Korean penninsula and India/Pak comparison

Last week I heard a talk by Ambassador Jhe Seong-Ho, South Korea's ambassador at-large for human rights.  He took care to outline the philosophy underpinning the new administration's stances toward North Korea. Basically, it was a total rejection of past South Korean policy and of liberal-internationalist theories of International Relations: for example, the idea that economic exchange can lead to peace, or that participation in multilateral institutions might alter the behavior of rogue states.

These are the sorts of actions that Ambassador Jhe characterized as "appeasement" toward the North.  He said that South Korean president Lee Myung-bak's administration--they've been in power for almost a year--has a very different approach to relations with North Korea then the last couple of governments in Seoul.  They're skeptical of sunshine policies and generally take a more hard-line approach to relations with the North.  Ambassador Jhe used strong language to characterize prior approaches... he said that his predecessors were "begging for talks" and took on a "subservient posture."

The new policy of the South Korean government is "cool and detached."  No more exchange unless the North offers true reciprocity, and no more "romantic" multilateral efforts unless the bilateral relationships are on a strong footing.

This issue of engagement vs. non-engagement is always in play between India and Pakistan.  In the last couple of decades different administrations and leaders have taken different approaches.  And really, the policies have not been so consistent by administration...the same leaders advocate conciliatory or hard-line views depending on the political moment.   A stark example is early 1999, when Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee met and signed the Lahore accords and there was hope of better relations, but just a few months later the two countries were almost at war and even low-level meetings of officials were unlikely.  The rhetoric that justified these actions also see-saws.  Depending on the political climate, sometimes India says it will not engage with Pakistan unless Pakistan makes a concession first, like clamping down on terrorism in Kashmir.  At other times, like in early 1999, high level leaders meet in order to hammer out compromises.

But in both South Asia and the Korean penninsula, despite these various approaches, the same basic tense situation persists.  Part of it must be that the two sides in either conflict have such diametrically opposed goals on a couple of key issues (unification of the Korean penninsula, Kashmir) that it seems like the strategies of administrations, engagement or non-engagement, are unlikely to accomplish much.  Such tactics only matter in an environment where some amount of cooperation is possible.  But when there's no room for give or take on a particular issue, does it matter which theoretical school of thought you're coming from?

striking picture

This Associated Press picture really made an impression on me-- it was the last one in "Day in Pictures" on the BBC News site.

The caption:

Muslim children in India shout anti-Pakistan slogans as they burn an effigy of Pakistan's spy service, the ISI, during a protest against last week’s Mumbai attacks.

The main reason this picture struck me is that I'm always disconcerted by little kids getting riled up about politics and identity issues.  Its like they're pawns of the adults in their lives, not even given the chance to develop the experience/ maturity to make up their own minds on an issue.  In this case, they (and their parents) have a right to be angry, of course... but that's really besides the point.  I read an article once about the ludic (playful, fun) aspect of protest and even violence, especially among young men. Maybe that rings even truer for kids-- maybe its fun to protest.  You get to make a lot of noise.

The picture also reminded me that I hung out with lots of impoverished Indian Muslims in Mumbai, and they had universally positive reactions upon learning that I was from Pakistan-- I remember being surprised by that.  Maybe these attacks will change that... does it mean I should be more discreet when I go back to India next month?

pakistani involvement in the mumbai attacks

Its hard to separate hysteria from fact if you're trying to read about who is responsible for the mass murder in Mumbai.  I've been following Indian online newspapers closely over the past several days. I've found palpable hostility toward Pakistan (understandably, perhaps?) as well as very biased coverage.

Yesterday, the main headline on the Times of India website was about a Pakistani television host who declared that the Mumbai attacks were led by "Hindu Zionists."  The story made you think that such opinons are common in Pakistan.  I admit that I don't have any idea what's being said on Pakistani television lately, but I have been reading the coverage of mainstream newspapers-- and the opinions of that one television host just don't reflect what I've seen. My sense is that Pakistanis are alternating between deep sympathy for Mumbaikars and agitation because they perceive that the United States and India have been too quick to implicate Pakistan.

So as news continues to break about the source of the attacks, how should we evaluate Pakistan's level of involvement ?

Here are some issues that I think are important to consider:

• The attacks were launched from Pakistani territory. The attackers came from Karachi and arrived in Mumbai over water.
• The nationality of individual militants is a peripheral issue. What matters more is who sponsored them. Some of the September 11 hijackers were Egyptian, but this turned out to be fairly irrelevant in assigning responsibility to Al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, there is one known surviving militant from the attacks. Rumor is that he is Pakistani. He does look South Asian, at least, and his name seems Pakistani enough... but Pakistani Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari said on Larry King Live that there is no proof that the guy is Pakistani. (He did not sound believable, in case you are wondering...).
• Some U.S. intelligence officials have said that the Pakistan-based terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba may be responsible for the attacks. However, Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that it was premature to attach repsonsibility for the attacks on any one organization. She also urged Pakistan to be cooperative and transparent in investigations. Uncharacteristially, LeT has not accepted responsibility yet.
• Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, has supported Islamic militant groups in the past, including Lashkar-e-Taiba. In the 1990's, material state support for these groups was part of the government's strategy to end Indian control in Kashmir. (This is documented in interviews of militants and ISI officials themselves). In 2001, LeT sponsored the attack on the Indian Parliament. However, LeT has been a banned terrorist organization since 2002 and the Pakistani government under Musharraf ended state support for militant organizations, under strong pressure from the United States. In 2007 and 2008, there were a series of NYT articles and interviews (like this one) reporting that these organizations were still active, and the Pakistani government had, to a large extent, lost control of their activities.
• The Pakistani government is very fragmented, with deep disagreement among agencies and leaders about the nature of relations with India. Soon after the attacks, Prime Minister Gilani offered to send the head of Pakistan's intelligence services to India, but the offer was rescinded. This likely means that Gilani's government doesn't have full control over the intelligence services, and there are intelligence and army officials who, for whatever reasons, do not want to cooperate with India. Also, the different wings of the ISI have simultaneously fought against and supported Islamic militant organizations within Pakistan.
• In the case of Pakistan, the line between the state and non-state actors can be fuzzy. Zardari said on Larry King that non-state actors are responsible for the Mumbai attacks. We don't know yet if that is true or not, but it can't be denied that the fragmented nature of the Pakistani government and the differing opinions on patronage to militant organizations really blurs the line between state and non-state actors.

So given all this, I wil speculate that the civilian, elected Pakistani government probably was not involved with the attacks, but it is possible that parts of the army or ISI were. For the people of Pakistan, these attacks are a terrible development. Increased tensions with India are very risky; besides provoking conflict with a much stronger military power, they divert funds from domestic spending on things like infrastructure and education and they lower Pakistan's international standing significantly. The only part of Pakistan that has an existential need to continue conflict with India is the army. If India is not a major, active threat, what is the purpose of an overly large conventional army?

Finally, I don't think the Pakistani electorate--the people--should be held responsible for the actions and machinations of the army. In the United States, the military has strong civilian oversight and coordination with the elected government... and while it is mobilized by this government, we have all seen that even its actions are sometimes out of sync with public opinion and the judgement of the State Department and elected officials. In Pakistan, the army does not reflect the state as a whole or the desires of the people in this way, but it is by far the most powerful political player.

I think these lines of reasoning are logical, but I do know that I am just speculating. With all the conflicting reports around, and with access to only soundbites and leaks from government officials, all anyone can do, so far, is guess.

Update on Friday, December 5, 2008 at 10:31AM by Rameez

My take on public opinion in Pakistan about the Mumbai attacks was somewhat contradicted by an interview I heard on NPR of Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani and an extremely highly respected journalist on Afghanistan and Pakistan.  He said that conspiracy theories are commonplace among Pakistanis, especially among rank and file army people as well as officials at the top.  The media also commonly airs views of a US-India-Israel conspiracy against Pakistan, and tries to paint the Mumbai attacks in that light.  Very sad.

Rashid said that there needs to be a wholesale re-education of the Pakistani army.

karachi mayor mix-up

Did you know that this month, Mustafa Kamal, the 36 year old mayor of Karachi, placed 2nd on Foreign Policy magazine's list of world's best mayors? See here and here. The links are to stories on Dawn and Daily Times, leading English-langauge newspapers out of Pakistan.

But wait a minute.  Actually, Foreign Policy did not name Kamal 2nd on a list of world's best mayors. Here is a clarification from the Foreign Policy blog:

Yesterday, we started receiving e-mails from readers and journalists in Pakistan asking for comment on reports that we had named Karachi's mayor, Mustafa Kamal, "the second best mayor in the world." This would be an understandable query if we had actually said anything of the sort.

At issue is a sidebar from FP's recent Global Cities Index that names Kamal, Berlin's Klaus Wowereit, and Chongqing's Wang Hongju as "mayors of the moment" who have found innovative ways to globalize their cities. The mayors are not ranked, nor are we implying that they are objectively "better" than any other mayors....

And more:

According to the e-mails we've received, the inaccurate story has been widely reported on Pakistani TV, radio, and blogs. Most absurdly, Karachi's city council apparently held a heated debate over whether to pass a resolution congratulating Kamal for the honor we allegedly bestowed on him.

Can I just say, good grief.  Somehow, I am not surprised.  This whole debacle reminded me of a few days ago, when I was mildly annoyed at a post I read on Pakistaniat called "Inspiration Pakistan: We Are a Good People."  The entry was about how an honest Pakistani guy went to lengths to pay for some software that he had erroneously gotten for free two years ago.  Nice story, I thought to myself, but do we really have to claim this guy's personal decency as an indication that Pakistanis are "a good people?" 

Anyhow, this is all by way of saying that at a time when things are not looking up for Pakistan, maybe we are a bit too quick (desperate?) to find a source of inspiration.  Maybe its only natural.

Let me also point out, though, that while the Pakistani governmetn and media exaggerated the story about Kamal, there is something to celebrate in his acheivement.  Foreign Policy did single him out as a mayor who found innovative ways to globalize his city.  That's not a small recognition.

A final thought:  Initially, when I thought Kamal actually was named the world's second best mayor, I did a double take because I am just not used to reports of competent public officals in Pakistan. One reason for this, I now realize, may be that I tend to only read national news.  But since national-level politicians seem incapable of addressing the major problems, it is not surprising that maybe local governments are pressured to be even more enterprising in the face of a national political stalemate.  Maybe news about Kamal's real acheivements shouldn't be that surprising.

Bangladeshis voting in India

Lately I have been working on a dissertation chapter about discrimination against North Indian migrants in Mumbai, so for the past several weeks, I've really been very focused on the concept of exclusion. Why don't Maharashtrans want migrants to come to their state and what rights don't these immigrants have that they should have?

But my work isn't entirely about exclusion. The positive end of it is how migrants are also included in society... how they can find creative ways to make their voices heard despite their uncertain status.

I was reminded of this yesterday while reading, of all things, a vitriolic article about Bangladeshis in the northeast of India (the area bordering Bangladesh). It was in a publication called Dialogue, produced by a very nationalist organization. The author aired something that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me: that the government of Bangladesh is quickly sending over as many of its citizens to India as it can so that they will start voting and, through their sheer numbers, force Indian political parties to take pro-Bangladeshi stances. Or even worse, allow Bangladesh to conquer and Islamicize India. (I'm tempted to go into the many reasons why this scenario is ridiculous, but I will resist.  I should say though, that it is well documented that Pakistan has supported Bangladeshi terrorist groups through its ISI).

So amid accusations like this, where does the part about democratic inclusion come in?  Well, it is true that in states like Assam and West Bengal, there are signficant numbers of Bangladeshi nationals that are on voting rolls in India. They can do this mainly because of corruption... if you pay a hefty enough bribe, you can be anyone you want on a state-issued identity card or election card. But I doubt they're using this vote to thwart the Indian government. More likely, they're voting how many poor people in India vote: for the politicians that promise to develop their neighborhoods and deliver concrete goods.

So despite the fact that they're illegal and quite margianilized, they have still found an effective way of making their voice heard. To me, it sounds like a story of a group of people finding a way to get by in the world.

But according to the article I just read, its a prelude to an impending catastrophe: India being overrun by impoverished and Islamist Bangladeshi migrants. Sadly, if you look at more mainstream Indian press coverage, it seems like this view is winning. Its quite fashionable lately to use Bangladeshi and terrorist in the same sentence.

Common estimates of the number of Bangladeshi nationals illegally living in India are roughly 20 million, or less than 2% of the population.  The vast majority of them are very poor labor migrants and people who have fled from natural disasters.