Michael KreponPunishment vs. Engagement

US Members of Congress excel at four things: fund raising, getting re-elected, protecting sunk costs and the jobs of their constituents, and imposing sanctions.

In theory, punishing sanctions are supposed to become means toward diplomatic ends, but in practice, Capitol Hill gravitates toward means and is myopic about ends. One reason: Imposing sanctions is a safe political choice, while endorsing diplomatic engagement can be politically risky. Layer upon layer of punishing sanctions makes deal making harder.

President Obama is now at a critical juncture. His opposite number in Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani, and Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have publically signaled that they are open to a nuclear deal. Obama’s trademark tentativeness and deliberation can betray him now. After the messages emanating from Tehran, I hope and expect him to go for a significant deal, rather than nibbling around its edges. There are trap doors ahead, but this is a time for high-stakes engagement, not punishment.

All eyes will be on the diplomatic dance between Washington and Tehran. The warm-ups for another high-stakes dance, between India and Pakistan, are just beginning.

A new Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, has been elected by a comfortable margin. Nawaz, a successful businessman, has made no secret of his desire for more normal relations with India, including greater cross-border trade. A number of deals, carefully wordsmithed by previous governments, await the proper alignment of the stars over the subcontinent.

Nawaz is facing formidable problems and is moving tentatively on all fronts. Internal security currently trumps India as Pakistan’s top-most preoccupation. Consequently, Rawalpindi and Islamabad are focused on the 2014 Afghan elections rather than the 2014 Indian elections. This could change quickly, if the Bharatiya Janata Party’s nominee, Narendra Modi, succeeds in forming the next Indian coalition government. If so, he would become the first Indian Prime Minister previously denied a US visa for his presumed role in anti-Muslim riots in his home state of Gujarat.

The current Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, has always wanted to normalize relations with Pakistan. He is at the end of long innings, a much-diminished figure nominally leading a weak coalition government. His Congress Party has yet to name its standard bearer against Modi – perhaps the untested and ambivalent Rahul Gandhi. Next year, India will have a “choice and not an echo” kind of national election.

In the meantime, Nawaz and Manmohan Singh seem too hemmed in to make significant deals. Flare ups along the Kashmir divide, initiated from the Pakistan side, reminded Nawaz of constraints on his freedom of action. He is currently trying to cobble together political support to ramp up military operations against the Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan along the Afghan border. This will be a hard slog for the Army and jarring for city-dwellers in Pakistan, who can expect even more mass casualty attacks. Dealing with Punjab-based groups, like the Lashkar e Toiba, whose fingerprints are on the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament and the 2008 Mumbai bombings, will be far harder.

My sense is that a stepped-up campaign along the Afghan border will happen, after more violent acts by the TTP make it clear once again that political engagement is a mirage. But the public personification of the LeT, Hafiz Saeed has been untouchable, subject only to polite, temporary ‘detentions’ after big explosions in India.

Manmohan Singh is also constrained in his dealings with Pakistan in the run-up to national elections. Clashes along the Kashmir divide have prompted forty senior Indian diplomats and retired military officers to issue a joint statement in August demanding that he not conduct any business with Nawaz during the upcoming UN General Assembly session, and that New Delhi adopt a “proactive” approach to terrorism originating in Pakistan. Here are excerpts from their joint statement:

The Pakistan establishment has quite evidently concluded that India does not expect firm action against those perpetrating terrorism from its soil and that terrorism and dialogue can go hand in hand…

The government would be well advised not to rush into a dialogue with Pakistan on the assumption that the new PM of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif is ostensibly committed to improving ties with India…

The trend lines of Pakistan’s hostile acts, both through its organs of state and sponsored non-state actors … do not show signs of reversal under Pakistan’s new government…

In these circumstances, it is evident that the euphoria over the change in government and its initial statements [toward India] is misplaced…

A policy of appeasement has manifestly failed to deliver results…

It is time that policies are devised that will impose a cost on Pakistan for its export of terror to India, and thus change the cost-benefit calculus of these policies and actions. A proactive approach by India towards Pakistan must be the order of the day, and will yield us much better results than those generated by policies of appeasement.

At a press conference releasing this joint statement, India’s former Chief of Army Staff N.C. Vij declared, “Pakistan is a rational actor; they will not risk nuclear escalation. This nuclear bluff should be called by India.” According to press reports, General Vij added, “The answer is for India to raise the stakes.”

Manmohan Singh’s coalition government is not inclined to satisfy these grievances. The next Indian government might.

Comments

  1. Nick (History)

    Excellent and timely piece Michael. I particular, the first line is dead on correct regarding the Congress predicament right now.

  2. krepon (History)

    Key passages from President Rouhani’s UN speech:

    Nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran’s security and defense doctrine, and
    contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions. Our national interests make it imperative that we remove any and all reasonable concerns about
    Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.

    The second objective, that is, acceptance of and respect for the implementation of the right to enrichment inside Iran and enjoyment of other related nuclear rights,
    provides the only path towards achieving the first objective. Nuclear knowledge in Iran has been domesticated now and the nuclear technology, inclusive of
    enrichment, has already reached industrial scale. It is, therefore, an illusion, and extremely unrealistic, to presume that the peaceful nature of the nuclear program
    of Iran could be ensured through impeding the program via illegitimate pressures.

    In this context, the Islamic Republic of Iran, insisting on the implementation of its rights and the imperative of international respect and cooperation in this exercise, is prepared to engage immediately in time-bound and result-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and removal of mutual uncertainties with full transparency.

    • Cyrus (History)

      The fact is that Iran has for years been making very significant compromise offers which were either rejected, ignored, or outright sabotaged (such as the Brazil/Turkey brokered uranium exchange deal.) Take a look at this list, as one example: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05iht-edzarif.html?_r=0

      So, the question is if the nuclear issue is *really* the cause of this standoff (rather than being just a pretext for the gullible mob as was “WMDs in Iraq”) why were none of these offers even acknowledged nevermind considered? And if the nuclear issue is NOT really the issue, then why assume that the US is willing to resolve that one prtext which it has focused so much energy on developing and selling to the world … unless it plans to replace it with yet another pretext?

  3. Bradley Laing (History)

    http://www.knpr.org/son/archive/detail2.cfm?SegmentID=10501

    Canada’s Nuclear Weapons

    Listen
    Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on email More Sharing Services
    AIR DATE: September 24, 2013

    Most people, including Canadians themselves, think of Canada as a peace-loving and neighborly. During the first two decades of the Cold War, the country tried to develop nuclear weapons and later, Canadians ignored that as they rewrote history around the image of a good world citizen. Sean Maloney says that Canadians need to recover this lost history of the Cold War and he’ll be lecturing at Atomic Liquors on “The Canadian Armed Services and Cold War Nuclear Testing.”

    GUESTS
    Dr. Sean Maloney, Professor of History, Royal Military College of Canada

    http://www.nationalatomictestingmuseum.org/images/Sean%20Maloney%20Pub%20Lecture.jpg

    —Note: first linked-to website includes sound file.

  4. Bradley Laing (History)

    Note: at 5:58 in the sound file of an interview with Maloney, he complains of excessive secrecy in US records about nuclear weapons development —“who met who in what meetings”–and then mentions Canadian “broken arrow” incidents.

  5. Bradley Laing (History)

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/130924/philippines-nigeria-join-nuclear-nonproliferation-fram

    The Philippines and Nigeria joined an international framework for nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation Tuesday, pledging to work together with other member countries such as Japan and Australia.

  6. JadedRationalist (History)

    I wonder how much it would cost to give Iran enough solar panels to match the output of their civilian nuclear program, and insist that they completely abandon all nuclear technology? My guess would be that at $1 per watt it would be a lot cheaper than invading them or than dealing with nuclear Iran

    • Magpie (History)

      Yeah, that’d go down a treat.

      Imagine China told the US to stop fracking or developing tar sands, and offered solar panels instead, and a promise not to invade. And imagine the US government said “yeah, thanks China! We sure loves us some charity, and we’re super-keen not to get invaded! We’ve always wanted to do just what we’re told – independence has been SO stressful.”

      I’m sure that’d be a REAL vote winner.
      😛

  7. Bradley Laing (History)

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/number-two-nuclear-weapons-commander-suspended.html

    United States Strategic Command, which oversees the military’s nuclear weapons and fighting units, has taken the “highly unusual action” of suspending its second-highest ranking official, Navy Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, for “gambling issues,” according to two anonymous officials who spoke to the Associated Press. Giardina was actually suspended at the beginning of September, but it was not announced because the Naval Criminal Investigation Service (better known as the NCIS, because of the shows) is still looking into the situation.

  8. bradley laing (History)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/29/iran-nuclear-weapons-deal_n_4014112.html

    —“Okay, so there is a unicorn in my room. For that you wake me up. Call me when something really unbelievable happens.”

  9. Bradley Laing (History)

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=f3dfb29d35937a36031403f8336dffa4&_cview=0

    Industry Day–Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Mission Support is POSTPONED due to Government’s Shut Down of Operations
    Solicitation Number: J3OSC456
    Agency: Other Defense Agencies
    Office: Defense Threat Reduction Agency
    Location: Defense Threat Reduction Agency (Headquarters)

Pin It on Pinterest