Britain to maintain ambitious policy toward India
As Prime Minister David Cameron and his Tory/Lib Dem coalition government continue preparing to assume office, many of Britain's allies continue to wonder what this transition will mean for them.
At least as it pertains to India, the answer seems as if it will be "not much".
Previous Labour governments had adopted ambitious policies in relation to India, and incoming Foreign Secretary William Hague will continue the same.
On many levels, there's good reason for this. India's ongoing conflict with Pakistan is one of the dominant dynamics within the Indo-Pakistani region, and thus is extremely important to the war in Afghanistan.
Hague has indicated that his government will continue to work with India and Pakistan to moderate tensions surrounding Kashmir, allowing Pakistan to secure its border with Afghanistan, and secure the bordering regions of Pakistan itself.
Hague will seemingly need to practice more tact in regards to the Kashmir issue than did his predecessor, David Miliband, who stoked Indian anger when he suggested that Kashmir lent fire to the rhetoric used to recruit footsoldiers for terrorist attacks on India.
This is, of course, actually true. Hague will have to walk a very careful path in speaking straightly and realistically about the state of strategic affairs in the Indo-Pakistani region and maintaining diplomatic candor.
Nuclear proliferation between India and Pakistan will make such a task very difficult. In fact, it's very unlikely that Britain would be able to accomplish it alone.
It needs help from its natural allies: from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and whatever African members of the Commonwealth of Nations that are able to contribute to a peacekeeping mission in Kashmir, and to a mission diplomacy initiative between India and Pakistan to moderate a detente.
There are more reasons for Britain and Canada to invest such efforts in India than merely security. Both countries are prolific investors in India -- a peace dividend between India and Pakistan would also be very good for business.
In investing time and effort in its relations with India, Hague would merely be making good on the promise made by Prime Minister Cameron long prior to his election.
The sorry state of Pakistan -- which should be a priority for the Commonwealth, only barely ahead of the Sudan and Sri Lanka -- is one that cannot be solved without attention to India. Nor can it be solved without help from Britain's natural allies.
Britain will need help with its heavy lifting. It's time to start re-building the Commonwealth so it can provide it.
Showing posts with label Commonwealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commonwealth. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
A Very Special Relationship, Very Special Relationships
William Hague promises "not slavish" adherence to special relationship with US
When British Conservative Party leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg combined to form the British government, many were concerned that it would pose new challenges to the "special relationship" between Britain and the United States.
Speaking at the US State Department, Foreign Secretary William Hague says he'll have none of that. While Britain will maintain an independent foreign policy, it will cooperate with the US where it sees fit.
"We're not going to seek differences for the sake of it, but it is an important part of the US-UK relationship that we should be free to say where we differ when the occasion demands it," Hague announced. "I've done that in the past and will do that in the future."
As it pertains to the United States' foreign policy, Hague has indicated that he will most likely support it.
"It's good for our relationship and for world affairs that the United Kingdom is in support so far of the major foreign policy initiatives of the Obama administration, not in any slavish way, but we are in support of them," Hague continued.
What Hague has yet to confront is the challenges of differing from the United States from foreign policy while so closely collaborating with them through organizations such as NATO.
Canada, who shares a closer-yet special relationship with the United States than Britain, can directly attest to these challenges, as we at least partially rely on the United States for our national security, through arrangements such as NORAD.
Britain and Canada alike could stand to enjoy global associations complementary to their association with the United States. This is all the more reason for the two countries to start working with Australia and New Zealand to develop the Commonwealth into a more robust global alliance -- one that could confront challenges in places like India, Pakistan and the Sudan that the United States currently cannot.
For Canada, such a leadership role could be complemented by joining with France in continuing to take a stronger leadership role within La Francophonie and accomplishing a similar task with that organization.
It's a bold, world-changing initiative of the kind Britain, France and Canada should be known for. What remains is to find the political will to make it happen.
When British Conservative Party leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg combined to form the British government, many were concerned that it would pose new challenges to the "special relationship" between Britain and the United States.
Speaking at the US State Department, Foreign Secretary William Hague says he'll have none of that. While Britain will maintain an independent foreign policy, it will cooperate with the US where it sees fit.
"We're not going to seek differences for the sake of it, but it is an important part of the US-UK relationship that we should be free to say where we differ when the occasion demands it," Hague announced. "I've done that in the past and will do that in the future."
As it pertains to the United States' foreign policy, Hague has indicated that he will most likely support it.
"It's good for our relationship and for world affairs that the United Kingdom is in support so far of the major foreign policy initiatives of the Obama administration, not in any slavish way, but we are in support of them," Hague continued.
What Hague has yet to confront is the challenges of differing from the United States from foreign policy while so closely collaborating with them through organizations such as NATO.
Canada, who shares a closer-yet special relationship with the United States than Britain, can directly attest to these challenges, as we at least partially rely on the United States for our national security, through arrangements such as NORAD.
Britain and Canada alike could stand to enjoy global associations complementary to their association with the United States. This is all the more reason for the two countries to start working with Australia and New Zealand to develop the Commonwealth into a more robust global alliance -- one that could confront challenges in places like India, Pakistan and the Sudan that the United States currently cannot.
For Canada, such a leadership role could be complemented by joining with France in continuing to take a stronger leadership role within La Francophonie and accomplishing a similar task with that organization.
It's a bold, world-changing initiative of the kind Britain, France and Canada should be known for. What remains is to find the political will to make it happen.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Commonwealth of States Should Define Britain's New Global Role
Commonwealth could provide muscular alternative to US, UN
As the 2010 British election prepares to turn its attention toward foreign policy in the next leaders' debate, many Britons are speculating about the role Britain should play on the global stage.
A study conducted by the Royal United Services Institute suggested that a majority of Britons believe that Afghanistan is crucial to the United Kingdom's security. A similar number -- 58% -- believed that a special strategic relationship with the United States is necessary. A strong nuclear deterrent was also highly favoured.
But Britain cannot move forward with a revitalized foreign policy based on a strategic relationship with the United States alone. If Britain is to play a stronger role on the global stage, it must also look to its other allies.
In order to take on such a hefty role, Britain would need to look toward a special relationship it has not with the United States, but with another country:
Canada.
And also Australia and New Zealand.
Of all the countries that currently hold membership in the Commonwealth of States, four are uniquely poised to lead: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
India, Pakistan and South Africa each face unique challenges that currently prevent them from realistically being able to aspire to leadership. But these are challenges that can be overcome in time, with help from the rest of the Commonwealth.
With Afghanistan central to the national security of Britain, whichever party takes the offices of government after May 6 need to understand that Afghanistan is not an issue that can be solved within the borders of that country.
Rather, continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, and nuclear proliferation between the two countries, must be addressed.
Afghanistan's border with Pakistan -- one that remains largely unrecognized by Afghanistan -- must be stabilized and secured in order for stability to be brought to Afghanistan. But in order for this border to be secured, Pakistan must come to view itself as secure enough from an Indian incursion to move troops away from its border with India.
This requires that the issue of Kashmir somehow be settled -- certainly no short order for any one country. But if Canada, Britain, India and Pakistan were able to come together with a broad coalition of Commonwealth allies, a peacekeeping mission in Kashmir may be possible. This mission would serve the purpose of stabilizing the entire region, allowing for greater security and stability in Afghanistan.
In a world where the United States is over-engaged on the global stage, and the United Nations far too weak to address key challenges -- such as the Sudan -- a revitalized Commonwealth of States could prove to be key to British and Canadian leadership on the global stage.
For both countries it would prove to be an excellent supplementary strategy to simply snuggling up to the USA.
As the 2010 British election prepares to turn its attention toward foreign policy in the next leaders' debate, many Britons are speculating about the role Britain should play on the global stage.
A study conducted by the Royal United Services Institute suggested that a majority of Britons believe that Afghanistan is crucial to the United Kingdom's security. A similar number -- 58% -- believed that a special strategic relationship with the United States is necessary. A strong nuclear deterrent was also highly favoured.
But Britain cannot move forward with a revitalized foreign policy based on a strategic relationship with the United States alone. If Britain is to play a stronger role on the global stage, it must also look to its other allies.
In order to take on such a hefty role, Britain would need to look toward a special relationship it has not with the United States, but with another country:
Canada.
And also Australia and New Zealand.
Of all the countries that currently hold membership in the Commonwealth of States, four are uniquely poised to lead: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
India, Pakistan and South Africa each face unique challenges that currently prevent them from realistically being able to aspire to leadership. But these are challenges that can be overcome in time, with help from the rest of the Commonwealth.
With Afghanistan central to the national security of Britain, whichever party takes the offices of government after May 6 need to understand that Afghanistan is not an issue that can be solved within the borders of that country.
Rather, continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, and nuclear proliferation between the two countries, must be addressed.
Afghanistan's border with Pakistan -- one that remains largely unrecognized by Afghanistan -- must be stabilized and secured in order for stability to be brought to Afghanistan. But in order for this border to be secured, Pakistan must come to view itself as secure enough from an Indian incursion to move troops away from its border with India.
This requires that the issue of Kashmir somehow be settled -- certainly no short order for any one country. But if Canada, Britain, India and Pakistan were able to come together with a broad coalition of Commonwealth allies, a peacekeeping mission in Kashmir may be possible. This mission would serve the purpose of stabilizing the entire region, allowing for greater security and stability in Afghanistan.
In a world where the United States is over-engaged on the global stage, and the United Nations far too weak to address key challenges -- such as the Sudan -- a revitalized Commonwealth of States could prove to be key to British and Canadian leadership on the global stage.
For both countries it would prove to be an excellent supplementary strategy to simply snuggling up to the USA.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Time For the Commonwealth to Step Up to The Plate
The time to stop violence in Pakistan is now
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has the toughest job in the entire world right now.
Of course, it isn't as if the job wasn't hard enough before the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and the first woman to lead a Muslim country, had previously described herself as the person Muslim extremists fear most.
She may have been right, as an Al Qaida-linked Pakistani extremist attacked Bhutto as she attended a Pakistan People's Party rally in Rawalpindi.
Since Bhutto's death, the powderkeg that is Pakistan has exploded, as PPP supporters have taken to the streets and rioting.
Musharrif has some heavy lifting ahead of him, as his government has promised to bring the Al Qaida militants responsible for the attack on Bhutto to justice.
However, he need not do it alone.
Word has begun to circulate that NATO may assign additional troops to reinforce the Pakistani border in order to prevent Taliban and Al Qaida militants from passing back and forth at will.
This is a good start.
However, this is also an opportunity for the Commonwealth to pitch in stabilizing a critical member state by way of a peacekeeping mission. With 58 member states with a combined up a grand total of 1.9 billion people, (although India alone constitutes one billion of this number -- but more on this shortly) the Commonwealth could certainly muster manpower to spare.
Fielding Commonwealth peacekeeprs in Pakistan would carry the added benefit of fielding a multicultural force less likely to be deemed an occupation force by Pakistani locals.
To top it off, at least Pakistan, unlike Afghanistan, has a fully trained, fully equipped and reliable military. Commonwealth forces would merely be reinforcing them.
Of course, engaging the Commonwealth in Pakistan is far from a perfect solution. Participation by troops from India, in particular, could only exacerbate the violent situation, and for obvious reasons.
There are also valid questions as to whether or not many African countries, in particular, could afford to dispatch forces to Pakistan. Britain, Canada and Australia would certainly be obligated to help out financially in order to make this happen.
Commonwealth engagement in Pakistan would also have a positive effect on the war in Afghanistan, as insurgents would have fewer places to hide out when necessary: certainly a plus in the books of many. Anything that can help end the conflict in Afghanistan sooner can certainly be regarded as a good thing.
The Commonwealth is certainly an organization that could use a boost to its international credibility. Flexing some muscle in Pakistan, as some other commentators have suggested, could provide just such a boost.
Musharraf would do well to call some friends to help him with his heavy lifting.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has the toughest job in the entire world right now.
Of course, it isn't as if the job wasn't hard enough before the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and the first woman to lead a Muslim country, had previously described herself as the person Muslim extremists fear most.She may have been right, as an Al Qaida-linked Pakistani extremist attacked Bhutto as she attended a Pakistan People's Party rally in Rawalpindi.
Since Bhutto's death, the powderkeg that is Pakistan has exploded, as PPP supporters have taken to the streets and rioting.
Musharrif has some heavy lifting ahead of him, as his government has promised to bring the Al Qaida militants responsible for the attack on Bhutto to justice.
However, he need not do it alone.
Word has begun to circulate that NATO may assign additional troops to reinforce the Pakistani border in order to prevent Taliban and Al Qaida militants from passing back and forth at will.This is a good start.
However, this is also an opportunity for the Commonwealth to pitch in stabilizing a critical member state by way of a peacekeeping mission. With 58 member states with a combined up a grand total of 1.9 billion people, (although India alone constitutes one billion of this number -- but more on this shortly) the Commonwealth could certainly muster manpower to spare.
Fielding Commonwealth peacekeeprs in Pakistan would carry the added benefit of fielding a multicultural force less likely to be deemed an occupation force by Pakistani locals.
To top it off, at least Pakistan, unlike Afghanistan, has a fully trained, fully equipped and reliable military. Commonwealth forces would merely be reinforcing them.
Of course, engaging the Commonwealth in Pakistan is far from a perfect solution. Participation by troops from India, in particular, could only exacerbate the violent situation, and for obvious reasons.
There are also valid questions as to whether or not many African countries, in particular, could afford to dispatch forces to Pakistan. Britain, Canada and Australia would certainly be obligated to help out financially in order to make this happen.
Commonwealth engagement in Pakistan would also have a positive effect on the war in Afghanistan, as insurgents would have fewer places to hide out when necessary: certainly a plus in the books of many. Anything that can help end the conflict in Afghanistan sooner can certainly be regarded as a good thing.
The Commonwealth is certainly an organization that could use a boost to its international credibility. Flexing some muscle in Pakistan, as some other commentators have suggested, could provide just such a boost.Musharraf would do well to call some friends to help him with his heavy lifting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)