The U.S. foreign policy challenges for the world's troubled spots

Posted by Shyam Moondra

President Barrack Obama's handling of four major foreign policy challenges generally gets high marks. By nature, Obama tends to be cautious which usually is the right way to handle crises, except in some cases where his overly cautious approach makes him appear timid. Overall, Obama has demonstrated an even temperament and is on the right track. Following are the troubled spots, starting with the one with the most successful execution and ending with the one that could have been handled a little better.

Pakistan-Afghanistan:

Obama's firm policy on Pakistan, making financial and military aid conditional upon Pakistan's getting tough on extremists, is paying off. Of course, this policy was helped with the Taliban's strategic blunder in attacking Islamabad that triggered the alarm among Pakistanis and the rest of the world that the nuclear arsenal could fall in the hands of Islamic extremists. Pakistani civilian and military leaders deserve credit for rising up to the challenge and doing an incredible job in driving out the extremists from the Swat Valley. Many of the local tribal militias, fed up with the destruction that the Taliban brought to their communities, are also teaming up with the Pakistani military in driving out the Taliban from their villages and cities. Pakistan is now focusing on South Waziristan, the stronghold of the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda, so this is still work-in-progress. If Pakistan continues to show resolve and finishes the job of flushing out the militants there, the U.S. should resume financial and military aid to Pakistan, as promised. However, the aid must be focused on strengthening the Pakistani democratic institutions and providing services to the Pakistani people. The U.S. must refrain from using the aid money to provide offensive weapon systems to Pakistan that could potentially be used against India and destabilize the region. The U.S. should also insist that Pakistan dismantle the training camps of Kashmiri extremists that carried out the terrorist attacks in Mumbai recently, thus paving the way for peace talks between India and Pakistan to finally settle the Kashmir issue.

Obama is correct in strengthening the military capabilities of NATO to root out the Taliban extremists from Afghanistan. Obama is also correct in impressing upon the Afghanistan's government that Afghanistan's future depends on eliminating government corruption, strengthening Afghanistan's security apparatus, providing services to the people of Afghanistan, and dismantling the drug trafficking infrastructure. Like in Iraq, we need to have an exit strategy so that eventually we can leave that area and let Afghanistan's people govern themselves without the presence of the NATO forces. We need to develop a plan which would enable us to start withdrawing our forces within five years.

Middle East Conflict:

Obama deserves credit for drawing a line in the sand on the issue of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Israelis have consistently behaved as if they want to maintain the status quo, meaning continue to build settlements on occupied lands and keep collecting billions of dollars in the U.S. aid without giving any consideration at all to the suffering of the Palestinian people. That policy has served the interests of Israelis, as is evident from the considerable improvement in their living standard, but at the expense of Americans (who paid a heavy price over the years including the September 11, 2001 attack on our soil) and Palestinians, who have been forced to live in sub-human conditions. Obama is right in taking a more impartial and moral approach in resolving this longstanding conflict in a fair way. Israel must surrender the occupied territories in exchange for recognition of Israel by all Islamic countries in the region. Palestinians must have their own free sovereign country because that is the right thing to do. Obama should make financial and military aid to Israel conditional upon achieving the two-state solution as soon as Palestinians are ready with the governing institutional infrastructure in place – we need to increase the cost to Israelis for any unreasonable delay in achieving a comprehensive solution in the Middle East. Resolution of this conflict is essential for improving the relations between the U.S. and the Muslims and for de-radicalizing the Islamic world. Obama must be prepared to impose a solution if Israelis and Palestinians fail to achieve one on their own.

Now that the Obama administration has decided to reestablish diplomatic relations with Syria, it's important that Israel and Syria settle their conflict over the Golan Heights. If Obama continues to proceed on all Middle East issues in a fair and impartial way, it is conceivable that a comprehensive agreement involving Israel, Palestinians, and Syria could be hammered out within the next two years. If that happens, all Arab countries and Iran should recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

Iran:

A vast majority of the younger population of Iran is challenging the unelected mullahs that took over the government in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution. The Islamic revolution is failing because it has not evolved with the changing times of the Internet era and because of its rigidity that's unacceptable to the younger generation. Iranian authorities appear to have successfully used extreme violent means against its own people to stop people's peaceful protests against the fraudulent election that gave the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a big victory. However, the country is now fractured. The dreadful image of Neda Agha Soltan, a young woman, who was shot dead by a government militiaman, is way too powerful for the people to ignore. Only time will tell if the sacrifices made by the courageous Iranian people will bring any positive changes in Iran. If history is any guide, dictators, who oppress and terrorize people using their militias (or thugs, as many people would call them), eventually fall. It would be hard for Ahmadinejad to survive as a president, if he is viewed as illegitimate, not just by the outside world but by the Iranian people themselves. Hopefully, what will come out of the popular dissent is a reformed moderate Islamic government that will provide more freedoms to its people and the press and treat women with equality.

President Obama's approach to the Iranian crisis has been the right one. Obama could have used hard-hitting rhetoric, but that would not have changed the situation on the ground there. The fight for freedom has to be fought and won by the Iranian people themselves. Obama's strong condemnation of the violent means used by the Iranian authorities against peaceful demonstrators was all he could do under the circumstances. By not directly commenting on the election process itself and focusing on the brutality of the Iranian police, Obama has taken a high moral road. This approach has given Obama an upper hand in any future negotiations with much weakened Ahmidinejad. There seems to be a good chance that Iran will agree to a deal whereby it continues with the civilian nuclear program with appropriate U.N. monitors and inspectors in place to make sure that they do not pursue a clandestine weapons program. In return, all sanctions against Iran will be dropped and Iran's isolation will end. A country, which is not isolated, is more likely to play a constructive role in addressing the problems of mutual interest.

North Korea:

Obama has had mixed success on the question of North Korea. The U.S. was able to get an anonymous vote in the U.N. Security Council on the resolution that imposes tougher sanctions on North Korea. However, North Korea has not only conducted a second nuclear test but has also fired more missiles in defiance of the demands of the international community.

North Korea has apparently calculated that the U.S. is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and thus would have no stomach for initiating yet another bloodier military confrontation with North Korea. North Korea may have planned all along, while still participating in the Six-Party talks, they will continue with their nuclear weapons and medium- and long-range anti-ballistic missile programs. The nuclear weapon and missile technologies may become a trophy in their hugely successful armament export business. By selling illicit technologies and weapons to other countries such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they can earn badly needed hard currency that they use to buy the essentials for their population.

North Korea is militarily much stronger than Iraq with proven missile technology and possibly a few nuclear bombs. A military option is thus not viable. North Korea's economy is in bad shape. Therefore, if the international community is able to choke off the armament sales and thus shutdown this source of hard currency, it would be virtually impossible for North Korea to survive as a self-sustained country for long. Also, the banking sanctions will bite the elite members of the government, making them more agreeable to reach a negotiated settlement incorporating the following elements:
· Nuclear and missile weapon systems and development efforts to be shut down in a verifiable way and North Korea to fully comply with the Non-proliferation Treaty.
· The West to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea and provide security guarantees.
· North Korea be given economic development aid and supplied with much needed food and energy.
· North Korea to agree to respect human rights and grant its people more freedoms.
· Emphasis be placed on people-to-people contacts, cultural exchanges, and tourism (providing another source of hard-currency).

Some comments on the U.S. foreign policy

Posted by Shyam Moondra

Swiss Bank Laws:
I think the U.S. government should insist on more comprehensive changes to Swiss banking laws than what has been offered by Switzerland. Switzerland's bank secrecy laws have encouraged drug traffickers, money launderers, wealthy tax cheaters, and corrupt politicians to stash away large sums of money in Swiss bank accounts. In many of the developing countries, for example in Africa, Asia, and South America, politicians are known to have stolen public funds and financial aid money and deposited in secret Swiss bank accounts. Switzerland is thus aiding and conspiring with these corrupt and criminal people around the world to steal public money that should have been used to fight poverty and hunger in many of these impoverished countries. It has been widely reported that former and current Pakistani leaders and military officers and Palestinian leaders have stolen funds from the U.S. aid money and deposited in secret Swiss bank accounts. Even people like Vladimir Putin are rumored to have secret bank accounts in Switzerland. I think the U.S. and other industrialized nations should insist on dismantling the Swiss secrecy laws and put a stop to the breeding corruption worldwide. If Switzerland does not cooperate, the U.S. must threaten to shut down the operations of the Swiss banks in the U.S. and pass laws to make it difficult for Swiss banks to do business anywhere in the world.

Policy towards Pakistan:
The key to defeating Al Quaeda and Taliban lies in our policy towards Pakistan. Pakistan has been a half-hearted partner in this matter. They have used terrorism as a policy tool against India while pretending to be helpful to us in the fight against terror so that they could collect billions of dollars of our aid money. They have been playing a shrewd game of collecting the aid but doing as little as possible. The result is that the terrorists have only become stronger. I think we need a major shift in our policy towards Pakistan. We should announce a complete cessation of all financial and military aid to Pakistan. Then we should lay out measurable benchmarks that they will have to meet before we restart aid in incremental manner. The benchmarks would be: they must dismantle terrorist camps and infrastructure within their territory, they must close-down their religious schools that are a breeding place for terrorists-to-be, they must pass banking laws to trace the money and stop channels (e.g., drug trafficking) that feed money to terrorists, and they must ban terrorist organizations and prosecute the known terrorists as demanded by India. We should also insist that they put their intelligence agency ISI under the firm control of the civilian government and direct their military resources towards fighting terrorism in the Northern provinces rather than position them against India. We should continue to attack potential terrorists on Pakistani soil even without the permission of the Pakistani government; self-defense against cross-border attacks by terrorists on NATO forces in Afghanistan provides a valid legal basis for doing that. Also, we need to have a secret strategic plan to seize their nuclear arsenals and destroy their WMD labs and infrastructure, if Pakistan's domestic situation deteriorates to the point that we face the danger of these WMDs falling in the wrong hands.

Policy towards Russia:
From the day Barack Obama was elected as the president, Russia has been shrewdly playing tough and behaving aggressively as a follow-on to their invasion of the tiny neighbor Georgia. Now they are even talking about placing Russian bombers on Cuban soil. Even in the face of this bluster, the reality is that with the crashing oil prices Russia is actually on the defensive and they are craving for Obama's attention. Therefore, I don't think we should make any unnecessary concessions. We should hang tough on our missile shield plan unless they make concessions on Iran and else where. We should insist on more democracy and freedom of press in Russia before we shoot for close relations with them. The Russian leaders are not trust-worthy - Prime Minister Putin is a typical cold-warrior in the KGB mode. I think President Obama should put Russia on the back-burner for now and not make any hasty decisions simply because they are testing the novice Obama by all this tough talk of placing bombers in Cuba or directing ballistic nuclear missiles towards Europe. We should, however, negotiate a new arms-control treaty with Russia, if it is in our self-interest.

Policy towards Cuba:
We need to reassess our relations with Cuba, which is no longer a Soviet puppet or threat to us. Carrying on a cold war era policy towards one of our smallest and poorest neighbors is laughable. We need to tone down our harsh policy towards Cuba and help them with their economic development. A stable and prosperous Cuba is in our interest. We should encourage people-to-people contacts and allow travel and business deals between the two countries. Over time, they will have more democracy (we started our relations with China on that basis in the 1970's, so why not treat Cuba the same way?).

Policy towards Israel:
Israel's continuing expansion of settlements in occupied territories is illegal and a big obstacle in achieving comprehensive peace in the Middle-East. Just like with Pakistan, we need to set some benchmarks for Israel to meet for us to continue our financial and military aid to them. It's a tough decision but a necessary and fair decision to achieve lasting peace in that region. Israel must go back to pre-1987 war borders and give up all of the territories they seized in that war, with some minor adjustments to provide contiguous borders, and in return, all of Israel's neighbors must recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations with Israel. I don't think Israel will see a need to make any concessions to achieve real peace unless they have something big to lose and that big thing is the close relations with us and our financial aid to them. In Israel's calculation, if they can maintain status-quo for another fifty years and yet keep getting billions of dollars of the U.S. aid every year, it's the best outcome for them. I don't think there will be lasting peace in the Middle-East unless there is some fundamental change in our policy towards Israel to induce them to long for peace.

An open letter to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari

Posted by Shyam Moondra

I am appalled at how bad things have gotten between Pakistan and India. It's hard to believe that Pakistan and India used to be one country not long ago and now they are arch-enemies.

The state of affairs is very negative for both Pakistan and India, more so for Pakistan than India. In the era of intense global competition, Pakistan and India will fare much better if they stop this destructive animosity and mistrust.

I blame Pakistan more than India for the current stalled relations between the two countries.

Here is my synopsis of what is going on:

1. Pakistan erroneously believes that it's "equal" to India. India is a much bigger country and is a major emerging economic power. Also, India is a full-functioning democracy, while Pakistan's history on that front is weak. So this concept of "equality" is misplaced.
2. India has made good economic progress in recent years, thanks to the reforms that were started during the Rajiv Gandhi administration. I suspect Pakistan is jealous of that and it tries to pull India down through terrorism.
3. Pakistan started using terrorism as a policy tool against India through its out-of-control ISI. Initially, the focus of this campaign was Kashmir, but in recent years terrorism is being extended to targets in India (e.g., last month's attacks in Mumbai, attack on India's Parliament building, and previous Mumbai attacks) and elsewhere (e.g., Indian embassy in Kabul). These attacks are criminal because they target innocent civilians, which is contrary to the teachings of the Koran.
4. The support of ISI given to terrorist organizations has made them stronger. But once these terrorists found a foothold, they began to target Pakistan itself. These undesirable elements are trying to eat the hands that once fed them.

I think India has shown tremendous restraint and deserves credit for that. India understands that going to war is not going to solve this problem; wars have unpredictable outcomes and it will bring only misery, more to Pakistanis than to Indians. On the other hand, if Pakistan continues to use terrorists as a proxy to bring India down, then India is put in a position where it has no other choice but to attack Pakistan militarily.

Here is what I think Pakistan and India need to do:

1. First, Pakistan MUST stop ISI's support for terrorist organizations. Pakistan MUST handover the terror suspects of recent Mumbai attacks to India or MUST bring them to justice via Pakistani courts. Putting them under house arrest or arresting them but releasing them a few months later is a sham, not justice. They killed 180 innocent civilians, Pakistan must show better moral judgment than it has done so far. These terrorists must be hanged or jailed for life. If Pakistan doesn't take decisive actions this time, terrorism will destroy Pakistan itself.
2. Pakistan needs to reform its ISI and remove its bad elements. ISI must report to the civilian administration. The military must be put under firm civilian control as well, like in all other democracies. I think the American aid to Pakistan must be contingent upon these administrative reforms. A full-fledged democracy is a prerequisite for Pakistan to do well on the world scene, like India and Japan have done.
3. Pakistan needs to have governmental control of all of its territories, including the northern tribal provinces. If parts of Pakistan are not controlled by the central government, then, in strictest sense, Pakistan is not really a sovereign country.
4. Pakistan and India should stop treating each other as enemies. Stop hatred and animosity - all it does is bring destruction and block economic progress. Who knows, some day, Pakistan and India will become one country again (starting out as a federation, if not a fully integrated country - I think it's doable).
5. Kashmir has been a thorn between the two countries. I think the sensible thing to do is to agree upon the present Line of Control (LOC) as the final border (with some minor adjustments) and put this issue to the rest. I don't think any other solution will be accepted by the populations of the two countries (and leaders have to concede to the public opinion or else they will be thrown out of office by the voters). Pakistan and India may work out special provisions to have unrestricted access from one part of Kashmir to the other and allow free trade between the two parts.
6. The future of Pakistan and India lies in close relationship, increased trade, open borders, etc. It's that kind of relationship that will bring economic progress and improve the living standard for both populations. Terrorism will bring only misery - that's a dead end; all it will do is lock you in perpetual poverty.

In recent years, globalization has been the trend; we have more and more interdependence among the countries. Pakistan and India need to resolve their differences peacefully and reap the fruits of globalization - there is no other way.

I hope, you will see the wisdom in what I am saying and show strong leadership and statesmanship to do what needs to be done right now and in coming months and years to put the relations between Pakistan and India on the right track.

I might point out that your wife Benazir Bhutto and the late Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi saw the wisdom in good relations, and if they both were still alive today, it's safe to assume that Pakistan and India would have been like brothers again. Now it's up to you to realize their vision and improve the lives of your people.