“Modi must seize SAARC potential as a ‘regional’ leader

The media did a wonderful job of covering Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s lavish oath taking ceremony, the formation of his cabinet and of course his first meeting with the Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif who might have ruffled some feathers in the Pakistani Army and I-S-I by agreeing to visit New Delhi and attend the oath taking ceremony.

The Modi-Sharif meeting on day-one of Modi’s five year term was significant because both leaders have a clear mandate. Knowing Modi’s work style, it is obvious that most of the foreign policy initiatives will come from the PMO, and in that regard the meeting will prove useful even though it lasted just for forty minutes and nothing solid came out of it. There was nothing new except that Sharif did not mention Kashmir even once and did not have a meeting with the Hurriyat leaders, which had been a must for any Pakistani leader’s visit to New Delhi.

But the media in general, except for CNN-IBN and a few newspapers, forgot that Sharif was just one of the eight SAARC leaders who met Modi and his meetings with them were also significant, especially for Modi if he wants to prove that he can be a great regional leader like Atal Behari Vajpayee.  It is true that better relations between India and Pakistan are also crucial for SAARC’s success. But I, forone, also expected the media to underline how a successful SAARC can turn the region into a powerful and self-reliant economic entity with a possibility of significant exports to other countries.  Modi’s extended hand of friendship to all SAARC countries is a welcome step and kindles hope that may be he really understands the economic and commercial potential of the region if there is peace and all members genuinely cooperate with each other.

I, for one, believe that there is an urgent need for genuine cooperation in South Asia where countries of the region could start depending on each other for those crucial products which they now import from the West. This way they will pay lower freights and at the same time contribute to the economic growth of the region. If this kind of pragmatism spreads in the region, the region, given its potential, can become a bigger market than China or say the whole of Europe and can also become self-reliant in a number of products and services that they now import from the West. And the West knows that, and may be that is why it does not encourage such logical moves that may not serve their self-interest. India and Pakistan together can expand their cooperation and set examples for the other SAARC neighbors in the region.

In fact, every SAARC country has something it can share with the others for which they have to go outside the region to import. Just consider: rubber production in Sri Lanka, natural gas in Bangladesh and, with all its waterfalls, Nepal’s capacity to produce hydroelectricity.

Let us take Sri Lanka first. It produces almost 150,000 tons of rubber annually. This trend continues with Sri Lanka exporting about 20 per cent – 30 per cent of the rubber production in raw form while 70 per cent-80 per cent is used by domestic industries. So, given the quantity and quality of the rubber produced in Sri Lanka, they can even produce more quality tires than the total demand of the South Asian countries and then even export some. So if its tire industry gets a boost from SAARC, or just India, it can produce enough tires itself and for the whole region. Then countries like India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh will not have to import tires from Western countries. They will also have to spend less on freight due to the proximity of the supplier.

Bangladesh is among the fortunate to have huge volumes of natural gas resources, even though only part of the resources are discovered, and then only a part of the discovered resources has been proven. But unfortunately the natural gas situation in Bangladesh is in a desperate situation because it is letting its gas fields to hibernate. And to stop hibernation, it needs swift development and production of natural gas. SAARC countries – that include Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka – can help Bangladesh do it and at the same time produce fertilizers and also power in some sectors. Such a pragmatic move can help Bangladesh in producing power and also fertilizer to meet the demand of the whole region, eliminating the need for importing fertilizers from the West by India, the biggest importer in the region.

Power is also in shortage in Nepal although it has a huge hydropower potential. In fact, the perennial nature of Nepalese rivers and the steepness of the country’s topography provide ideal conditions for the development of some of the world’s largest hydroelectric projects there. According to some estimates, Nepal’s hydropower potential is more than 40,000MWs, but out of that only 1000 MWs have been developed so far. SAARC countries, especially India, can also help Nepal generate enough hydroelectricity for domestic consumption and then also for export to neighbouring countries like Pakistan and India.

In Afghanistan, it is estimated that deposits of metals, hydrocarbons and rare earth minerals could be worth at least one trillion US dollars. It has all the ingredients to make cement in huge volumes that will be good for the whole region. China is already working on increasing its footprint there, once the security situation improves. SAARC countries, especially India can also play a big role there if there is a genuine cooperation between India and Pakistan, without any unfounded suspicions and fears.

So, the Indian media should impress upon Modi, who wants to become a regional leader like Vajpayee, that he must seize the opportunity and try to foster real cooperation among the SAARC nations so that they can prosper themselves and in the process make South Asia a self-reliant region, perhaps to the envy of China and the West.

My contention is that if Modi believes he can be a regional leader, he should start behaving like one at the very outset.

A new word for Chinese diplomacy — ‘duplimacy’?

"China wants to develop long-term friendship and cooperation with India." So said the Chinese official who held border talks with Indian officials this week. He also predicted a "golden period for India-China relations" in the near future.

What he did not say, but sceptics like me heard him say between the lines, is that all this is possible only if it is done on China's terms.

What we heard between the lines is never uttered by China, but only demonstrated by its actions. So the real dichotomy lies between what China "says" and what China "does".

Just days before Chinese State Councillor Dai Bingguo's statement, the Chinese government had already shown that China will never budge from its policy towards the border issue. The Chinese government denied visa to an Indian Air Force officer who was to go as a member of the Indian military delegation to China on the ground that he was from Arunachal Pradesh, the Indian state claimed by China. This led to India scaling down its delegation from the original 30 members to 15.
At one point China even took a subtle step to show that it can, if it wants, consider Kashmiris, not as Indian citizens, but citizens of "Kashmir" by not stamping the visa on their Indian passports but issuing it on a separate paper.
These kind of moves by China are not limited only towards India. This is the underlying character of their dubious diplomacy, or shall we call it Chinese "duplimacy".
Last year, even Washington had to face Chinese "duplimacy". Just hours before then US Defence Secretary Robert Gates arrived in Beijing to improve military ties between the two powers, the Chinese military engaged in an unusual show of force by staging the test flight of their top secret new stealth fighter jet J-20. That was China's action. The words from China came later when President Hu Jintao and other civilian leaders gave Gates the impression that they were unaware of the test.

Some China experts feel that China shows this kind of arrogance because its adventures in the past against other nations were not nipped in the bud but were rather tolerated. Since there were no consequences, China keeps on flaunting its power in Asia.

In fact, ever since 1949 when China came under Communist rule, its history has been replete with aggressions.

In the Korean war, China sent in one million troops to defend North Korea against UN coalition forces. Then it attacked and took over an independent Tibetan kingdom. In 1962, China invaded and tried to get control of Indian territory. Seven years later it tried to invade across the Soviet border in the Damanskiy Island area. Then came the war of aggression against Vietnam in 1979.
But if you go by what China says, they are a peaceful nation that has no history of aggression. The fact is that by action they have always been the bully in the area, and their statements have always tried to portray them as a victim.

Anyway, history tells us that Beijing would not hesitate in using military force to secure its territory if the Chinese leaders believed such action is necessary. Most countries have wondered why China was rapidly building up its armed forces without acknowledging it.

The Chinese official who held border talks this week with India also rejected the notion of any rivalry between China and India. Now this is another statement that fits into the mould of China's "duplimacy". What he said can also mean that China considers it so far ahead of India that there isn't any rivalry to speak of. Does China think that India is naïve enough to be lulled into a slumber of complacency and really believe that there is no rivalry?

So may be what the Chinese official really meant was that it can be a "golden period for India-China relations", provided India shuns the rivalry and accepts China as the "daddy" in Asia.
But, apparently, India can never forget how it was bitten by the "Hindi Cheeni bhai bhai" bug in the Nehru era. So it should be twice shy and doubly prepared.

(The writer is a longtime South Asia observer. He has also headed the South Asia Desk in the Voice of America Newsroom in Washington)

Why India should avoid landing in hot waters of Hurmuz

As Iran and the United States move towards a standoff in the Strait of Hurmuz, India is going to find itself in a serious dilemma because of its close relations with both the countries. To use the old Greek mythological term, India will be caught precariously between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis.

The US response to Iran's threat to block the Strait of Hurmuz could be diplomatic or military, but it would spell trouble for India's foreign policy. Why? Because then India will be forced to take sides, which it has brilliantly avoided so far by clubbing together a special foreign policy stance on the ongoing US pressure on Iran about what it sees as its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Considering its close energy and economic relations with Iran and its own nuclear weapon tests, India has so far refused to directly side with the US on its position that Iran must not be allowed to make the nuclear bomb.

India's stated policy has been that Iran is a close friend and has every right to develop nuclear energy but it should not make a nuclear bomb because it has already signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). And when questioned about its own nuclear bomb, India's argument is that it was justified in testing the bomb because New Delhi never signed the treaty.

So far this has proved to be a very smart policy. But now if the Iran/US situation grows suddenly into a stand-off in Hurmuz, then India will be compelled to do something it has avoided - take sides between Iran and the US.

India's relations with the US have never been closer. Especially after the Indo-US nuclear pact that allows India to buy nuclear fuel for its power plants from any member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Club. Considering India's efforts to develop blue water navy, there has also been a lot of discussion in Washington on how it can use India's help in keeping the Ocean lines in South Asia secured and open and also to put an end to the piracy in the Indian Ocean.

So there is no doubt that if push comes to shove in the strait of Hurmuz and the US moves its navy to prevent Iran from closing the international passage, it will need, and definitely ask for, India's help. And that is when India will be in hot waters because that will mean a direct defiance of Iran. And although Iran also needs India badly in Afghanistan, especially after the US troops leave in 2014, its relations with India obviously will be affected adversely if India took a stance against Iran in the Hurmuz crisis.

Besides trade worth billions of US dollars with Iran, New Delhi's relations with Tehran have also been based on shared geopolitical interests and security issues and also on India's latest strategic quest for "energy security" to maintain its more than seven percent growth rate. India has invested heavily in Iran's gas fields in its strategic efforts to control the global oil and gas resources.


Also, following President Barack Obama's decision to wind up the Afghan mission by 2014, India has sought Iran's crucial help in ensuring that its interests in Afghanistan remain unaffected after the US pullout. Iran also has a justifiable interest in Afghanistan being its neighbour and has already made inroads into the Hazara region of Afghanistan.

Obviously, despite the not-so-good relations that currently exist between Iran and Pakistan, Indian strategists are wary of possible Iranian policy shifts towards Pakistan.

So, with so much at stake, officials in New Delhi's South Block should be working overtime to tweak India's foreign policy in a way that it doesn't have to offend either the US or Iran. And only the coming weeks will tell how India emerges from this tight rope walk -- one of the tightest in international relations and regional diplomacy.

(01.01.2012 - Ravi M. Khanna is a Washington-based observer of South Asia. He has headed the South Asia Desk at Voice of America newsroom. He can be reached at ravitheactor@yahoo.com,http://www.ravithenewsmanonline.com)

TV News Writing Made Easy for Newcomers

They say journalism is like swimming. It cannot be learnt by reading text books that explain theories about it sitting at your desk. You have to jump into the pool, in case of swimming and into the field in case of journalism. But in the beginning you must wear a safety device around your waist when you learn how to swim. And in case of journalism, you must carry this practical guide with you, in your mind, when you jump in the field with a camera or a camera-person.
Purchase book- http://southasiabooks.com/tv-news-writing-made-easy-for-newcomers-p-73407.html
http://www.amazon.com.

A last tango between Washington and Islamabad?

By Ravi M. Khanna, IANS,

The tension between Islamabad and Washington is being stretched to the limit. Reports from Washington say US officials are trying to "limit" its counter-terrorism alliance with Pakistan. But this time, it appears, the situation could be more damaging, especially for Islamabad, because its duplicity and denials are being exposed as it possibly dances its last tango with Washington.

This could be serious because the presidential election in the US is less than a year away, and the American people are fatigued and fed up spending trillions of dollars on the Afghan war and on Pakistan at a time when some unemployed families have almost nothing to put on their dinner tables.

According to some surveys, most Americans believe Pakistan should not be given any aid because it has not been honest in its dealings with the US. So Americans do not trust Pakistan. Pakistanis have been blaming the US for all their troubles.

The irony is it was the Afghan situation that brought the two together; again, it is Afghanistan that is driving a wedge between the two so-called allies. What was clear to serious South Asia watchers a decade ago is now becoming clearer to everyone. The US and Pakistan say they are allies, but in fact they are at cross-purposes in Afghanistan.

Former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf decided to join Bush in the war against Al Qaeda after 9/11 because India offered its help to fight terror. Musharraf feared India may use its new rapport with the US to expose Pakistan's covert role in spreading terrorism in Indian Kashmir and elsewhere.

The US was also comfortable in accepting Pakistan's help as it had used it to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union. So Bush had no qualms using Pakistan a frontline state to break the Al Qaeda and Taliban nexus. It was clear to some experts, however, that this alliance was fragile, born out of convenience.

The dichotomy is now loud and clear. The US wants a free and democratic Afghanistan that will help further US foreign policy goals.

But Islamabad fears a democratic Afghanistan will be very close to India. And the only way Pakistan can keep India out of Afghanistan is through the Taliban. Pakistani officials have said they will not let India flank their country from the east and the west.

So, over the last 10 years Pakistan pretended to help the US, but only to the extent where Washington will continue to give economic and military aid to Pakistan. At the same time, Islamabad wanted to make sure that once international forces quit Afghanistan, the Taliban would take over and limit the Indian presence.

That is why it fights the Taliban in Pakistan but avoids US pressure to kill or capture the militants belonging to the Haqqani faction of Taliban creating havoc for US forces in Afghanistan.

So, with their own hidden agendas, Pakistan and the US have been indulging in a tango. It could prove to be the last tango for Islamabad.

Musharraf used Bush as an ATM. Whenever economic or military aid to Pakistan was under discussion in Washington, he freed one or two Al Qaeda leaders. His critics have alleged that he even handed over some innocent Pakistanis as Al Qaeda activists to win American favors.

But Barack Obama, right from the beginning, has refused to tango with the Pakistani military chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Even as the presidential candidate he declared he will not hesitate to bomb Pakistani territory if terrorists take refuge there. Now, with his second term at stake, Obama has to look tougher than even before.

(27.12.2011 - Ravi M. Khanna is a Washington-based observer of South Asia. He has headed the South Asia Desk at Voice of America newsroom. He can be reached at http://ravithenewsmanonline.com,ravitheactor@yahoo.com)