If Not Lecture, Then Mentor

William Hague's "hands off" policy on India/Pakistan relations a bad idea

Speaking recently about bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, British Foreign Secretary has announced his intention to adopt a "hands-off" policy on the matter.

“It will not be our approach to lecture other countries on how they should conduct their bilateral relations and we won’t tell India and Pakistan how to conduct their bilateral relations,” Hague announced. “We have noted the recent improvement in bilateral relations between Pakistan and India which is good for the future peace in the world but cannot lecture the two countries on finding a way out to resolve the outstanding issues.”

Understandably, matters related to India and Pakistan -- or any of the Commonwealth countries -- are fairly sensitive in Britain. Britain cannot be seen to be unduly meddling in the affairs of its colonies. To do so would be interpreted by many as a form of imperialism.

Lecturing India and Pakistan about their diplomatic relations would be precisely that.

So naturally the British government shouldn't want to lecture the two countries. Mentoring them would be another matter entirely.

India and Pakistan are both sovereign states. But as far as sovereign states go, they are both young states. When one considers the amount of time it took Britain to settle its historical animosities with France, and when one considers how deeply-engrained the Indo-Pakistani region is within British and global interests, it becomes clear that no one can afford to wait for a centuries-long reproachment process leading to a stable peace between the two countries.

Mentoring India and Pakistan through a successful peace process isn't a burden Britain should have to carry alone. Britain has allies within the Commonwealth of Nations that share British heritage with India and Pakistan, and are well-poised to help Britain mentor India and Pakistan through such a peace process.

Considering the spiral effect tensions between India and Pakistan have on neighbouring states -- particularly Afghanistan -- India/Pakistan relations are simply too important to be left alone.

There's no shame in two young states like India and Pakistan needing a little help to get through a peace process. There's no reason in the world why Britain shouldn't poise itself to help.

Help With That Heavy Lifting

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.

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.

Pakistan: Obama's Biggest Challenge

Pakistan poses a dilemma for Barack Obama's Afghanistan focus

As Barack Obama prepares to take office tomorrow, he must be aware that there is a great deal of work ahead of him.

A significant portion of that work will be related to his new focus on Afghanistan and, by extension, matters pertaining to Pakistan.

Taliban fighters and other insurgents have used a largely-uncontrolled border between the two countries to operate out of bases in Pakistan. Obama has already announced that he would allow American forces to pursue insurgent fighters into Pakistan. But there are far more important matters related to Pakistan to be dealt with.

Clearly, part of Obama's approach to Pakistan will have to deal with nuclear weapons.

Of all the (officially) democratic countries in the world right now, Pakistan may be most vulnerable to takeover by Islamic militants. Allowing such individuals to get their hands on nuclear weapons is by any account a nightmare scenario, especially considering reports that Al Qaeda has attempted to acquire submarines within the past six years.

Neil Joeck of Livermore Laboratories has suggested that Obama may institute a policy requiring the reduction of American nuclear weapons to 1,000 units. But in order to deal with the threat that Pakistan's nuclear weapons stockpile, Obama would have to negotiate a peace treaty between Pakistan and India that deals decisively not only with mutual nuclear disarmament, but also building a sturdy and just peace between the two countries.

According to Joeck, Pakistan maintains their nuclear stockpiles as a deterrent not only against India mounting a nuclear attack against Pakistan, but also in order to deter a conventional attack.

Considering that Pakistan has moved troops out of its north western region in response to recent tensions between the two countries, the war in Afghanistan would reap an obvious dividend from peace between the two countries.

A clear obstacle to such a peace accord is the matter of Kashmir. Tariq Amin-Kahn notes that there are few means by which a just peace could be achieved between India and Pakistan without resolving that controversy to the satisfaction of both countries.

Pakistan could not accept Indian hegemony in Kashmir.

One obvious short-term solution is for India and Pakistan to negotiate an agreement of mutual demobilization from Kashmir.

Amin-Kahn and The Real News' Paul Jay seem to look to Obama to negotiate such an agreement between India and Pakistan. But as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, Canada is actually much better positioned to help barter such a deal.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and National Defence Minister Peter MacKay have ruminated about negotiating a deal involving the sharing of terrorism-related military intelligence between the two countries. Negotiating a mutual demobilization from Kashmir would be an ambitious but worthwhile project for Canada's diplomats to pursue.

The idea should not be for Canadian diplomats to replace an effort by American diplomats to negotiate such a settlement, but rather to work as a partner with Barack Obama in an initiative modelled after the mission diplomacy that has successfully negotiated agreements such as the landmine ban.

The work involved would be arduous, but in the end rewarding. That is more than enough reason for the Canadian government to be a leading partner in helping Barack Obama tackle his biggest challenge.

The Need to Know

India, Pakistan need to share intelligence

With the Mumbai attacks clearly dragging India into the War on Terror, cooperation between all of those participating in the war on terror is as important as ever before.

Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay has a special message for India: share your intelligence, particularly as it pertains to the activities of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Eastern Pakistan.

"We'd like to know the extent of their intelligence about Taliban and Al Qaeda activities inside Pakistan," MacKay recently announced, and noted that India now clearly shares this concern. "They [India] are clearly concerned that their own country is vulnerable. We have Canadians on the ground in Afghanistan that have encountered a very determined insurgency."

MacKay noted that India is poised to collect and share such intelligence due to its "proximity to Pakistan, which we know is still very much the home of much of the insurgency inside Afghanistan, and a place where al-Qaeda are making their mark."

This comes as Nalin Surie, India's Secretary of External Affairs, met with MacKay and other Canadian officials to discuss the Mumbai attacks.

India suspects Lashkar-i-Taiba for orchestrating the attacks. Lashikar-i-Taiba is a group that demands the withdrawal of Indian security forces from Kashmir and Jammu. They wish to establish an Islamic caliphate in the two regions.

MacKay noted that India's cultural familiarity with the increasingly tumultuous South Asian region could prove to be incredibly valuable.

"The Indians grasp better than we ever could the tribal nature of Afghanistan, and how that factors into the fighting, some of the allegiances ... in Kandahar, the Pashtun people in particular," he noted.

India would prove to be a pivotal ally in helping secure the region. However, a tripartite security arrangement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India faces challenges deeper than simply getting all three to the table. The challenges also involve establishing an agreement regarding the policing of the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan -- one rendered more difficult considering the disputed nature of that border.

"Quite frankly, that's going to be an enormous diplomatic challenge, given the tribal nature of that area and the fact that neither side recognizes the Durand Line as the actual geographic border," MacKay said.

While tremendously challenging, that particular issue is merely another reason why the security situation in Southern Asia offers an opportunity for Canadian-styled mission diplomacy to yield positive results in establishing a workable security arrangement in the region.

Clearly, firmly establishing a formal border and a policing arrangement for that border is one important feature of that agreement. Intelligence sharing, both between the immediate partners of such an agreement and with NATO, is another.

Helping negotiate such an agreement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India should be considered a top priority of Canada's Defense and Foreign Affairs deparment.

Welcome to the War on Terror

Mumbai attacks open new theatre in War on Terror

With the Mumbai terror attacks having reached their tragic conclusion, it finally seems safe to comment.

The Mumbai attacks are sobering in their implications. With up to 155 dead -- including at least two Canadians -- the War on Terror has clearly opened a new front in one of the world's most populated countries.

The attacks were carried out with frightening precision. In less than an hour, Mariman House, Leopold's Cafe, the Taj Mahal Hotel, the Oberon Trident Hotel, the Cama Hospital, and the Chatrapati Shivaji railway station were under attack. It would take three days to bring the attack to a halt.

If anything, the Mumbai attacks demonstrates the importance of dealing with domestic terrorism. The Deccan Mujahadeen and the Students Islamic Movement of India who have been accused of jointly planning and executing the attack were previously identified as responsible for bombings in Uttar Pradesh.

Even if the Deccan Mujahadeen were operating out of Pakistan, the Mumbai attacks were made possible by India's failure to deal with the organization within its own borders.

India and Pakistan clearly have common interests in tackling the Deccan Mujahadeen. Yet these attacks are far too likely to increase the tensions between the two countries -- tensions that are already perennially preoccupied with the contentious Kashmir region.

But the terrifying events in Mumbai has also presented Canada with an opportunity. While difficult, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon now has the opportunity to crack open the Chretien-era handbook on Mission Diplomacy and help negotiate a tripartite security agreement between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The goals of this agreement should be to harmonize their efforts and strategies in approaching the security threat posed by the tumultuous regions of western Pakistan.

The second front of the Canadian response to the Mumbai attacks should be to push for the British Commonwealth to provide military aid to the three countries in pacifying the region.

As a prominent member of the Commonwealth, Canada has an opportunity to lead the Commonwealth in an area where it has nothing short of a responsibility to respond.

One can only hope that Lawrence Cannon is keeping an eye on this pivotal opportunity while naturally keeping the other eye on the survival of his government. Furthermore, one can only hope that Cannon is prepared to mix an aggressive, muscular foreign policy stance with the mission diplomacy approach favoured by the Chretien-era Liberals.