What's new

Strategic fallout of Obama's visit

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Apr 24, 2007
32,585
98
38,698
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Strategic fallout of Obama's visit

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Dr Maleeha Lodhi

The writer is a former envoy to the US and the UK, and a former editor of The News.

Hours before Barack Obama's address to the Indian parliament last week the American ambassador in Islamabad informed the Foreign Ministry that his president was about to announce US support for India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council (SC). No indication was given to Pakistan earlier that a move with such far-reaching strategic implications was in the offing.

Not during the much touted Pakistan-US 'strategic dialogue' held two weeks earlier in Washington. And not in lengthy exchanges during the subsequent visit to Islamabad by Douglas Lute, special assistant to President Obama.


In contention is not whether Islamabad could have influenced a decision that was America's to make but that Washington could do so with little concern about the consequences for its relations with Pakistan.

Pakistan's predictably strong reaction to the announcement reflected the depth of its opposition to a move that will seriously upset the regional balance of power. Resolutions adopted by both the cabinet and parliament conveyed Pakistan's protest and said the move disregarded Pakistan's principled position and sensitivities on SC reform.


President Obama's endorsement did more than offer verbal support to India's longstanding ambition for a seat at the big table. It confirmed that Washington is now embarked on a strategy to prop up India as a counterweight to China's growing political and economic power. The nature of Obama's Asia tour - to India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan - and recent policy pronouncements, such as its offer to "mediate" ocean-border disputes in South East Asia (while refusing to help resolve Kashmir) and on the currency dispute with Beijing, are all signs of a more overt policy to contain China.


To draw India closer behind Washington's objectives Obama handed Delhi virtually everything it wanted from his visit: recognition of its global leadership, easing of controls on high-tech exports, endorsement of its role in Afghanistan and backing for India's membership of four multilateral export control regimes.

Obama maintained silence on Kashmir other than anodyne statements about the need for India and Pakistan to resolve their differences. His support for a step-by-step process to first tackle the 'easy' issues endorsed the Indian approach to the dialogue. He lectured about human rights in Myanmar but couldn't bring himself to utter a word about abuses in Kashmir, where half a million Indian security forces continue to ruthlessly suppress an uprising of stone throwing youth demanding 'Azadi'.


The strategic prize for India was Obama's support for permanent membership of the SC which topped Delhi's wish list. The principle that enlargement of the primary global security forum was not something to be unilaterally decided among select powers but based on an international consensus did not weigh on Obama's mind.


This is at sharp odds with Pakistan's position that SC reform should ensure fair representation for all 192 UN member states - large, medium-sized and small - and be determined by consensus to enjoy international legitimacy. It has opposed claims by some big powers for privileged positions, contrary to the UN's central principle of the sovereign equality of states. Pakistan has also advocated representation of the 57 member Organisation of Islamic Conference in any SC expansion.


The gridlock on reform in the UN's intergovernmental negotiations means that change will not come quickly or easily. But it will be a grievous mistake to conclude that Pakistan has little reason to worry about the US endorsement. President Obama's pronouncement marks a major policy shift by Washington which had so far only declared support for Japan's permanent membership. India will now seek to leverage this by mobilising the Group of Four (Germany, Brazil and Japan or a broader coalition) to secure the endorsement of the UN General Assembly (GA), probably well before its next session.


The view that Islamabad should not react to what some describe as a "symbolic" US move overlooks the recent history of reform efforts at the UN. It is instructive to recall what happened in 2005. In March that year the UN secretary general called for an early decision on UNSC reform. This spurred India along with the other G4 countries to mount what was described as one of the biggest lobbying exercises in UN history.

Sensing a momentum for reform the G4 tabled a 'framework' resolution in July 2005. This called for four new permanent seats for themselves, two for Africa and another four non-permanent seats.

The resolution was co-sponsored by 23 countries in the GA, which has to approve by third-thirds any proposal to amend the UN Charter. This must then be accepted by all five permanent members of the SC.

Calculating that adding veto-wielding members would be opposed by the P5 the resolution left this issue for the new permanent members to decide.

Opposing this were nations grouped in the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) led by Pakistan and Italy and supported by Mexico, South Korea and Argentina among around 35 countries. The UFC's alternate proposal rejected new permanent seats and instead called for increasing non-permanent members to twenty-four, elected on a regional basis.

The G4 sought support from the 53 member African Union in order to secure the required two-thirds. But their efforts foundered when an African Summit declined to endorse their position. Algeria and Egypt successfully insisted that the longstanding African position - demanding two permanent seats with veto powers to be selected by the African nations - ought to be reflected in the G4 resolution. G4 expectations that South Africa and Nigeria would deliver the Africans failed to materialize.

This led to the collapse of the G4 effort. Not being able to count on the votes of the African group, the G4 was obliged to withdraw their resolution. Even with the 80 or so votes that G4 nations claimed to have mustered, without significant support from Africa, they could not achieve a two-thirds majority.


Since then negotiations in UNGA's inter-governmental group have swirled around rival reform proposals pressed by the G4, UFC and other countries.

After President Obama's declaration, the G4 along with Brazil and South Africa will try to renew their offensive to change the dynamic at the UN. This presents Pakistan with a major diplomatic challenge. Islamabad and other UFC countries will have to anticipate a diplomatic battle on multiple fronts.


Having rightly taken a robust position at the outset Pakistan will have to focus diplomatic efforts on four important tracks. One, Islamabad will need to translate its strong position into coordinated demarches in the capitals of GA member states.

Two, and most critically it will need to coordinate closely with China to ensure that Beijing reverts to its 2005 position of vocal and active opposition to the move for enforced adoption of a G4 type resolution. Islamabad will have to convince Beijing that it avoids sending any ambiguous signal that could be exploited by the G4 and its allies to rally support and switch the position of those backing the UFC or the undecided. A 'red signal' now will avoid China being placed in a difficult even untenable position later where it might have to use its veto alone to thwart the adoption of a UN Charter amendment approved by the General Assembly.

Three, Pakistan, together with the UFC countries, will have to launch an energetic campaign to galvanise support behind their own reform proposal and secure the 70 or so votes to block the G4 or similar resolution. OIC countries, ignored in the G4 plan, will also have to be persuaded to throw their weight behind this campaign.

And four, Pakistan will have to forcefully convey to Washington that it should not translate its verbal support for India into active lobbying to help it gain permanent membership. Such a demarche in Washington should signal that Pakistan-US relations would be adversely affected if the Administration goes beyond declaratory statements.

These efforts will have to rest on the firm premise that there is nothing inevitable about SC reform dictated by the self interest of some countries. This will mean disregarding defeatist voices at home who believe that, after American endorsement, India's permanent membership of the SC is inevitable. It is not.
 
Kudos to Dr.Lodhi - needless to say I found her analysis of US policy to be spot on -- and which also goes a long way towards explaining US policy towards Pakistan in general...and it's reciprocal... Pakistan must prepare to examine the quality of relations with the US it is willing to sustain, there's no point in avoiding this eventuality, best we be prepared.

Her highlighting of defeatist voices is certainly timely and one hopes our foreign minister and his secretaries are up to the challenge.
 
Kudos to Dr.Lodhi - needless to say I found her analysis of US policy to be spot on -- and which also goes a long way towards explaining US policy towards Pakistan in general...and it's reciprocal... Pakistan must prepare to examine the quality of relations with the US it is willing to sustain, there's no point in avoiding this eventuality, best we be prepared.

Her highlighting of defeatist voices is certainly timely and one hopes our foreign minister and his secretaries are up to the challenge.

True that she is a forceful personality and without Lodhi Pakistn would flounder at the UN/US.I think India should only make noises about the permanent SC and expend too much political capital on it. All India is trying to do is to correct a historical wrong where India was gifted its seat to China and doesnt want to be left behind....as for leading G-4 etc that US is nudging India to do..is stupid at a time when internal, economic issues dominate....so cut the losses and be happy...I think veto will be done away with..taking away the charm of the membership to one and all.
 
Kudos to Dr.Lodhi - needless to say I found her analysis of US policy to be spot on -- and which also goes a long way towards explaining US policy towards Pakistan in general...and it's reciprocal... Pakistan must prepare to examine the quality of relations with the US it is willing to sustain, there's no point in avoiding this eventuality, best we be prepared.

Her highlighting of defeatist voices is certainly timely and one hopes our foreign minister and his secretaries are up to the challenge.

Dr. Ldhi shd be our ambassador at the UN or in Washington instead of the 'bumbling duo' of haqqani and hussain haroon.
 
True that she is a forceful personality and without Lodhi Pakistn would flounder at the UN/US.I think India should only make noises about the permanent SC and expend too much political capital on it. All India is trying to do is to correct a historical wrong where India was gifted its seat to China and doesnt want to be left behind....as for leading G-4 etc that US is nudging India to do..is stupid at a time when internal, economic issues dominate....so cut the losses and be happy...I think veto will be done away with..taking away the charm of the membership to one and all.
Actually, a historical wrong that cost us really dearly- 19,000 sq km. to be more precise if measured territorially.

But then again, we did find some solace when Russians vetoed more than a dozen times in our favour and something which every Indian is grateful to even today.

I think we can delay this 10 years further down the lane till we reach China's level by 2020s and then claim the seat. I say this because, when we have friends placed in high seats, UNSC's decisions shouldn't really worry us so much. We have come beyond those effects a long time back earlier in this decade.
 
What miss Lodhi suggests in order to mobilize the coffee club as well as the 70 anti-change GA members requires some strong diplomacy and lobbying on part of the GOP officials....

Unfortunately, at this point, the credibility of the GOP lead by Zardari & co. doesnt seem competent enough to pull this off...In my opinion, an initiative of this magnitude will require some heavy lifting.

I think the trump card here is China....Pakistan does not currently possess the diplomatic offensive tools, but China's support for reforms or against it will be the deciding factor here....I also think China is capable of doing a lot of the heavy lifting for the coffee club wrt African nations that have economic investments locked in from China

For China...its a double edged sword. It risks diplomatic alienation of 4 economic powerhouses if it uses its veto....on the flipside, it also risks having two countries with jaded histories wrt China becoming permanent members......

I think India needs to step it up.....It cant expect the US to manouver the SC reform and convince a majority of the countries as it did for the NSG waiver....
I also think India is relying heavily on the "collective clout" of the G4 which in reality may mitigate its chances especially considering the reservation Chinese have about Japanese membership in the SC...
My opinion is that individually India presents a pretty compelling case....but it will not be easy....Its time our leadership starts using the oft mentioned "Soft power" to its advantage
 
Last edited:
I agree the Japanese factor, especially with the current tensions will probably cause a Chinese veto.
 
It was duty of US national Hussain Haqqani to write articles on this development and inform Pakistan govt. what's being cooked in Indo-US pot.
He is only good to write books against Pakistan.
I wonder what qualifies him to represent Pakistan at any level.

Lodhi was one of the first lady victim of Zardari, upon assuming power.
Other known women were, Shamshad Akhtar.. governor state bank, Shireen Mizari D.G of strategic studies institute Islamabad.
Both Zardari and TTP have targeted women of Pakistanin last 3 years like never doen before.
With a difference Zardari kept targeting iconic women and TTP kept targeting less known.
Now Zardari have women around her, who only defend his crimes.

BTW.... she was also choice of BB.
 
Please allow me to preface my post with a request: Let us stay focussed on the content of the discussion and not the perceived patriotism of the personalities.


Excerpt:
Having rightly taken a robust position at the outset Pakistan will have to focus diplomatic efforts on four important tracks. One, Islamabad will need to translate its strong position into coordinated demarches in the capitals of GA member states.

Everybody already knew what the reaction of Pakistan would be even before Obama's announcement. A diplomatic effort now will lead to maybe a few soft words here and there, but every country concerned will make its own determination of national interest with regards to this issue. On balance, Pakistan will loose this by a majority.

Excerpt:
Two, and most critically it will need to coordinate closely with China to ensure that Beijing reverts to its 2005 position of vocal and active opposition to the move for enforced adoption of a G4 type resolution. Islamabad will have to convince Beijing that it avoids sending any ambiguous signal that could be exploited by the G4 and its allies to rally support and switch the position of those backing the UFC or the undecided. A 'red signal' now will avoid China being placed in a difficult even untenable position later where it might have to use its veto alone to thwart the adoption of a UN Charter amendment approved by the General Assembly.

China will put its national interest above that of Pakistan, as it should. In the long run (which is what the chinese do pretty instinctively IMO) they will have to weigh the value of Pakistan as a partner against the value of India as a partner.

If the US wants to ally with India against China, what is to stop China from trying to do the same against the USA? This thought may appear to be far fetched for now, but who is to say in another 10-20 years or more? This diplomatic ballet has ALREADY started.

What should be done IN ADDITION to what Dr. Lodhi's suggestion is to increase the value of Pakistan to China. This means a lot more than what has already been achieved, particularly economic transactions. China is already India's biggest trade partner, and the level of growth in this trade will mean that Pakistan's interests are likely to cloud Chinese assessments if and when when crunch time comes.

What will Pakistan be doing to forestall this?

Excerpt:
Three, Pakistan, together with the UFC countries, will have to launch an energetic campaign to galvanise support behind their own reform proposal and secure the 70 or so votes to block the G4 or similar resolution. OIC countries, ignored in the G4 plan, will also have to be persuaded to throw their weight behind this campaign.

Pakistan will probably not have the diplomatic leverage to do this for the foreseeable future.

Excerpt:
And four, Pakistan will have to forcefully convey to Washington that it should not translate its verbal support for India into active lobbying to help it gain permanent membership. Such a demarche in Washington should signal that Pakistan-US relations would be adversely affected if the Administration goes beyond declaratory statements.

Don't you think this calculation was ALREADY done before the announcement was made? The calculus is clearly in favor of India in Washington, and likely to tilt even more so in the coming years.

Pakistan needs to get ready now for a rude shock coming soon.

Excerpt:
These efforts will have to rest on the firm premise that there is nothing inevitable about SC reform dictated by the self interest of some countries. This will mean disregarding defeatist voices at home who believe that, after American endorsement, India's permanent membership of the SC is inevitable. It is not.

What Dr. Lodhi terms "defeatist" is actually "realism" and "pragmatism", as seen from a broader international perspective.

I apologize beforehand if I offend anybody with this post.
 
Something to consider is how Pakistan can use India's candidature as means to achieve its own goals....

This might seem far fetched, but striking a deal with India to not be a roadblock in its path to UNSC seat in exchange for a timely and guaranteed resolution to the Kashmir conflict....including diplomatic positioning to engage China to be in favor as well...

Could serve as a "two birds with one shot" approach

PS: Please note that I use the word "resolution"....does not indicate India handing over Kashmir to Pakistan
 
Something to consider is how Pakistan can use India's candidature as means to achieve its own goals....

This might seem far fetched, but striking a deal with India to not be a roadblock in its path to UNSC seat in exchange for a timely and guaranteed resolution to the Kashmir conflict....including diplomatic positioning to engage China to be in favor as well...

Could serve as a "two birds with one shot" approach

PS: Please note that I use the word "resolution"....does not indicate India handing over Kashmir to Pakistan

Aren't you assuming that Pakistan can be a big roadblock to our aspirations in becoming a permanent member?? Honestly how much weigh they have??? Secondly it gives an inclination that India don't want to resolve Kashmir and will do so only if the goodie of UNSC is given to them...

Please care to clarify both...Also i don't see a single issue to Pakistan if India becomes a UNSC permanent member. Can someone please share a few concerns????
 
Aren't you assuming that Pakistan can be a big roadblock to our aspirations in becoming a permanent member?? Honestly how much weigh they have??? Secondly it gives an inclination that India don't want to resolve Kashmir and will do so only if the goodie of UNSC is given to them...

Please care to clarify both...Also i don't see a single issue to Pakistan if India becomes a UNSC permanent member. Can someone please share a few concerns????

To your first set of questions:
The way I see it, Pakistan may not be the biggest of roadblocks but its collective clout with like minded coffee club members can affect our position....

To clarify, the last effort at reforms was aimed at an expansion to include G4 as permanent members.....
Currently, India is making a collective bid for expansion.....which as I mentioned may hurt our chances since it gives the opposing countries to unite to achieve their objective....
Pakistan may not be able to "influence" as many countries, but being a part of a bigger bloc of nations, it maybe able to achive its objectives by (for lack of better words) riding their coattails...

Also, Pakistan's influence wrt China cannot be ignored, especially since China has a lot of investment and stake in Pak.....

I use the word "roadblock" as a bump not a wall....

In addition, Im of the view that independently, India presents a very valid case for inclusion and Pakistan's significance in blocking an independent bid may not be of much significance esp. in the current circumstances.......


To your second question:

India can block any future resolutions on Kashmir that do not work in their favor....a very important implication for Pak...

It also gives India significant clout in driving international politics.....something that is not in Pak's favor especially since they consider South Asia to be a region at parity wrt. military strenghth....
India's entry will cause a power imbalance...
 
To your first set of questions:
The way I see it, Pakistan may not be the biggest of roadblocks but its collective clout with like minded coffee club members can affect our position....
And those like minded coffee club members would be??? Look i am not trying to downplay Pakistan here but having them on board is the last thing(rightly so) in the minds of our strategy makers...Let's not give them undue importance. As of now their diplomatic clout is not at a position where they can hurt us...We will see if their weightage increase.


To clarify, the last effort at reforms was aimed at an expansion to include G4 as permanent members.....Currently, India is making a collective bid for expansion.....which as I mentioned may hurt our chances since it gives the opposing countries to unite to achieve their objective....

Think about why the P5 would allow any new member to be added in the permanent club. Now put the same reasons for others and see where we are. Rest assured we have enough friends to get us the required numbers. The only thorn is veto by P5. Once that issue is resolved nothing can stop us...

Pakistan may not be able to "influence" as many countries, but being a part of a bigger bloc of nations, it maybe able to achive its objectives by (for lack of better words) riding their coattails...
Explained above...

Also, Pakistan's influence wrt China cannot be ignored, especially since China has a lot of investment and stake in Pak.....
Forget Pakistan there. We have our own border problems with China. If we can manage to convince them even after that i don't see how come Pakistan's concerns are going to alter the move. You have already seen that they are not openly going against our quest. Are you saying Pakistan has not already lobbyed against us??? See sooner or later India will arrive on the economic front and China will have to realize that India is an important factor and cannot be ignored.

I use the word "roadblock" as a bump not a wall....
Exactly. Look we must understand that current status quo in Kashmir favors us. So any resolution on Kashmir would mean Pakistan gaining more than India. So why should we do anything just for a bump which we can easily pass???? Mind it i am not saying we should not resolve Kashmir but just to resolve Kashmir for sake of passing the bump which we can easily pass doesn't sound good diplomacy to me...how about you???


In addition, Im of the view that independently, India presents a very valid case for inclusion and Pakistan's significance in blocking an independent bid may not be of much significance esp. in the current circumstances.......
Exactly. So out whole sole concentration should be to get p5 on board(we are very close) and keep the plethora of other friends engaged....

To your second question:
India can block any future resolutions on Kashmir that do not work in their favor....a very important implication for Pak...
Peshwa is this you writing??? Is this figment of imagination or do you have any reason to say that?? Kashmir is a non-issue for International community. No one want's to poke their head in this matter and all want's to keep with the line that New-Delhi has made ample clear - This is a billateral Issue...How on this earth you think that a new resolution can be passed on Kashmir??? Secondly we cannot do anything to existing Kashmir...so i am afraid my question is still not answered

It also gives India significant clout in driving international politics.....something that is not in Pak's favor especially since they consider South Asia to be a region at parity wrt. military strenghth....
I like this one. Would you mind sharing few examples??? I do see China as a veto member but don't see it impacting us. May be i am wrong but can you please point few things???


India's entry will cause a power imbalance...
but there is already a power imbalance. Can anyone deny the rising geo-political clout of India??? UNSC hardly have any bone and it is just a symbolic aim for us. India's inclusion/exclusion will hardly have any impact on power imbalance, no??...
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom