tdaxp

Robert Paterson thinks all is lost -- we're on the brink checkmated. (Zen has a more balanced summary.)

The cause of this suspicious death of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who suffered bomb blasts and bullets. There's now a riot, possibly martial law, blah blah blah.

My question: Why is anyone surprised this happens in a Muslims country?

Broadly, most of the world "works." Aside from troublesome campesinos near the Andes and racist Pacific Islanders, if you are not in the continuous geographical Gap that stretches from the Cape of Good Hope to frontier of Russia, things are going pretty good for you. The chances of you becoming the victim of a suicide bomber, a mass rape, or good ol' fashioned genocide are remarkably small. Regularly there's really bad news from the Gap, such as a camapign of rape fully understandable by our chimpanzee ancestors or today's assassination of a talkative woman, but really, it doesn't effect our lives.



So, what next?

The Gap is actually composed of two distinct regions, an Islamic Gap in the later stages of civilizational collapse and an African Gap that never progressed far enough to collapse in the first place. We do not know how to pull off large-scale social engineering, but we do know that most of our attempts to do so have failed. So firewalling ourselves off from the Islamic Gap, doing what needs to be done while strictly limiting human migration from the Islamic Gap to the globalized core, is the best policy. Likewise, we should move away from what Muslim allies we have, as seen in American and Chinese movements away from Pakistan and toward India.

The African Gap, by contrast, needs large-scale engagement. A complete lack of inftrascuture means major opportunities -- both for profit and for power -- for those able to impose such an infrastructure.

Perlez, J. (2007). Militant students capture masseuses to make a point." New York Times. June 24, 2007.

If there's anything that illustrates how screwy Pakistan, and for that matter the rest of the Islamic Gap, is, it's this:

“There were about 25 Chinese women, dressed only in underpants and bras,” recalled Ms. Okasha, 24, a muscular high-school badminton champion who had shed her black garb for soft mauves, her face uncovered, during an interview inside the women-only confines of the school. “They scattered, but we managed to grab five.”

Though a concluded paragraph isn't bad, either:

Ms. Hassan, her face absent of makeup but her fingernails and toenails varnished with red, said she was proud of her raiders.

“I said to the students before they went off, ‘The Chinese are masters at karate; you don’t know how to make one kick.’ But they were able to manage.”

And for completeness sake:

His college-age students asked “many times,” he said, about the legitimacy of suicide bombing. Suicide bombing was justifiable against American soldiers. “It depends on the circumstances,” he said. “In a supermarket I will say no. Suicide bombing against American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will say yes, yes. It’s not suicide. It’s a mission, then it’s allowed.”

Two take-aways from this article:



First, it's interesting that the New York Times describes what are obviously prostitutes as "masseuses." The reason is clear: opposition to prostitution should be an intellectual, liberal exercise, and not a goonish one. The Times is clearly embarrassed to be intellectually on the same side as madrassa-studying reactionaries, though this isn't surprising. Both the New York Times and the Islamists prefer prostitution to remain in the informal, depriving many women of a natural capitalization vehicle. Both the the Pakistani extremists and the old liberals of the New York Times share the disdain for market exchange, Hernando de Soto-style capitalization of private wealth, and liberty. Both share a sentimental opposition and a thuggish adoration of enforced virtue.



Secondly, the story highlights the transition of China from the Gap to the Core. China is in the unusual condition that while she is becoming a global leader, she has a large reservoir of very low paid citizens. This means that while the United States, Europe, and Japan find their capital flowing oversees in a process of creative destruction, China finds her people innovatively moving abroad for profits. This creates friction, and while the the typical American "downside" is lost capital, the increasingly typical Chinese "downside" is lost lives.



China and the West share a common interest, not only in energy resources, but in a better administration of the Gap.

A commentator posted a well-thought-out comment in response to a revised discussion of Core India and Gap Pakistan. His comment was long enough, and had enough points deserving response, that I am upgrading my response into this post.

Mark, thank you for your excellent comment. It really adds to the discussion.

Its fashionable to say that pakistan is an about to fail state in indian and jewish/zionist circles.

I'm sure, though I am neither Indian nor Jewish --nor do I know how the existence of Pakistan in South Asia threaten the integrity of Israel. I think it may be closer to say that talk of the failures of Pakistan is fashionable among those who enjoy news.

It is very true that the international boundaries in south asia are imaginary. Why because they were drawn by the British when they were in a hurry to leave the subcontinent and were not interested in what heppens next.

Besides saying that the British left before any Pakistani nation could be built, does this say anything? Certainly, the same failure is true throughout much of Africa, but Britain was ousted from the United States, and essentially forced out of South Africa, and in both places those states have real borders.

Blaming Britain for Pakistan's failures might explain Pakistan's failures, but does not turn those failures into successes.

Pakistan has been able to defy all predictions about its failed status and lumbar on for 60 years.

Well, not really. If one had predicted that Pakisatn would conduct a genocide against an ethnic minority, one would have been correct. If one would have predicted that as a consequence of that Pakistan would be split in two, one would have been right. If one would have guessed that Pakistan's abandonment of public education would have created a radicalized and violent populace, one would have been correct. If one would have predicted that Pakistan would lose every war against India, and be forced out of the North-West Frontier, one would have been correct. If one would have predicted that Pakistan's search for "strategic depth" in Afghanistan would result in a hostile, anti-Pakistan government in Afghanistan, one would have been correct.

It is very nice to say that Pakistan will break up, but will it? I dont think so.
Why? because the people in pakistan are united in their misery and depriviation.

Did this prevent the split between Pakistan and Bangadesh? Or are you suggesting that the Pakistani government would use nuclear weapons against its own citizenry?

There is a single rallying point in the whole of Pakitan and that is their religion.

Perhaps, but a similar Islamic fervor did not prevent mass violent in Afghanistan, betweens groups of fundementalist Sunni Muslims.

Add to the quagmire the interest Chinese are taking in this neo-great game of the sub-continent, and the things take a whole different shape.

Well, not really. Pakistan was a client of both China and the United States throughout the late Cold War, because of India's work with the Soviet Union. However since then Russia has retreated from strategic projection, and the United States

Once again the big nations of the world are playing each other in the mountains and valleys of the greatest playing field of the world.

I like Ahmad Rashid as well. Taliban and Jihad are good books on power-politics in Central Asia. It's a good lesson about how countries act in a part of the world they don't really care about.

In the meantime to think that Pakistan will implode and fall under its own weight is dreaming of the most wishful kind. Pakistan will not break without a war with an external aggressor (read india). But with economic growth raising the stakes of losses I doubt that it will ever happen in the near or far future.

A more likely future of Pakistan is that of a large ghetto, like so many African and other failed states.

So dream on untill you wake to the reality

If you enjoy dream-quests...

A "near abroad"is an area outside of a country which that country claims as her own. One example of a near abroad is the western hemisphere, which the United States (through the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary) has protected for ages. Other "near abroads" are simply parodies of the concept. Russia (through the old Soviet Empire) and China (with her nemesis, the democratic state of Taiwan) pretend they are able to control areas which they are too weak too.

Recently, some ultranationalist statements have hinted that many citizens of India also wish their country to have a near abroad.

"India Quietly Welcomes U.S. Decision to Sell Arms to Both South Asian Nuclear Rivals," NTI, 29 March 2005, http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/print.asp?story_id=732AE955-80D2-4B11-ACD2-F1B05AFA24A5 (from Dawn's Early Light).

Dawn's Early Light's Bill Rice was kind enough to email me a startling article. It looks like DEL's improbable suggestion, that the sale of F-16s to Pakistan is a sign of improving ties to India, is right after all

Indian officials have publicly said only that they would consider the U.S. offer, but, 'Even India, with a long tradition of making foreign policy self-goals, will find it hard to say ‘no’ to the extraordinary offer the Bush administration has put on the table — a promise to assist it in becoming a world power in return for resumption of arms sales to Pakistan,' said longtime South Asian commentator C. Raja Mohan.

Mohan expressed doubt that India was genuinely concerned about seeing more F-16s in Pakistan.

'Today, no one in India can credibly argue that additional F-16s in Pakistan’s hands will alter the military balance in South Asia,' he said.

India has already acquired more-advanced Su-30 combat aircraft from Russia and is shopping for additional aircraft from other countries as well, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse I).

Huh. I wasn't that optimistic. Or that observant. Congrats Bill.

My only issue is with Bill Rice's closing paragraph

While the article quotes an analyst and not a government official, I think it lends support to the DEL prediction that Secretary Rice cut a deal with the Indian government on her last trip that was too good to pass up, and that the F-16 deal with Pakistan is part of the overall US plan. If India does buy US aircraft, whether it is F-16s, F-18s or a combination of both, it will be a sign that the US has struck an alliance with India to contain China.

Who are we allied with to contain Japan? To contain Britain?

China's opening-up is transforming. If it goes well, war between Washington and Beijing will be as unthinkable as war between Paris and Berlin. Already it is as unthinkable as such a war was in 1910.

We must hedge and deter. But we do not "contain."

"China pitching for FTA with India," Financial Express, 25 March 2005, http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=86137 (from The Acorn).

"US gives Pak F-16s, India gets F-16s plus plus," by C Raja Mohan and Pranab Dhal Samanta, Indian Express, 25 March 2005, http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=67213 (from The Acorn).

"Behind the Bugti frontlines," by Sherry Rehman, The News, 26 March 2005, http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2005-daily/26-03-2005/main/main7.htm (from The Acorn).

India is Functioning, Pakistan is Non-Integrating. Again and again, New Delhi seeks to grow the world economy and create a global security regime. Again and again, Pakistan proves it is a failing state.

As India and America grow their security ties stratospherically

On missile defence, the classified briefing given to India by a Pentagon team last month was on the PAC 2 Plus system. This takes care of integration with radar systems being developed now by Raytheon. Such a briefing has only been given to Israel outside the NATO.

The Bush Administration is also proposing a major change in its non-proliferation policy towards India by offering cooperation in the area of commercial atomic energy generation—including nuclear reactor technology—for the first time in three decades.

This comes days after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice—she spoke to External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh in Myanmar today—had revealed a package of proposals aimed at addressing India’s security and energy needs.

Having opposed the natural gas pipeline with Iran, the Bush Administration believes it has an obligation to offer alternative options to India. It is in this context that Washington is proposing nuclear energy cooperation.

The Bush Administration is expected to shortly take up the possibility of such cooperation with the US Congress that has put in legislative constraints on the transfer of nuclear energy technology.

To top it all, the Bush Administration wants a dialogue on global issues with India aimed at increasing New Delhi’s role in international institutions such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and Group of Eight industrial countries.

And India ponders a free trade agreement with that other rising state, China

China is pushing for a free trade agreement (FTA) with India which, it claims, would result in the biggest free trade region in the world.

Speaking to media persons at a round table on trade with China organised by the Federation of Indian Export Organisation, Chinese Ambassador to India Sun Yuxi said that while the Chinese government supported the proposed FTA, the business community and experts needed to have detailed discussions on the issue.

Referring to the recent meeting of the joint study group (JSG) on closer economic co-operation between India and China in New Delhi, Mr Yuxi said the Chinese representatives in the group had advocated the need to go in for an FTA between the two countries. “It is now for the Indian side to take a decision on the issue,” he said.

(In other words, while India is growing its web of security and trade connectivity.)



Pakistan falls apart

Balochistan’s geo-strategic location has put it squarely back in the new great game for energy and shipping lines, and the colonial administrative structures left intact there since the 19th century feed into the ambiguity about state law that such tribal societies experience. Vital parts of the huge province are in the grip of an open civil war, administered under three crumbling legal systems, but the tragedy is that Islamabad is still sleeping, almost a hundred years removed from the reality of the backwater that could break away Pakistan’s long under-populated flank.

...

As it stands, the military logic is as follows: if even a proportion of all 6,000 FC personnel stationed in Balochistan are transferred to Dera Bugti, to supplement the 600 odd men the FC has posted in Dera right now, they will of course win more than a pitched battle with the outnumbered Bugtis. What the military is finding hard to grasp is that they will still lose the war. Basically, the way the terrain is configured, it is almost impossible to win a final battle against hardened tribals that know the landscape, its secret gulleys, its dips and peaks. Anybody, who has followed the tortuous history of the Afghan resistance against the Soviets can see the parallels between the Salang highway bottlenecks and the negotiating power of the warlords, who routinely bartered their control of the supply route for political and fiscal exchanges. The only difference here is that the Baloch field commanders cannot be broken by cash and compromise, so they remain committed to their political objectives, and in this case they are engaged in battle against their own government, not a foreign power.

A post at Dawn's Early Light is hosting an emerging discussion on America's planned arms sale to Pakistan. Pakistan, a truly terrible country, has its army working under rules of engagement that allows it to kill Americans. South Dakota's own Larry Pressler condemned the sale earlier. In this blog, DEL's Bill wrote:

The US agreement to sell F-16s to Pakistan is the opening public gambit in the US bid to strengthen Indian-US relations. I know this sounds completely backwards, but if you would indulge my argument I think you may find it interesting (http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/del_makes_a_...)

Counting an update, there are already three comments. My first thoughts:

1. Nitin is right that the China-Pakistan angle is important, but he misunderstands it. PRC-IRP-USA have an old working-alliance going back to Nixon. During the closing decades of the cold war the three worked together to check Soviet power. Nor is America overly concerned about Chinese acquiring technology -- Israel regularly works with China as an American proxy. I think Bush's care for Pakistan relates to this, and particularly the concern that if America abandons Pakistan it will reinforce a Beijing-Islamabad axis.



2. Robert is right that Rice is courting regional powers. But this was Powell's aim too, and he was very successful at it. Under GWB America never had better relationships with Russia, India, China, or Japan. It's this tradition which makes the Pakistan sale otherwise puzzling.



3. We have to be careful with talk of "containment." Bush is clearly trying to create a sustainable balance to China. But China is emerging as a force for good. Hedging our bets is not containment.



4. Bush's generally pro-democracy push also makes the sale strange. Pakistan is a terrible country, combining North Korean proliferation with Saudi repression with BS Saudi-style diplomacy. If America would be able to secure nuclear installations an Islamist government would be a step up from Musharraf.

Go there now.

Update Asia by Blog's Simon agrees with me. Imagine if Cicero came down and shouted, "Mad props on your whack statesmanship." That's what this is like for me.

I'm with Dan. The first assumption that needs addressing is whether China is a competitor or a potential ally. It's early days but the latter is more likely, especially given the closer economic ties betweent the two. Next is dealing with "rising India" - in that you're right that Rice is playing the next decade's game. Also China and India recognise each other's rise and our currently undergoing a rapid rapproachment over such issues as the border and Tibet. It's not about containment, it's about strategic balance.

"Dissing Democracy in Asia," by Larry Pressler, New York Times, 21 March 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/opinion/21pressler.html?oref=login (from Dirty Flower).

My former Senator Larry Pressler opposes arming failing thugocracies

ONE big story from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to South Asia was that once again Washington's policymakers are trying to send F-16 jet fighters to Pakistan. This is like a broken record - the argument has come up repeatedly since 1990, when an amendment I wrote quashed a deal involving 28 of the planes - but unfortunately this time the sale may well happen.

Pakistan is a declared ally in the fight against terrorism, and thus we give it huge amounts of military aid. But F-16's have nothing to do with fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So what is really going on here? The answer is entwined in two decades of misguided United States policy toward India and Pakistan.

Pressler then suggests an alliance with a propsering democracy

The truth is, we should have a robust pro-India stance. India is a democracy with a free market and a highly developed system of human rights. It could become our major bulwark against China in East Asia. It also has a large Muslim minority and, generally speaking, is an example of tolerance. And we have a mutually beneficial trade relationship with India that is helping us keep our technological edge. (Disclosure: I am on the board of Infosys Technologies, an Indian software company.)

Did I mention that Pakistan was a failing thugocracy?

Pakistan, on the other hand, is a corrupt, absolute dictatorship. It has a horrendous record on human rights and religious tolerance, and it has been found again and again to be selling nuclear materials to our worst enemies. It claims to be helping us to fight terrorism, although many intelligence experts have suggested that most of our money actually goes to strengthening the rule of Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Even from a long-time Pakophobe...

From the late 1970's to the mid-1990's, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I repeatedly warned that Pakistan was selling nuclear materials to other nations. Administrations, both Democratic and Republican, turned a blind eye; they even got leaders of our intelligence community to say that I didn't know what I was talking about. Well, everything I said has been proved absolutely true - to an even more worrisome degree than I had described.

(The claim isn't bogus -- it is mentioned in both American Soldier and Charlie Wilson's War).

... the words ring true.

So why are we bothering to help our enemy Pakistan?

• US Subcontinental policy is on autopilot.
  
• We don't want the Indians taking over the whole world
  
• Bush rewards friends, always
  
• We don't want to abandon Islamabad, turning the US-Pakistan-China alliance to become a Pakistan-China alliance
  

The latter two seem most likely.

Update: The Acorn picks up the story.

"Iran Was Offered Nuclear Parts," by Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&u=/washpost/20050227/ts_washpost/a56391_2005feb26&printer=1, 27 February 2005 (from Roth Report).

International investigators have uncovered evidence of a secret meeting 18 years ago between Iranian officials and associates of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan that resulted in a written offer to supply Tehran with the makings of a nuclear weapons program, foreign diplomats and U.S. officials familiar with the new findings said.

The meeting, believed to have taken place in a dusty Dubai office in 1987, kick-started Tehran's nuclear efforts and Khan's black market. Iran, which was at war with Iraq then, bought centrifuge designs and a starter kit for uranium enrichment. But Tehran recently told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it turned down the chance to buy the more sensitive equipment required for building the core of a bomb.

There is evidence, however, that Iran used the offer as a buyer's guide, acquiring some of the pricier items elsewhere, officials said.

Pakistani "hero" AQ Khan remains protected by the Pakistani government. Because we are not allowed to talk to him, we don't know who else he helped spread WMD tech too besides Tehran, Tripoli, and Pyongyang. Or if he even "acting alone."

The irony, of course, is that we have much more to fear from "friend" Pakistan than our "enemy" Iran.

"No foreigners to question disgraced scientist Khan: Pak FM," AFP, http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2005/February/subcontinent_February794.xml§ion=subcontinent&col=, 23 February 2005 (from Roth Report).

More from our ally Pakistan

Pakistan will not let any foreigners question Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the country’s nuclear bomb who has admitted leaking secrets to states including North Korea, Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri said on Wednesday. “We have refused direct interrogations by anyone. The reason is national sensitivity,” Kasuri told a press conference at the end of a three-day visit to Tokyo.

Kasuri said Pakistan had acted against Khan even though the Pakistani opposition had accused the government of “succumbing to international pressure” against the local hero.

Hopefully, this is worthless isolationist BS, and we are secretly questioning him.

More likely, they're serious.