US PURSUING ITS AF-PAK POLICY CLEVERLY – GETS INDIA TO YIELD TO PAKISTAN

The recent joint statement issued by India and Pakistan, following the meeting between the Prime Ministers of the two nations on the sidelines of NAM Summit at Sharm El-Sheikh seems to indicate that the bickering greedy loser Indians have once again been humbled by the shrewd Pakistanis.

The joint statement sees some departures in both Indian and Pakistani positions in that there is no reference to Jammu and Kashmir in the statement but both countries have agreed to discuss outstanding issues.

There is nothing in non-mention of Kashmir for the Indians to gloat about because Pakistan got a significant victory by getting to include a reference to threats in Balochistan which is an oblique reference to allegations by Pakistan of Indian involvement in the region. This reference on Balochistan will prove very disadvantageous for the Indians in the overall diplomatic duel between the two countries.

Within days of the joint statement K-word got mentioned. As Pakistan wanted, Kashmir was mentioned in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement on reaching India. The fact of the matter is that to make its Af-Pak policy more effective, the US is playing all the necessary political games. And, in this process they are getting the ‘pawns’ to do what they want them to do to suit their tactical moves. From US’s point of view this totally makes sense.

As part of all encompassing diplomatic push there was a statement from Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip J Crowley who said "The meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh and the statement between the Indian leader and the Pakistani leader in terms of cooperation on terrorism (is) vitally important to stability in the region."

But what the common Indian must be thinking is: what did or will India get in return from US by playing ball with it in making Pakistan happy. It is important to note that Pakistan wants to extract some pound of flesh as quid pro quo for acting militarily against the Taliban – Pakistan wants US to pressure India to yield on Kashmir issue permanently.

US wanted to throw some crumbs in Pakistan’s way and they got the Indian suckers to drop their pants to the Pakistanis. US would think that this will help them in pushing the rogue Pakistanis further in their (Pak’s) overt military action against the Taliban. May be it will, may be not, because the schmuck Pakistanis have proven time and again shrewder than the Americans in the Af-Pak geo-political theatre.

If US thought that they can get the Pakistanis to completely crush the Taliban in NWFP and FAP, they would be foolishly mistaken. Pakistan will NEVER EVER destroy the chess piece that gives them THE leverage vis-à-vis USA. When the other day in an interview with CNN correspondent the former ISI chief of Pakistan said that they (Pakistan) can mediate between US and Mullah Omar, it was immediately clear that the rogue Pakistanis had another important card up their sleeve.

Pakistanis know that without their support the US and the ISAF can achieve nothing in Afghanistan and this IS their biggest trump card. And, US with all their vaunted intelligence network and military might will not able to make any friggin’ damage to the Taliban network unless their schmuck bootlicking poodle Pakistan provides necessary support.

Well, to do some ego massage of the ever obliging stupid Indians, Hillary Clinton has visited India first but this visit is just a window dressing. The main substantive portion of the Af-Pak policy will be further pushed by Richard Holbrooke visiting India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Brussels in the week of July 20.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is facing disquiet within his own political party, while the opposition parties in Parliament are tearing him to pieces for the perceived ‘disastrous’ joint statement issued at Sharm El-Sheikh. Singh’s foreign minister S.M. Krishna does not seem to have much clue about how foreign policy games are played. He seems to have merely gone by the strategy paper prepared his Foreign Secretary.

It will be interesting to see how the Af-Pak policy of US pans out in the near and longer term. Hopefully, USA will not be lulled in to believing that Pakistan is cooperating sincerely just because of their military action in Swat valley. Pakistanis can never be trusted - even sons don't believe their fathers - that's Pak history. One hopes US will keep the pressure on the rogue Pakistanis to achieve ultimate success against the Al Qaida and the Taliban.

"TEAM OF RIVALS' MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST RECIPE FOR OBAMA

It is interesting to read that people are finding similarities in names of rumoured appointees to President-elect Obama's cabinet and what former President Abraham Lincoln did during his cabinet formation process. Induction of some of Lincoln's rivals in his team has been called "team of rivals".

In Obama's case his Democrat race rival Hillary Clinton's name is doing rounds for Secretary of State's position. In fact, Mr. Obama has already chosen one of his rivals - Democrat nomination race rival Joe Biden - as his running mate.

It seems Mr. Obama derives lots of inspiration from former President Abraham Lincoln and it is possible that he may be thinking seriously about co-opting some of his 'rivals' in his cabinet or for some important position in his administration.

However, one hopes that the similarities between Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln would end at team formation level only.

What I am alluding to is that Dei Gratia there would be no similarity between the two with regard to end of their political careers. Media reports indicate that a certain section of American society is not able to reconcile to Obama's victory for American presidency.

Let me illustrate this point. MSNBC ran a report on Nov 15 titled "Obama election spurs race threats, crimes - From California to Maine, 'hundreds' of incidents reveal racism in America". Two sections of the report particularly caused some unease and concern. One stated - "One (incident) was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: "I hope Obama gets assassinated."

The other stated - "Potok (Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes), who is white, said he believes there is "a large subset of white people in this country who feel that they are losing everything they know, that the country their forefathers built has somehow been stolen from them."

One hopes that Mr. Obama will be provided impregnable protection by the concerned security agencies and he will be able to usher in the 'change' that he wants to bring in the country.

Back to his "team of rivals". Mrs. Clinton for Secy of State is in my opinion not a good strategy for simply the following reasons: Did Senator Clinton really do something notable in foreign policy matters? What is her claim to fame in terms of diplomatic achievement, and what did she do in her career, including when she was First Lady, to justify that she has some special acumen for full-time diplomatic assignment?

Media reports say that John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also are thought to be under consideration for Secy of State position. John Kerry?!! Does he have the necessary rapier-like sharpness and the grasp to justify even shortlisting? In 2008 he appears too dull and out of depth to merit any consideration.

Of all the names, Bill Richardson seems to be the best candidate of them all. He has undertaken 'real' diplomatic assignments; he has good grasp of energy issues too. He seems to be slightly less sharper though than he used to be 8 years ago.

I wonder, is there no one else in whole of US who could be talent scouted for this position, say, someone like Condi Rice? If the eventual appointee has to be from someone who endorsed and/or campaigned for Obama, in that case Richardson seems to be the best bet.

If at all, Mrs. Clinton could be assigned to overhaul the health care system because the campaign rhetoric of both Clinton and Obama on health care issues were almost same. For this assignment any baggage of Bill Clinton will most likely not be an impediment for Hillary - neither during the cabinet nomination process, nor during discharge of her job. To be honest, Bill can be a real nuisance. He is too shrewd to be corralled.

Let us hope Obama's well wishers and able advisers will guide him to zero in on most appropriate choices to fill his cabinet positions. As well, President-elect Obama and his family will be suitably protected from all potential dangers and hazards. The world is waiting with bated breath for Mr. Obama to step in to White House and help usher in changes the world desperately needs.