firearms were sold to straw buyers who then handed off the weapons to gunrunners under the nose of ATF.”
Finally, in our FPIF Picks this week, FPIF contributor Greg Chaffin looks at The Sixth Crisis by Dana Allin and Steven Simon. The book, writes Chaffin in his review, “successfully provides an historical understanding of how the tensions between Israel and the Arab world have shaped the geopolitical realities of the region and influenced a looming crisis over Iranian nuclearization that will have worldwide repercussions.”

Is India ‘indispensable partner’ of US?

Mahmood Riazuddin

US President barack Obama’s visit to India coincides with four important developments: i) The third round of Pakistan-US strategic dialogue has just concluded; ii) Obama’s Democratic Party has faced a humiliating blow in the mid-term elections in United States; iii) India has launched an aggressive campaign to have permanent membership of the UN Security Council; and iv) Kashmiris are observing Jammu Martyrs Day [November 6] which is reminiscent of en bloc massacre of Kashmiris in 1947. Obama’s decision to prefer India for his visit to the region speaks volumes for the sort of relations between the sole superpower of the world and the mini-superpower in the region. This is despite the fact that Pakistan has been playing the role of a frontline state in the US-led war on terror for the last nine long years and it has suffered colossal losses in terms of men and material during this course, and is still facing the consequences of its being a non-NATO ally of the United States. However, the Americans ignoring this role have waged an undeclared war against Pakistan and the bane of US drone strikes have posed a grave challenge to the very sovereignty of the country. Some Pakistanis are of the view that enhancement of US-India relations is just a misgiving, but they must acknowledge that the two countries share many commonalities and the common objectives besides the ‘common enemy’ that is China. The chronologies of India and United States reveal that both of them have expansionist and hegemonic designs and they have frequently indulged in adventurisms not only against their neighboring states but also the countries in other regions to fulfill their designs. United States is the sole power which has so far used a nuclear weapon while India is the sole country which conducted a nuclear test in South Asia thereby igniting a nuclear race in the region. In the recent years, United States has executed a so-called civil nuclear cooperation accord with India but at the same time, it has frequently refused such an arrangement with Pakistan. Similarly, both the countries have constantly been stockpiling sophisticated weapons. They have conducted 50 joint military exercises during the last few years while India is going to purchase military [war] equipment worth $2.5 billion. President Obama has regarded India ‘an indispensable partner’ of his country while India takes United States as its natural ally. However, United States desires to see India not its indispensable partner, but an invincible partner against the emerging superpower China and the basic objective of Obama’s visit to India is to control the growing might of China. United States does not like any country to try to become a superpower and as regards China, it has proved itself a peace-loving country during its post-independence history. The United States claims that China’s attitude is becoming ‘nationalist’ and its leadership shows unexpected assertiveness which reveals their ‘arrogance and belligerence’. That is why, United States has adopted a more forceful attitude towards China and has been encouraging India, Vietnam and other countries in South East Asia. As stated President Obama considers India an indispensable partner of his country, but at the same time, he appreciates the indispensability of a Pakistani role in a settlement in Afghanistan. However, in practical terms, he seems to be in no mood for a settlement nor is he ready to assign such a role to Pakistan, a fact which is evident from additional US deployments in the war-torn country. Similarly, Obama is also in no mood to address India’s growing presence in Afghanistan. Rather he welcomes its involvement in the economy of the war-ravaged country. In his electoral campaign, Barack [then Hussain] Obama had talked of peace and stability in different regions of the world particularly in the Middle East and South Asia. He had also promised to facilitate an amicable solution to the lingering Kashmir issue which he had realized to be a bone of contention between Pakistan and India. It is high time that Obama involves himself in the resolution of differences particularly the core Kashmir issue between the nuclear armed rivals. It is crystal clear that during talks, the Indian leadership will approach President Obama for help to promote Delhi’s bid to become a permanent UN Security Council member even without veto power. But it will be advisable that President Obama links the issue to India’s worst record of human rights abuses in Occupied Kashmir. The fact remains that India has waged a genocidal war against the Kashmiris and has martyred in just four months over 150 defenseless inhabitants of the territory it has been illegally occupying for the last 63 years. It is pertinent to mention here that since October 1989, the 700,000 strong Indian forces have martyred 100,000 Kashmiris – many more scarred and wounded, to silence the people’s demand for justice, respect for human rights, freedom and the right of self-determination. The occupation troops continue to carry out arbitrary detentions, summary executions, custodial killings, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, rapes, sexual exploitation, torture and fake encounters. Generations of Kashmiris have grown up under the shadow of the gun; not a single family is unaffected; and the suffering and devastation continues unabated that has inflicted loss of life and destruction on an unprecedented scale, drawing no significant attention from the international community particularly the United States. The perception that the Kashmir is a bilateral matter between Pakistan and India is unfounded because since the adoption of the UN resolutions in 1948, Kashmir is no longer a bilateral or territorial dispute between the two countries but has become an international obligation. The prospect of peace and progress in South Asia is inseparably linked with the recognition of the right of self-determination of the Kashmiris, and thus rests upon the willingness of the world community particularly the United States to make positive contribution towards resolving the Kashmir conflict. The high scale of brutalities in the held territory suggests that India is poised to avoid implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir. If President Obama wants to see his name written in the history in golden letters or as a global leader, he should not only raise the Kashmir issue during his visit to India but should also facilitate its resolution through a plebiscite in accordance with the UN resolutions, and urge India to respect the UN resolutions on Kashmir to become a permanent member of the world body. Obama’s failure to do so will further weaken credibility and standing of the United States.

The franchise of Al-Qaeda

I M Mohsin

John Brennan, the US president’s top counterterrorism expert believes, as per The New York Times, that Yemen is a typical ‘franchise of Al-Qaeda’. The remark was occasioned by the recent seizure in Britain/ Dubai of two shipments containing explosives. These were sent from Yemen to synagogues in Chicago. The way the US media, as usual, have exploited the story to spread fear is a familiar tactic by now. Unfortunately, the American politics also appears to benefit from such questionable tactics. If one has the patience to watch Fox News for while, one runs in to very vicious propaganda financed by the Right-wing Republicans etc. It is meant to Castigate the Obama Administration on all pretexts. This is so as they make their living out of special interests under the cover of ’freedom of expression’. Their mandate is clearly dictated by their pay-masters. Hence they can’t dare to even mention atrocities committed in Gaza etc. It should be no surprise how they hammered in the latest incident. Such an approach could also be induced by the mid-term polls wherein the Republicans of all shades are running down their rivals. Prima facie, the alleged-attempt is regrettable as it poses a threat to air-travel as well as the intended-recipients. As only a media-version of the occurrence has been flashed, it is too early to assess the actual course of events. However, till the time a fair investigation can establish the prosecution-story, it will remain a moot-point. One can’t help thinking of the neo-con tactics like American Airlines bombing-plan discovered in UK under Blair and the ‘Anthrax’ scandal in US which were, reportedly, meant to mislead the public opinion at home for electoral success. No wonder both those incidents got buried for good once they had served the interests of the sponsors had been fully served. Nobody appeared to bother, generally, about the loss to US-credibility it provoked the world over. The surge of fear through media appears to have made drawn attention of Govts to their vulnerability in the field of handling of air-cargo which may turn out to be a welcome development. In view of the prevailing insecurity, genuine or induced, it be highly beneficial if fool-proof system are adopted to strengthen operations which regulate important sectors like the carriage/communication of passengers/cargo by air-lines. As regards the branding of Yemen as a franchise of Al-Qaeda, this may not help the US or her friends. The Middle East is facing a very uncertain situation following the way Netan yahu rebuffed President Obama on the issue of Settlements. After Israeli insult to US President, the Jewish lobby has been going out of the way to help the rightwing Republicans in the mid-term elections to undercut the Democrats. The results indicate what a potential for mischief the lobby has acquired. If the US is seen to be so helpless in relation to Israeli land-grabbing in West Bank of Palestine besides the criminal occupation of Gaza, it is bound to incite a reaction in the Muslim world. The intransigence of Israel supported by the US Jewish- lobby would generate forces which would marshal resources for fighting against the injustice done to Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir etc. Inspired by a mission of religious significance and bolstered by the concept of the right to freedom, such groups could destabilize the status quo badly. If they choose to join Al-Qaeda they will become its lifeline as well as out-posts for winning justice.US is badly stuck in Iraq and the situation is much worse for in Afghanistan. The spate of vicious bombing on Afghans, who have no air-force, can be termed an atrocity at some stage. If history is any guide, such atrocious indiscriminate killings can’t ensure a win. As civilian casualties mount, so do the number of people who would take up arms against the foreign forces as it becomes their religious/traditional duty to avenge such deaths. One would have thought that Gen Petraeus, being a highly-educated man, would always keep this factor in defining his policy to be followed by his troops. ISAF must appreciate that such tactics worked temporarily in Iraq where the US exploited Shia-Sunni divide to weaken resistance to their occupation. Now, despite the US forces, Iraq is becoming a hell is let loose on its people and this won’t go to US’ credit. Afghanistan is a different ballgame as the Pashtuns are up in arms against the foreign forces, generally. Initially the Northern warlords sided with the US, Russia etc when they conquered Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. Only firepower would not help the US against the Al-Qaeda syndrome, force of goodwill and inter-dependence with the Muslim world appears to be the way-out. —The writer is a former Secretary Interior

Obama’s visit: Indian economy

Asif Haroon Raja

After the end of Cold War while Pakistan-US relations soured, Indo-US relations warmed up. The foundation of Indo-US strategic relations laid in 1990 prospered throughout the 1990s despite certain irritants such as nuclear non-proliferation, Russian origin missile technology and human rights violations. Huge investments were made to boost sagging economy of India . Software industry and agriculture sector in particular was given greater attention thereby enabling Indian economy to shrug off its sluggishness and become vibrant. Indo-US conjugation climaxed when Bill Clinton accompanied by extraordinarily large contingent of over 2000 businessmen and others visited India from 21-25 March 2000 and their relationship blossomed into solid strategic partnership. Besides removing sanctions imposed in the wake of India ’s nuclear explosions in May 1998, and turning a blind eye to the existing irritants, India was cajoled, pampered and showered with heavy investments worth billions of dollars. An atmosphere of festivity and rejoicing pervaded the Indian horizon throughout the period of visitors stay. In contrast to high profile visit to India , Clinton ’s five-hour visit to Islamabad was a non-event. Ouster of democratic regime of Nawaz Sharif by Gen Musharraf had not gone down well in Washington . Accompanied by his personal staff and contingent of security goons, his attitude throughout his brief stay was curt and officious. He preferred to meet President Rafiq Tarar and completely ignored Musharraf. He came with an empty bag and had nothing to offer to Pakistan except to lecture Pakistani nation. What he conveyed was that Pakistan should agree to return to civilian rule, rollback nuclear program, eliminate terrorism, accept Line of Control as permanent border in Kashmir , rein in fundamentalist elements and accept India as a regional power. He added that unless Pakistan agreed to these proposals, it would not qualify itself for the restoration of US economic and technical assistance that had been severed in October 1990. He cautioned that failing to fulfill the stated pre-conditions, not only 1990 and 1998 sanctions would remain operative, other financial institutions and world bodies would be asked to tighten the economic screws on Pakistan . In other words, Pakistan would be declared a pariah and a failed state. Needless for me to recount how George Bush led Republicans after coming to power twisted the arm of Musharraf suffering from legitimacy bug and made him agree to promote US interests in the region at the cost of national interests. Bush era promoted India as a counterweight to China . It helped India in consolidating its influence in Afghanistan . We also distinctly recall Bush’s visit to India in March 2006. Other than tens of defence and economic agreements worth billions of dollars, biggest trophy awarded was the lucrative civil nuclear deal. After this hi-fi visit, expectations in Pakistan were sky high. Reasons for such optimism were that Pakistan had acted as the frontline state and was playing a key role in US war on terror, had arrested and handed over more than 700 Al-Qaeda operatives to USA, and Musharraf had become the blue-eyed boy of Bush. High hopes crashed when Bush said that he had come on an inspection tour to check progress of Pakistan on ground. Not only request for a nuclear deal similar to India was brusquely turned down, no worthwhile defence or economic agreement was inked. Even direly needed counter terrorism equipment was denied due to Indian fears. Concerns of Pakistan about covert operations by RAW from Afghan soil were also not heeded to since he had approvingly listened to complaints made against Pakistan by Karzai at Kabul . Bush sympathized with perpetrators of cross border terrorism against Pakistan but he turned a deaf ear to Pakistan ’s pleadings that it was victim of cross border terrorism. It was understandable for Bush to pretend deafness since he knew that CIA was the chief coordinator of covert operations launched against Pakistan from Afghan soil. After Bush’s tour of this region, US attitude against Pakistan stiffened and became more and more aggressive. In his last year in power, Pak-US relations had dipped low because of unsubstantiated accusations made against Pakistan and Washington’s dissatisfaction over performance of Pak Army in war on terror. Mumbai attacks on 26/11 not only strained Indo-Pak relations but also had an adverse impact on Pak-US relations. Barack Obama from whom better response was expected did not prove any better from his predecessor. Rather, he shifted the weight of war on terror entirely towards Afghanistan and Pakistan thorough his ill-conceived Af-Pak policy. He brought no change in US tilt towards India and continued to prepare it as a bulwark against China and to make it a key player in Afghan affairs. Pakistan bashing continued unabated and drone strikes were accelerated. Propaganda against Pakistan ’s nuclear program and its alleged linkage with Taliban and Al-Qaeda became malicious. He also ignored Pakistan ’s request for award of US nuclear technology on the plea that it had not proven itself to be a responsible state. Attitude of Obama and his administration towards Pakistan became less vituperative at the dawn of 2010 because of brilliant performance of Pak Army in Malakand, Swat and South Waziristan and also due to worsening security situation in Afghanistan . The US wanted Pakistan to help in dividing the Taliban and isolating the hardliners led by Mullah Omar since neither Karzai regime, or India , or CIA, or Saudi Arabia could do so. A need for a political solution to Afghan imbroglio was direly felt since this was the only plausible way to ensure an honorable exit. Kerry Lugar Bill followed by strategic dialogue was aimed at bridging the trust deficit and creating better understanding between the two countries. Confidence building measures and carrots in no way match the endowments doled out to India , which is being continuously rewarded despite having done nothing in fighting war on terror. It neither sent any military contingent in Iraq nor in Afghanistan . Despite this glaring dichotomy, India is presented the cake and leftover crumbs are given to Pakistan which has given sacrifices more than any other country. After Clinton and Bush, it is now Obama’s turn to visit India for three days from 6-8 November in order to further cement Indo-US strategic ties. Principally speaking Obama should have visited Afghanistan and Pakistan where war is raging and not India which is covertly fuelling flames of war. Since economics override politics and strategic considerations, India has been preferred. Other reason for not including Pakistan in his itinerary was the heightened bitterness between two archrivals, both carrying host of grouses against each other. Obama was faced with a dilemma since on one hand India is indispensable to US, on the other Pakistan ’s significance in context with endgame of Afghanistan could not be overlooked. Obama was not in a position to offer goodies in equal proportion to both or to play one against the other. He also knew that presently anti-Americanism in Pakistan is on the peak and his own popularity is down because of high spate of drone strikes in Waziristan . Explosive situation in occupied Kashmir due to massive unarmed uprising and gross human rights violations by Indian security forces was another pressure point which he wanted to avoid. These considerations constrained Obama to take off Pakistan from his itinerary, but he hastened to compensate it by pledging to make an exclusive trip to Pakistan next year. Obama can ill-afford at this critical juncture to please India at the cost of Pakistan. Unlike his two predecessors who were in a stronger position, he will be cautious and will take extra care not to offend the sensibilities of Pakistan and risk losing its critical support. Obama’s visit to India will be outweighed by economic considerations. It will be more of a business oriented tour to promote US exports and less of politics. —The writer is a defence, political analyst.

Conflict resolution — I

The writer served as director-general of the ISI from 1990-92 asad.durrani@tribune.com.pk

It would be nice if we could resolve our conflicts without recourse to war. The problem is that hardly ever have warring parties, out of the goodness of their heart, sat down face-to-face and left in abiding friendship. Disputes may indeed ultimately be settled through negotiations, but only after the belligerents have exhausted all other options, or concluded that the price of conflict was exceeding that of peace. To secure the best possible position on the table, the adversaries should use all elements of national power to their optimum advantage.
India and Pakistan tried that for 50 years. During this period, they developed internal strength and sought external support, acquired unconventional capabilities and used sub-conventional means and fought wars. Finally in 1997, in the belief that they were now well-positioned, the two countries evolved a framework for peace.
The first challenge was to create the right conditions for a dialogue on Kashmir, the bone of contention between them right from their inception. It had now become so complex that a meaningful discourse seemed nearly impossible. In Pakistan, securing the right of self-determination for the Kashmiris is a national passion. It could not, therefore, embark upon a dialogue that was not seen to be addressing Kashmir. India, on the other hand, having declared the disputed state as its integral part, could not be seen negotiating its status. The foreign secretaries meeting of June 1997 found an ingenuous method to circumvent the dilemma.
The recipe, now known as the “composite dialogue”, was to form a number of working groups to discuss bilateral issues more or less concurrently. Peace, security and Kashmir were to be dealt with by foreign secretaries; others like trade, terrorism, and some territorial disputes by ministries or departments concerned. Pakistan could now claim that its “core issue” would be handled at an appropriately high level, and the Indians were free to explain that the forum was primarily to redress matters like cross-border infiltration. A clause in the agreement, however, could cease the process in its tracks.
A good number of people in Pakistan have always believed that if the two countries settled peripheral disputes before addressing Kashmir, India would have no incentive in its resolution. To assuage that concern, a clause in the joint communiqué (4.2) stated that the dialogue would be conducted as an “integrated” whole — implying that progress on all issues would have to be in tandem. That sounded fine — except for the problem that if there was little or no movement on one track, one would have to slow down on all the others. The favourable environment needed to deal with the more complex problems was thus contingent upon progress on all. This was exactly the catch-22 situation that the authors of the formula had set out to avoid.
The “integrated” part was, therefore, quietly dropped (though not from the official text). The process was now more like moving with our disputes on parallel tracks and settling them according to their degree of difficulty. No longer “composite”, the dialogue retained its politically correct adjective. What we now had was a “multiple-track, multiple-speed” formula.
Evolution of this concept was purely a civilian sector enterprise. However, since it is the military that prides itself in the study and development of strategic wisdom, it may be gratifying to note that a military strategist too would have supported the model. When operating along multiple axes, forces that meet less resistance continue their momentum, thus creating a synergetic effect. In due course, some critical fronts can be reinforced to achieve a breakthrough and capture the main objective — in this case, durable peace in the subcontinent.
Good concepts and sound strategies are indeed not enough. Execution and oversight is the real thing. How the composite dialogue fared on that account will be discussed in subsequent serials.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 5^th, 2010