« Sen. Shelby: Let GM file bankruptcy so the Chinese Communists can buy them | Richardxx's Blog | As difficult as it is to believe, I essentially accept Liddy's explanation »
The India - Pakistani rapprochement is even more important now
Shuja Nawaz
writes in the Washington Post that the Mumbai terror attack appears to
be likely to derail the recent moves towards a rapprochement between
the governments of India and Pakistan. A number of other news reports
echo this. But is this apparent common wisdom in the press accurate?
Pakistan has a new government in place since last April, and the terrorists in Pakistan have been attacking there also. Most noticeable was the recent bombing of the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad in September. Both Pakistan and India have suffered numerous smaller terrorist attacks in recent years.
Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare. It is being used by Political practioners of Islamism to take down both the governments of Pakistan and India.
The first function of every government is to provide social stability. It is this function of providing a stable society that terrorists use to attack and delegitimize the existing government. The purpose of the terrorism is to weaken the government to the extent that it is forced to accommodate the otherwise unacceptable demands of the terrorists and possibly even to allow the terrorists to take the government over.
The governments of both Pakistan and India are under direct, violent attack by an alliance of terrorist groups often working together. Such attacks do not always delegitimize a government. Sometimes attacks like that in Mumbai and the earlier one on the Marriot in Islamabad can strengthen a government as people and organizations which otherwise would be competing with each other rally around the government to protect the nation. The single greatest failure of the Bush administration was to squander the opportunity to rally all Americans and much of the world around the American government after 9/11.
The attack on Mumbai is very probably an effort to derail the recent efforts of both the Pakistani and the Indian governments to reach a rapprochement. The Mumbai terrorists appear to have started their attack from Karachi, Pakistan, hijacked a boat, and come into Mumbai from the sea. The Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)has elements which have supported terrorist organizations which attacked India trying to dislodge Indian control of the disputed Indian state of Kashmir. Similar ISI elements appear to be supporting the Taliban in their efforts to retake control of Afghanistan. Pakistan's government clearly does not control all the territory that is generally internationally agreed to be part of Pakistan, nor does it control all the elements of the government itself. It is exactly the type of poorly controlled nation and unstable government most susceptible to the pressures that the terrorists are applying.
The current President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has been trying to gain greater control over the ISI and remove it ant the military from active politics since becoming President in April. He recently disbanded the political wing of the ISI which is reported to have spied on Pakistani politicians in order to intimidate them and rigged national elections. This follows his earlier failed attempt to place the entire ISI under the control of the Minister of Interior instead of under the control of the military.
Zardari's recent efforts to reach a rapprochement with the India government may be in part an effort to lower tensions between the two nations so that the Pakistani people will feel less need for the Army to take over the government again as it has numerous times in Pakistan's 60 year history. If tensions with India are lowered, then Zardari has a better chance to take control of the uncontrolled parts of Pakistan like North and South Waziristan, provinces in which the indigenous people are supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda.
It would be no surprise to learn that the Mumbai terrorist attack was a push-back against Zardari's efforts to rein in the Pakistani military and the ISI.
If that's the case, then the government of India needs to help strengthen Zardari's government by not threatening Pakistan and instead working towards the rapprochement. Threatening Pakistan will have the perverse effect of strengthening the Pakistani military and weakening the civilian government. It is the general weakness of the Pakistani government which is the greatest threat to both India and Afghanistan.
Both the governments of India and Pakistan need to highlight their shared need to defeat the terrorist attacks by the groups which have been attacking them. By showing that they are fighting a shared enemy, they can take advantage of the "rally around the attacked government" effect.
By showing their respective publics that each government is under attack and is asking the help of the other to help defend itself from attackers based in the other's territory, it will become more difficult for the terrorist groups to appeal to the people with a claim that their respective government is being propped up as a puppet by an outside government. It is this appearance of being an outside government propping up an unpopular local government that will be the greatest restraint on any U.S. involvement in the rapprochement between those two nations. No government today wants to appear to be a puppet government supported by the U.S.
This looks like a useful strategy for strengthening the existing governments in South Asia and making them more resistant to the kind of terror attacks that have recently occurred in both Mumbai and in Islamabad. Neither nation can accept that the other is providing a place to launch terrorist attacks on it, either with or without government support. An effective rapprochement between the two governments can give both of them assurance that the other government is not directly supporting attacks, while the strengthening of both governments so that they are able to minimize rogue elements and control their territory will allow the each government to have greater trust in other. The overall result will be to bring about the stability that is always the first function of government.
The Mumbai terror attack, likely intended to drive a wedge between the governments of India and Pakistan to weaken them both, could have the perverse effect of drawing the two national governments closer together and strengthening them both. But as Bush's total failure to use the world-wide desire to help America after 9/11 clearly demonstrates, the direction public opinion takes depends a lot on how the governments of Pakistan and India act.
Pakistan has a new government in place since last April, and the terrorists in Pakistan have been attacking there also. Most noticeable was the recent bombing of the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad in September. Both Pakistan and India have suffered numerous smaller terrorist attacks in recent years.
Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare. It is being used by Political practioners of Islamism to take down both the governments of Pakistan and India.
The first function of every government is to provide social stability. It is this function of providing a stable society that terrorists use to attack and delegitimize the existing government. The purpose of the terrorism is to weaken the government to the extent that it is forced to accommodate the otherwise unacceptable demands of the terrorists and possibly even to allow the terrorists to take the government over.
The governments of both Pakistan and India are under direct, violent attack by an alliance of terrorist groups often working together. Such attacks do not always delegitimize a government. Sometimes attacks like that in Mumbai and the earlier one on the Marriot in Islamabad can strengthen a government as people and organizations which otherwise would be competing with each other rally around the government to protect the nation. The single greatest failure of the Bush administration was to squander the opportunity to rally all Americans and much of the world around the American government after 9/11.
The attack on Mumbai is very probably an effort to derail the recent efforts of both the Pakistani and the Indian governments to reach a rapprochement. The Mumbai terrorists appear to have started their attack from Karachi, Pakistan, hijacked a boat, and come into Mumbai from the sea. The Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)has elements which have supported terrorist organizations which attacked India trying to dislodge Indian control of the disputed Indian state of Kashmir. Similar ISI elements appear to be supporting the Taliban in their efforts to retake control of Afghanistan. Pakistan's government clearly does not control all the territory that is generally internationally agreed to be part of Pakistan, nor does it control all the elements of the government itself. It is exactly the type of poorly controlled nation and unstable government most susceptible to the pressures that the terrorists are applying.
The current President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has been trying to gain greater control over the ISI and remove it ant the military from active politics since becoming President in April. He recently disbanded the political wing of the ISI which is reported to have spied on Pakistani politicians in order to intimidate them and rigged national elections. This follows his earlier failed attempt to place the entire ISI under the control of the Minister of Interior instead of under the control of the military.
Zardari's recent efforts to reach a rapprochement with the India government may be in part an effort to lower tensions between the two nations so that the Pakistani people will feel less need for the Army to take over the government again as it has numerous times in Pakistan's 60 year history. If tensions with India are lowered, then Zardari has a better chance to take control of the uncontrolled parts of Pakistan like North and South Waziristan, provinces in which the indigenous people are supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda.
It would be no surprise to learn that the Mumbai terrorist attack was a push-back against Zardari's efforts to rein in the Pakistani military and the ISI.
If that's the case, then the government of India needs to help strengthen Zardari's government by not threatening Pakistan and instead working towards the rapprochement. Threatening Pakistan will have the perverse effect of strengthening the Pakistani military and weakening the civilian government. It is the general weakness of the Pakistani government which is the greatest threat to both India and Afghanistan.
Both the governments of India and Pakistan need to highlight their shared need to defeat the terrorist attacks by the groups which have been attacking them. By showing that they are fighting a shared enemy, they can take advantage of the "rally around the attacked government" effect.
By showing their respective publics that each government is under attack and is asking the help of the other to help defend itself from attackers based in the other's territory, it will become more difficult for the terrorist groups to appeal to the people with a claim that their respective government is being propped up as a puppet by an outside government. It is this appearance of being an outside government propping up an unpopular local government that will be the greatest restraint on any U.S. involvement in the rapprochement between those two nations. No government today wants to appear to be a puppet government supported by the U.S.
This looks like a useful strategy for strengthening the existing governments in South Asia and making them more resistant to the kind of terror attacks that have recently occurred in both Mumbai and in Islamabad. Neither nation can accept that the other is providing a place to launch terrorist attacks on it, either with or without government support. An effective rapprochement between the two governments can give both of them assurance that the other government is not directly supporting attacks, while the strengthening of both governments so that they are able to minimize rogue elements and control their territory will allow the each government to have greater trust in other. The overall result will be to bring about the stability that is always the first function of government.
The Mumbai terror attack, likely intended to drive a wedge between the governments of India and Pakistan to weaken them both, could have the perverse effect of drawing the two national governments closer together and strengthening them both. But as Bush's total failure to use the world-wide desire to help America after 9/11 clearly demonstrates, the direction public opinion takes depends a lot on how the governments of Pakistan and India act.
Advertisement
I wanted to say "thanks" for a very informative and useful post - I was right in the midst of writing a paper for my POLS 240 International Relations class, in which I argued that nations err in responding to international terrorism attacks from a realist framework (as you pointed out referring to the failed Bush admin response to 9/11).
I contended in my paper, as you did in your post, that we would be much better off responding from a liberalist/constructivist perspective, seeking the cooperation of all civilized nations and in the process helping to reinforce normative international law enforcement institutions such as the International Criminal Court and Interpol. Too bad our leaders see the need to CYA by not joining the community of nations in ratifying the ICC Rome Statute.
November 30, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind words. You are obviously more familiar with the literature than I am.
One thing I learned in my organization theory studies is that when an organization is intended to deal with a given problem is must be at least as large as the problem itself. Otherwise it cannot control the entire problem.
Thus, if you have to deal with macro economic level problems, the only organization large enough to deal with them within any country is the national government. International problems require an international organization, which is why it has taken the WHO to nearly wipe out small pox and to minimize most polio.
Terrorism and drug traffic both involve interconnected networks of organizations that span across national borders. Dealing with them requires equivalent cross-border operations by law enforcement or military organizations. As the drug wars have proven, merely coordinating national law enforcement agencies as Interpol does simply does not keep up with the constantly morphing drug networks.
The military has greater capability to perform cross-border operations, but doesn't have the skills and equipment to conduct the necessary "community policing" type operations that police organizations do.
Pakistan, unfortunately, does not have the central government that is able to control all of the Pakistani territory or even all its own government operators. That nation was assembled out of at least four different language groups and many tribes, some of which remain at loggerheads with many others.
The name "Pakistan" is reputedly an acronym of the name as an acronym created in 1933 by Cambridge student and Muslim nationalist Choudhary Rahmat Ali out of the different states/homelands/regions which make up the nation. The letters are: P=Punjab, A=Afghania (Ali's preferred name for the North West Frontier Province), K=Kashmir, S=Sindh and the suffix -stan from Balochistan, thus forming "Pakstan". Pakistan is clearly as fragmented as the origins of the name suggests.
The Pakistani national government needs to be strengthened, because no other nation is going to invade and gain control of over 180 million people. Look at what happened to the U.S. when it tried to do that to a nation of merely 25 million, Iraq.
The Bush administration tried to go it alone, and found themselves overwhelmed by the task. The network of terror organizations is clearly too large for any one nation to deal with by itself.
This is a problem for the central governments to deal with in concert, perhaps even creating an international terrorism police force to deal with the terrorist networks.
The pushback on that international police force is, of course, that it looks an awful lot like the basis for a world government. Particularly if the solutions to terror networks begin to include strengthening weaker national governments so that they can control within their own boundaries. But whatever the solution is, as you say the "realist framework" is a prescription for disaster, leading to strengthening the terrorist groups and networks while weakening many of the most afflicted nations.
December 2, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink