Category: In News

Move over US , Pak is now China’s frontline state

Move over US

Pak is now China’s frontline state

By H K Dua

Geography has always been a cause of Afghanistan’s troubles. Other countries have used its position on the map to their advantage, played games, great and not so great, along its mountainous terrain.

The British and the Russians were engaged in wars in Afghanistan nearly two centuries ago. The Soviet Union invaded it in 1979 only to be defeated by the Mujahideens backed by the United States. Moscow paid the price for its occupation in the collapse of its economy and of the Soviet regime.

In the post 9/11 situation, the US chose to fight the Taliban to destroy Al-Qaida’s sanctuaries in Afghanistan. American troops were there for 13 long years before deciding to go back, suffering from acute battle fatigue and without winning any major goal. Nearly 150,000 lives had been lost in the 13 years of the latest edition of the Afghan war.

Practically, the US has by now withdrawn most of its troops from Afghanistan leaving behind a token presence of 9800 troops and a stack of drones to guard its residual interests.

While Afghanistan has been a victim of its geography, Pakistan, on the other hand, has been a gainer because of its location. For Pakistan its location on the map became a sort of an ATM which it could always draw on. Rather than building the nation, it fell for easy ways, like a good rentier. Pakistan has been the United States’ frontline state for years.

Now when the US has pulled out most of its troops, Pakistan, as is its wont, has again become a frontline state —- this time of none else than its all-weather friend, China.

To keep it in good humour, Beijing has been giving Pakistan nuclear technology, missiles, submarines, military aircraft and critical weaponry. All-weather friend has become a brother in arms now and Pakistan a frontline ally across the Korakorum range.

The US pull-out from Afghanistan has created a sort of vacuum in Afghanistan, which the Chinese have been watching with interest.

The Chinese are practioners of hard geopolitics and never like to miss an opportunity to advance their interests.

Actually it is Pakistan, which has been eyeing the vacuum left by the US pull-out in Kabul with greedy eyes. What better opportunity for it now than to create a situation when a pro-Pakistan Taliban group can come to acquire a share of power in Kabul! In any case, Islamabad has an old self-proclaimed doctrine of strategic depth, which it wants to invoke in Afghanistan and install a regime convenient for its future needs.

Lately, it has not been using the term strategic depth, but the essence of its policy remains intact. It is not without reason Pakistan continues to provide hospitality to Mullah Omar and the Quetta Shura and the support to Haqqani group and some other Taliban.

The links it has been sustaining with different factions of the Taliban have been useful for Pakistan to strike better bargain with the US which has been wanting safe withdrawal from Afghanistan. While Hamid Karzai’s government was trying to negotiate directly with the Taliban, his successor President Ashraf Ghani is more dependent on Pakistan for dealing with the Taliban and stabilising the situation in Afghanistan. No wonder, Ashraf Ghani has even gone in for an agreement between Pakistan’s ISI and Afghan security agency, ignoring his own security chief’s boycott of the signing ceremony. This is no mean gain for Pakistan.

While Pakistan has been making advances to Ashraf Ghani’s new regime, China too has been more active on the Afghanistan front. Ashraf Ghani’s first visit after election was to China. Significantly, two Taliban delegations have recently visited China – one to Beijing and the other to Uramchi, capital of Xinjiang.

Apparently, Chinese interests in the developing situation in Afghanistan is no longer confined to copper mines leased to it by the Karzai government. China’s decision to have direct links with the Taliban groups is also indicative of its concern about jehadi groups’ activities in Xinjiang and western China and Central Asia.

Apparently, Pakistan and China are moving in concert in the future of Af-Pakistan region. Pakistan knows it cannot have its way alone in the strife-torn nation. Hence it will be to its advantage if China, a trusted ally, takes more interest in the Af-Pak region and in Pakistan.

China’s agreeing to build an economic corridor — road, rail and a pipeline through Pakistan to the Gwadar Port in Pakistan — can be seen a part of Pakistan-China joint strategy designed by China to reach near the Persian Gulf. With Pakistan acting as a spearhead China wants to reduce its dependence on the Malacca Straits in the east.

Pakistan is unmindful of the cost a frontline state is to pay. Like the US, China will use Pakistan’s territory to reach the Persian Gulf to protect its trade routes and oil supplies. It provides China a window to study the emerging situation in the area arising out of ISIS’s attempts to establish a Caliphate. The ISIS is not going to be Beijing’s friend in Western China; and to counter it, Beijing would need Pakistan’s cooperation, and a pro-Pak Taliban regime in Kabul.

Apparently, Pakistan to be a frontline state of China, would be prepared to pay a price in losing some area of autonomy in handling its own foreign policy. It is forgetting that in the affairs of the nations, a frontline state can always become a front paw with little will to move on its own.  Pakistan, even in a brother’s embrace, can earn some goodies, but when an embrace becomes too tight, it can make things difficult for any independent action. Pakistan, however, is used to it.

India cannot ignore what is happening in its North-West. Before Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarked on his China visit, New Delhi called the Chinese envoy to protest against the Beijing’s building projects through POK in its thrust to reach the warm waters of the Persian Gulf. The issue may also have figured at his talks in Beijing. But it is not clear what is going to be Indian policy to protect its political, strategic and economic interests in Afghanistan, once the US troops have been completely pulled out by next year. May be the Indian policy-makers will have to sit back and think of ways to ensure that India’s role in Af-Pak region doesn’t become minimal.

——————————————–

H K Dua is a senior journalist and a Member of Parliament. He has recently joined ORF, a premier think tank in Delhi, to work on international affairs and geo-political studies.

(This article has appeared in the Tribune on June 22, 2015)

 

The questioning spirit

“How different is your present role as a Member of Parliament from your previous role as an Editor?”  Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay asked me practically at the end of the interview for the Lok Sabha TV under his series “Ekla Chalo”. “I don’t find any difference between the two roles; only the platform has changed,” I said.

“As a journalist my role was to defend the public interest. As a Member of Parliament, I believe my role is also to defend public interest.

“As an Editor I was writing editorials and columns. I will now be speaking editorials and columns!”

Nilanjan seemed pleased at the concluding byte of a serious interview that lasted over half an hour in which he asked my views on a lot of issues  that, rightly considered, ought to matter to an Editor, as also to a Member of Parliament.  He had done his homework on what kind of writing I had done in different papers I had edited. He was trying to explore soon after my nomination to the Rajya Sabha what kind of the new Member  Parliament had got.

Portals of Parliament House can be forbidding for a new MP. But having reported Parliament for years, as well as the Central Hall, I did not have the feeling a newcomer can have. I also knew senior MPs belonging to different parties and they all seemed to be welcoming, irrespective of their political dispensation.

A journalist who for years has reported public affairs, political parties and their ways, Parliament, different branches of government, policy-making and unmaking, how decisions are made and diluted down the line, is well-equipped to perform the duties of a Member of Parliament.

The questioning spirit, which most serious journalists have comes handy to an MP who ought to focus attention of the government and the House on various issues that matter to the people. By very nature of their work, journalists know how to ask pointed questions. Ministers  are often vague in their answers, and require to be pinned down to the specifics.

An MP, who does his or her job seriously, has the inherent power under the Constitution, to ask questions and force the government give answers. Properly used, the Question Hour does make the government  somewhat accountable.

There is a watchdog role which both the journalists and Members of Parliament have  to perform. They both need to keep a check on what the Executive branch of the government is doing.

Journalists by the very nature of their work, react to the developments  fast. Often MPs  call the government’s attention on what the MPs think is a matter of urgent public importance. There can be short-duration discussions on some of the immediate issues. Even on government’s business an editor’s background helps to participate in the debate from different angles.

Today’s Parliament is not the kind some of us parliamentary correspondents grew up years ago. Stalwarts on the benches of most political parties could make  us in the press gallery proud of our Parliament. Hiren Mukherjee’s oratorical flourishes were remarkable for cadence of his prose, Indrajit Gupta always spoke sense. Atal Bihari Vajpayee could be both scathing and sarcastic in the same breath. Nath Pai could hold the House spell-bound commenting on foreign policy; H V Kamath was the walking Rule Book who often succeeded  in getting the proceedings   paused, not by shouting, but by citing a particular clause from the Book  to ensure that proceedings conform to parliamentary norms.  And then there was Madhu Limaye, who despite the fact that he was the leader of only a two-member Socialist Party, he could often push  the government on the backfoot by simply doing his home work well.  There was a galaxy of other MPs also who set high standards of parliamentary vigil.

Those were different days, and a different Parliament! There were sharp differences among the political parties and between the government and opposition parties. But no one rocked the boat. At best some opposition MPs would walk out. There was criticism, but no acrimony; An opponent’s view was  tolerated, even if inconvenient.

Adjournment of the House for the day was rare. And now we find that session after session have been washed out because the Government and the Opposition have not been able to resolve their differences.

Parliament those days enjoyed greater respect among the people than it does now. It was also taken more seriously by the media. Newspapers  reported the proceedings in much greater detail than now.

Televising the debates has made the members more theatrical with a marked tendency to playing to the gallery that has now got extended to over a billion people.

Whatever the political affiliation of the elected MPs, and whatever the issue before the House, they do listen to nominated MPs attentively— that is when the decibel level has fallen and cacophony has given place to workable silence.  Time at their disposal is certainly limited, but they are able to make their case. Whether they make an impact  on policy remains to be seen.

The difference in my situation is: In journalism I was fighting for more space, in Parliament, for more time – i.e. when the House meets and debate takes place!

When the Presidential notification nominating me to the Rajya Sabha came, I thought I should give up my job as Editor-in-Chief of the Tribune.  Editorship of four major papers was enough and the time had come to move on. And wasn’t I writing all along that MPs need to take Parliament more seriously?   Carrying on with Editorship along with membership of Parliament would have been unfair to Parliament, if not against the rules.

The written word has been replaced by the spoken word for  me. One can raise issues of vital public interest which at times are neglected by both the media and Parliament. I will be happy if I can make some contribution to that end during the next five years.

– Central Hall, October issue, 2011