Obama’s early initiatives

By Tariq Fatemi

NO sooner had the music died and the Capitol cleared of celebrities than President Barack Obama got down to the business of the state.Aware that the US was confronted by its worst economic crisis while entangled in two wars overseas, Obama had been brutally frank in his inaugural address, signalling a sharp break from his predecessor’s policies. Though renouncing the curtailment of liberties and affirming that he would “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”, he struck a note of defiance on terrorism and asserted that Americans would “not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence”.Of special interest was his message to Muslim nations when he declared that America sought a “new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect”, while he warned autocrats “who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent” that they were “on the wrong side of history”. Pious sentiments that will take a monumental effort to translate into reality!Soon thereafter, the president waded into the intractable problems, issuing an executive order to close the ill-famed Guantanamo prison and appointing veteran politician George Mitchell as special envoy for the Middle East and the highly regarded Richard Holbrooke as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.Obama avoided references to the “war on terror”, a phrase pregnant with misgivings in the Muslim world, or to our border area as “the epicentre of global terror”. Instead, he vowed to “forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan”. Nonetheless, he cautioned “those who seek to advance their aims by introducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now, that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken”. The appointments are acknowledgment that without close, institutional American involvement, these problems could destabilise critical regions and destroy all prospects of combating terrorism. But, in more specific terms, what will Obama’s policies be in the region identified as constituting the greatest threat to the US?An evolution in his thinking can be easily discerned. In 2007, Obama had threatened to act unilaterally against high-value targets in Pakistan if Islamabad failed to do so itself. The next year, he spoke in favour of a policy that compelled “Pakistani actions against terrorists”. A quick learner, Obama modified his stand in 2008, supporting the Biden-Lugar bill and, more importantly, emphasising that greater democracy in Pakistan was essential for tackling terrorism.A most significant change, however, was his endorsement of the “regional approach”, an important element of which is support for the normalisation of Pakistan-India ties and the early resolution of the Kashmir issue, albeit to allay Pakistan’s concern for its eastern border so that its focus could remain on combating terrorism. Not surprisingly, these remarks upset the Indians who have worked assiduously to keep foreign involvement out of South Asia.While not disputing the premise that Afghanistan’s problems could not be resolved without addressing the sources of support for terrorism in Pakistan, nor quibbling with the assessment that meeting Pakistan’s security concerns would encourage Islamabad to go the extra mile in its anti-terror efforts, Delhi reacted sharply to any linkage between its occupation of Kashmir and extremism in the region.India’s concerns were heightened by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s article in the Guardian, in which he emphasised that the “resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would deny extremists one of their main calls to arms and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders”. When Miliband echoed those sentiments during his recent visit, Indian officials could not contain their anger.There have been other important, though subtle, changes in Obama’s thinking. In comments a week before assuming office, he charged that there was little emphasis on building infrastructure, combating narco-trafficking and ensuring reliance on the rule of law in Afghanistan. This theme was picked up by the Nato chief, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who in an article in the Washington Post denounced the Karzai regime as “ineffective”. Analysts also noted that Obama’s national security advisor, Gen James Jones, in a study for the Atlantic Council, had earlier admitted that “the international community is not winning in Afghanistan”. These have given rise to speculation that Karzai is losing the West’s confidence.As regards Richard Holbrooke’s appointment, some observers are intrigued by the change in his designation, especially as he had himself written about the need for a “regional approach” to resolve the Afghan imbroglio. Was it then merely a change in form to mollify New Delhi, or did it represent a retreat in the face of Indian opposition, as claimed by its media and as confirmed by informed sources in Washington?Incidentally, in a recent report, the Asia Society endorses Obama’s “regional approach”, but seeks to reassure India that it need not fear the “re-hyphenation” of US relations with Pakistan and India. More importantly, it warns against any American pressure on India recalling that “the US has been wise not to try to mediate on Kashmir”, while advocating a leadership role for India in multilateral institutions. Did these considerations weigh with Obama when he remarked recently that Kashmir is a “potential tar pit diplomatically”? Holbrooke’s appointment will not be an unmixed blessing for us nor will the “regional approach” meet all our requirements, but it is nevertheless the only viable option available and therefore in our interest to ensure that the Americans do not resile from it.The administration is in its infancy and will take time to evolve a new strategy for the region. Early indications point to Obama not hesitating to use the military option, as demonstrated by the recent drone attacks, but it will be buttressed by greater economic assistance and the provision of weapons essential for anti-terror operations.Obama is also likely to demonstrate greater support for democracy in Pakistan as evident from his earlier message of congratulations to President Zardari, in which he praised the latter for pledging to “return to parliament the power unconstitutionally appropriated to the presidency” and characterised the judges’ return as “an important step towards the restoration of a truly independent judiciary”. But he will be a far more demanding “friend” than Bush.Inclined to eschew personal or emotional factors, he is likely to show little patience with any weakening of our resolve and certainly none with our shenanigans. Meeting the challenges likely to come our way from the Obama administration will require a comprehensive strategy backed by national consensus and executed by a resolute leadership with skillful diplomacy.