Asia Society San Francisco
Panel Discusses US, Pakistan and India
By Ras H. Siddiqui
L to R: Dr. Steven Simon, Dr. Stephen Cohen, Dr. Lloyd
Rudolph and Amanda Liberatore |
The Asia Society held a panel
discussion in San Francisco, California on April 11, 2006
on the topic of “To the Brink? Nuclear Weapons, Religious
Extremism, and US Foreign Policy in South Asia.” Invited
speakers included Stephen Cohen, Senior Fellow at the Brookings
Institution; Ambassador Husain Haqqani, Visiting Scholar at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington
DC; and Steven Simon, an expert on US security policy in the
Middle East and South Asia (and a senior analyst at the Council
on Foreign Relations). Ambassador Haqqani could not make it
to the event due to illness but panel moderator Lloyd Rudolph,
Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University
of Chicago filled in for him in a befitting manner in spite
of his dual role.
After a brief reception, Amanda Liberatore kicked off the
formal program by providing a brief history of the Asia Society
(founded in 1956 by John D. Rockefeller 3rd) and by introducing
the panel to the audience. The Society is celebrating its
50th Anniversary this year with dinner events under the “Asia
on My Mind” theme in a number of cities and countries
around the world.
 |
L
to R: Dr. Ahmad Faruqui, Dr. Stephen Cohen, Ras Siddiqui
and Dr. Steven Simon |
A
section of the participants |
The first speaker was Lloyd
Rudolph. Considered by many as one of the leading experts
on South Asian politics today, Lloyd has been a prolific writer
on the topic of cultural and identity politics in that region.
A number of his writings have been co-authored with his wife
and fellow scholar, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph. He started off
by saying that the US has for the past 50 years, been playing
a destabilizing role in South Asia, using what he calls an
“Offshore Balancing” method (mainly between India
and Pakistan). He said that this fact has enabled Pakistan
to play parity politics with India for quite some time. He
highlighted events of the past and the why and the how of
this “Offshore Balancing” starting with Sir Olaf
Careo, the last Foreign Secretary for the British Raj (1939-1945)
in South Asia. “In the dying days of the Raj”
the term “The Wells of Power” was coined by Caroe
referring to the oil resources of the Middle East, and especially
the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. For securing these supplies
he (Caroe) welcomed the creation of Pakistan. From that time
in history till now, according to Lloyd, this offshore balancing,
continued by the United States, has been in place until just
recently when the term “Pipelines of Power” has
gained prominence.
Touching briefly upon the US-India and US-Pakistan relationship,
Lloyd described the visit by President Bush to India and Pakistan
in interesting terms. He said that in India “Bush blinked”
and a nuclear deal was announced. “President Bush was
faced with another failure,” he said. He gave the examples
of Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Prescription Drugs as previous
Bush failures. In Pakistan, according to Lloyd, the US blinked
again by not clearly objecting to the Iran-Pakistan-India
pipeline. A great deal has been written on the transformation
that has taken place in South Asia since Sir Olaf Careo’s
“Wells of Power” to today’s “Pipelines
of Power,” but if the end-game is peaceful, who can
object? And that is what brings us to the next speaker.
Stephen Cohen is one of the foremost American experts on South
Asia and especially the Pakistan Army today. He said that
he was honored to be invited to this Asia Society event. He
painted an alarming picture of the South Asian region which
he described as a place where nuclear weapons, terrorism (Islamic,
Hindu Christian and Buddhist) and religious extremism coexist.
But on another note he said that India, Bangladesh and Sri
Lanka (unfortunately not Pakistan) also contained the largest
population living under democracy anywhere. “India still
has the world’s largest population of poor people,”
he said. But he added that the number of people pulled out
of poverty there is also very large. Cohen described briefly
what he called four “India-Pakistan crises” since
1987. Starting with “Operation Brass Tacks” when
India tried to defeat Pakistan before it went nuclear, then
again in 1990 when the Kashmiri uprising happened, in 1999
during the Kargil War and most recently in 2000-2001 when
India reacted to a terrorist attack in New Delhi. He said
that he had just given the audience a preview to an upcoming
book “Four Crises and a Peace Process.” US intervention
in each of these cases helped prevent these crises from escalating.
He said that Pakistan had its own reasons for feeling insecure
in spite of recent warming of relations with India. “The
peace process will stagger on for some time,” he said.
He added that India would like “to kill Pakistan with
kindness,” and that it is not giving up anything. Cohen
gave Musharraf full credit for starting the debate on the
India-Pakistan relationship within Pakistan. He said that
the US and India now have a new relationship emerging and
that this relationship has “economic roots.” And
he predicted that the recent nuclear deal announced between
the two will go through Congress with a few changes. Cohen,
being a long-time supporter of the Pakistan Army, surprised
the audience by saying that he has come to the conclusion
that Pakistan cannot be correctly governed by its armed forces
and that the same forces are not allowing a civilian leadership
to emerge there either. He spoke of the possibility that Musharraf
may have to become a nastier ruler or that he may be replaced
by one. He added that in his opinion authoritarian rule will
not work in Pakistan in the long run. On the India-Pakistan
peace process he said that the US should play the role of
a facilitator (not mediator), while keeping in mind the dangers
of miscalculations along the way and prepare itself for the
worst case scenario.
The last speaker Steven Simon has specialized in Middle Eastern
Affairs at the Rand Corporation. He has co-authored and edited
a number of books, the most recent of which, “The Next
Attack” (2005) examines the evolution of extremism since
9/11/2001. Simon said that it was a pleasure to be at this
event and that he would confine himself to talking on Pakistan,
a country that fills Americans with some foreboding. He said
that Pakistan is a religion-based country but that religion
may not have been the best rationale for establishing a Pakistani
identity. He said that Pakistan during the authoritarian regime
of General Zia-ul-Haq incorporated a particular strain of
Sunni Islam and that a long running chain of events since
then had been playing itself out, bringing the country to
Musharraf’s rule. “Musharraf’s rule is not
shaky,” he said. “It has some degree of popularity
in the country,” he added. “Nevertheless he is
not democratically elected.”
Simon said that President Musharraf has sought legitimacy
by aligning himself to religious parties. He added that this
has helped him but at some cost to Pakistan’s future.
He called Pakistan’s religious parties “vertically
integrated enterprises.” He also commented on weapons
availability in the country, madrassas and the poor state
of public education in Pakistan. He said that the use of religious
forces in pursuing geopolitical goals (e.g. Kashmir) and the
emergence of sectarian violence were big problems there. The
scenario that he painted was not an easy one to accept but
Simon appeared to be sympathetic to the Musharraf government.
He examined America’s possible options there too. “It
puts the US in a very difficult situation,” he said.
He added that preference should be given to democracy in Pakistan
and towards the lessening of the possibility of conflict in
the region. He also said that under the current circumstances,
the US cannot really pressure Musharraf too much. “The
US needs Musharraf to keep a lid on this,” he said.
His advice was that that the US should be cautious while pressing
Musharraf to liberalize.
A lively Question & Answer program concluded the event.
Issues highlighted included Pakistan after Musharraf, India-Pakistan
trade, the Iran pipeline project, Daniel Pearl’s murder,
Balochistan, the India-Pakistan relationship, and Pakistan’s
internal politics, just to mention a few. Stephen Cohen commented
that most of the $ 3-4 billion trade between India and Pakistan
goes through the Gulf countries, especially Dubai and that
“some people would like to keep it that way.”
He said that Pakistan is suspicious of India’s attempts
to economically and culturally dominate it. Steven Simon added
a nice twist to international policy and America today. “The
US is a country in need of allies,” he said. Somehow
we listeners do not get that impression from Washington, but
it is great that the experts are still thinking along those
lines. “The old era of parity in South Asia is over,”
said Lloyd Rudolph, referring to Pakistan’s attempts
to equate itself with its much larger neighbor.
In conclusion, this reporter asked the panel to identify the
largest political party in Pakistan today. Stephen Cohen replied
in humor, “The Pakistan Army.” Though this is
somewhat accurate, he corrected his answer to say that in
the civilian realm, “the Pakistan People’s Party,”
lead by Benazir Bhutto is the largest. American think tanks
know that very well. Why the current rulers in Islamabad choose
to ignore this fact is anybody’s guess.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
