Politics in the midst of natural disaster

By S.P.SETH

The Muttahida Quami Movement leader in self-exile, Altaf Hussain’s, call for a military coup to depose the country’s civilian government, is another nail into the country’s political culture— that is to say, what is left of it. Indeed, Pakistan’s enormous tragedy is highlighting the poor state of its institutions and leadership. Only in Pakistan you had the spectacle of its President undertaking a foreign trip when the country was drowning, so to speak. President Asif Ali Zardari’s European trip seemed to breathe new life into the old proverb of Nero fiddling when Rome was burning.

For President Asif Ali Zardari to leave the country at such a time to tread foreign pastures was not only an act of political stupidity but also showed total lack of empathy for the plight of his suffering countrymen. He was in the United Kingdom to talk about the adequacy or otherwise of Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism, when he was needed to set an example for his administration by being on the frontline of this natural disaster.

On the other hand, as his critics have pointed out, Zardari was in the United Kingdom to promote his son’s political prospects back home by making party-political speeches in Birmingham. If so, it simply beggars belief.

Zardari is an accidental President, when his wife, Benazir Bhutto, was tragically gunned down in 2007. Having become President (following elections) against the backdrop of such national and personal tragedy, it was hoped that he would rise to the occasion to prove all his critics wrong who called him Mr Ten Per Cent when he was a minister in his wife’s cabinet.

After long army rule, only in the last few years Pakistan is under a democratic dispensation with an elected President and Prime Minister. Since Pakistan’s civil institutions have tended to be weak, the proper functioning of its nascent democracy is very important. Without it, the army will continue to dominate national affairs. Some politicians, like Altaf Hussain, will always seek political advantage in courting the generals. Judging by reports, the army still continues to have a controlling role. For instance, it has been reported that the government ministers often make house calls on the army chief when so summoned.

There was widespread skepticism when the tenure of the army chief was extended for three years, supposedly by the country’s civilian government. Apparently, they were told what was required of them.

With such deep-rooted popular cynicism in the country’s institutions, restoring faith in the supremacy of the civilian political order is a tall task, as it is. But it gets even harder when President Zardari decided to go on a foreign trip in the midst of the country’s worst floods. It is important to stress that the President of a country symbolizes the nation. And if he tends to function betraying lack of empathy for his people, it brings into question the entire edifice of a nation.

In its present predicament of probably the worst floods in the country, it is quite natural that Pakistan should seek international help. And the aid is now starting to flow, though it would have to be on a larger scale. And it is quite natural that Pakistan’s leaders should be canvassing the global community for more generous aid.

But it is jarring to see President Zardari overplaying the terrorist card and reportedly saying that if aid wasn’t forthcoming adequately militants will exploit the situation to further destabilize the country, even to the point of taking away orphaned babies and putting them in terrorist camps. This is the kind of rhetoric that makes Pakistan look like a failed state.

Pakistan’s human tragedy requires international help as a human gesture, and not as part of an anti-terrorist strategy. It is the duty of the government in Pakistan to requisition all internal and external resources to deal with the situation, without making it another front against terrorism.

Human disasters of the kind Pakistan is facing are also an opportunity to do some soul searching. If Pakistan were to have an effective government committed to provide economic and physical security for its people, the terrorists wouldn’t find a fertile ground for creating mayhem here and there. In other words, the rise of Pakistani Taliban is, to a large degree, an indictment of the Pakistani establishment’s (both military and civilian) failure to govern in the interests of its people.

The military establishment, for instance, has taken a disproportionate share of the country’s financial resources, which might otherwise have gone into developing the country’s woefully neglected education, health sectors and other nation-building activities. In addition, it has devoured a large share of the foreign aid Pakistan has been receiving for the last 30 years, first to beef up the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets and, second, to help US fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s border areas.

This never-ending Pakistani involvement with US strategic objectives has not only eaten into foreign aid Pakistan has received over many years (much of it pocketed by corrupt military and political elements), but also brought its governing establishment into disrepute with its own people by making the country look like a US puppet.

In an article entitled, Pakistan on the Brink, Ahmed Rashid wrote in the New York Review of Books last year: “Under [President] Bush, the US poured $11.9 billion into Pakistan, 80 per cent of which went to the army.” And where did all that money go? According to Rashid, “Instead of revamping Pakistan’s capacity for counterinsurgency, the army bought $8 billion worth of weapons for use against India---funds that are still unaccounted for…”

No wonder many people in Pakistan do not trust their government with the aid now filtering into Pakistan for relief and recovery programs. As one victim of the floods reportedly said, “They [the government] are taking all the aid for themselves. They are pocketing it. There is nothing coming to the people.” Even if this is an exaggeration, Pakistan’s suffering people cannot be blamed for dumping on their government when they hardly see any real improvement in their lives. And no wonder either that sometimes the Taliban look a better alternative than their corruption-ridden government. When people are suffering even the bad alternative sometimes appears appealing.

Therefore, the Pakistani government has a lot of work to do to establish their credibility and legitimacy with the people. And the country’s present calamity is the time to prove that Pakistani state is up to its task when it comes to helping its people from the country’s flood-ravaged disaster.

Note: This article was originally published in Daily Time

US-China showdown looming

By S.P.SETH

China is no longer squeamish about throwing its weight around. It even seems willing to take on the United States to protect/promote its perceived national interests. And since its core national interests are expanding all the time, the US has a serious security problem on its hands. Which explains the rapid deterioration in their relations.

The dive in US-China relations started with Washington’s decision early in the year to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan. China responded by cutting off defense talks with the United States.

Why is China so hypersensitive to such weapons’ sales when the Ma Ying-jeou administration in Taiwan has been falling over backward to please Beijing? Because China simply wants to overwhelm Taiwan with its superior political and military reach, leaving it with no option but to do China’s bidding.

Only with US arms supplies and commitment, Taipei might be able to counter/deter China’s political and military plans to incorporate Taiwan.

It is a bizarre situation that even when relations between China and Taiwan are the most peaceful it has ever been, the former is still reportedly deploying between 1050 and 1150 short-range ballistic missiles targeting Taiwan. The so-called mother country (mainland China) is prepared to devastate Taiwan to have its own way.

The US worry over China’s hawkish posture is reflected in the Pentagon’s annual report on its expanding military capability. According to the report, China is developing a “carrier killer” anti-ship ballistic missile; it has “the most active land-based ballistic missile and cruise missile program in the world”; it also has “one of the world’s largest forces of surface-to-air missiles”, as well as nuclear-powered submarines.

China is also said to be pouring money into space warfare systems and cyber-warfare capabilities. All in all it is developing an well-rounded military force to project and exercise power way beyond its coastline.

Indeed, there is a certain correlation between its growing economy and military build up. China is reported to have overtaken Japan as the world’s second largest economy (after the United States) based on the second quarter growth figures; though, in terms of per capita income, China is still way behind.

What it means is that China is feeling increasingly confident about its strength, especially when the US’ military power is over-stretched and its economy is struggling to recover. It would seem that China has concluded that the present is the right time to challenge US primacy in the region.

China’s confidence (misplaced or otherwise) is reflected in its strong reaction to the recent joint US-South Korean naval exercises against the backdrop of Pyongyang’s sinking of a South Korean warship.

A foreign ministry spokesman said at the time that China “firmly” opposed any foreign warships or aircraft conducting activities that undermined China’s security in the Yellow Sea and China’s coastal waters.

At about the same time, Pyongyang threatened US with “physical response” if it went ahead with new sanctions. Its official mouthpiece, Rodong Sinmun, was even more colorful in its warning. It said, “If the US provokes another war, it will only be corpses and graves that it will be presented with.”

Beijing might not be as blunt as Pyongyang, but the intent is clear. Which is that it will not take lying down the activities of the US navy in, what it regards as, its waters.

Rear Admiral Yang Yi, of the National Defense University, told an Australian journalist based in Beijing that, “It is some kind of challenge and humiliation to China’s national interest and the feelings of the Chinese people”, when the US decides to “hold this kind of military drill” in its coastal waters.

South China Sea is emerging as another problem area. In the 1990s, China passed domestic legislation proclaiming sovereignty over South China Sea. However, a number of other regional countries have competing claims to islands in these waters.

Under a 2002 proposal China had agreed to resolve these issues peacefully through diplomacy. But that is no longer the case because China has declared South China Sea as its “core national interest” and hence beyond any negotiation.

In other words, China might undertake to restrict or control, in its “national interest”, the passage of foreign ships through this important highway. For instance, one-third of all commercial shipping in the world is said to pass through these waters.

In a way China is challenging the dominance of the US navy on grounds of its national security. With the overhang of the “century of humiliation”, China’s rage over the activities of the American navy is reflected in this recent comment (reported in the Economist): “A retired Chinese admiral likened the American navy to a man with a criminal record ‘wandering just outside the gate of a family home.’’’

In other words, trouble is brewing in Asia-Pacific region, with China ramming up the pressure on the United States to force it out of the region as a dominant power.

There is a strong belief among many Chinese that it is their destiny to once again become the centre of power. As a retired general, Xu Guangyu, recently told South China Morning Post: “China’s long absence from its exclusive economic waters over the past decades was an abnormal historical accident and now it is just advancing to normal operations.”

China seems engaged in a concerted campaign to whip up national hysteria, spearheaded by serving and retired generals. Major General Luo Yuan of the Academy of Military Sciences, for instance, recently threatened to use the US aircraft carrier in the exercises as a “live target”.

He has also suggested the withdrawal of US Treasury bonds to destabilize US economy.

The US is obviously concerned. To quote Admiral Robert Willard of the US Pacific Command, “ …of particular concern is that elements of China’s military modernization appear designed to challenge our freedom of action in the region.”

How will the United States respond to it? Obviously, it is not itching to pick up a fight. But, over time, the choice will be to either recede or confront China.

China appears supremely confident of reaching the top. The US, on the other hand, is keen to accommodate China as a strategic partner but without much success. China has its own independent agenda.

One doesn’t need to be a strategic genius to opine that the US-Chinese strategic rivalry is heading toward a showdown of some sort over a period of time. Its scope and intensity, of course, will depend on a host of factors that might emerge with time.

US-China strategic competition and its dangers

By S P SETH

The reported military exercises by Chinese forces to defend against a possible US attack have raised tensions between China and the United States. The question is: why has China raised the stakes in its relations with the United States?

It is important to realize that this is not a sudden phenomenon. There is a history of antagonism between the two countries, following the communist victory in 1949 in China’s civil war. Indeed, with their long historical memory China hasn’t forgotten the humiliation of Western domination in the 19^th century, including the United States’ advocacy of “Open Door” policy in 1899.

But with the ascension to power of Deng Xiaoping in the late-seventies, China sought to concentrate on building up its economy to create a modern and strong nation. Deng’s advise for his people was to bide their time until China was ready to play its role as a great power.

Apparently, his successors believe that China’s time has come, with its increased political, economic and military strength. Against a backdrop of its “century of humiliation”, China’s reaction to any perceived threat to its sovereignty has a tinge of bitterness with a new resolve not to allow any power to trample on China’s homeland.

Two recent incidents have highlighted this sensitivity. First: The holding of joint US-South Korean naval exercises in regional waters, against China’s stated opposition, has angered Beijing. It regards such activities by foreign warships and aircraft as a threat to China’s security.

By holding its own exercises, China has expressed its anger concretely. As the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Military Weekly, newspaper said, “…they send a message… If other people threaten our interests, we have enough military means and technological methods to keep them in check.”

Second: North Korea is increasingly emerging as another flashpoint between China and the United States. The United States and its Western allies seem determined to reverse North Korea’s nuclear path. But Pyongyang is equally determined to use that as a tool to extract as much political and economic advantage from it.

With a view to achieve its goal of de-nuclearization in North Korea, the United States has actively sought China’s help, with its considerable leverage with Pyongyang that relies heavily on Chinese supplies of essential goods. In this respect, the United States did have some success, with Beijing hosting six-nation talks (including North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia and the United States) on non-proliferation until North Korea walked away from the talks.

Pyongyang wouldn’t agree to abandon its nuclear program without a sequential link between its various stages and the provision of political legitimacy, aid, trade and other related advantages. Since it wouldn’t agree to dismantle its nuclear weapons as a starting point, the entire negotiating process has collapsed. And Pyongyang is now refusing to return to the China-hosted six-nation talks. It is threatening a “physical response” to new US sanctions and has condemned US-South Korean naval exercises as “gunboat diplomacy.”

China’s response basically has been to counsel restraint. It has refused to take sides between North Korea and South Korea on the sinking of the South Korean warship, Cheonan, blamed on North Korea. But it hasn’t taken kindly to the US-South Korean exercises in seas that it regards as its security zone. Which accounts for China’s counter move to stage its own comprehensive exercises around Beijing and surrounding areas. According to General Zongqi of the PLA, “The aim is to raise fighting capabilities in this military region and make effective preparations for military combat.” This warning is as serious as they come.

North Korea is, therefore, a serious flashpoint. China has obviously decided to detach itself from the US-coordinated continuous pressure on Pyongyang. The US-South Korean joint naval exercises have obviously hardened China’s position. A serious flare up in the Korean peninsula is likely to send a flood of refugees from North Korea into China’s neighboring region.

At the same time, China regards Korean peninsula and seas surrounding it as its security zone. Therefore, the US participation in military exercises is regarded as a threat to China’s security. China seems to suffer from the Fifties’ Korean War syndrome when American armies pushed closer to its border with North Korea, inviting Chinese entry into the Korean War. Broadly, though, they want the US naval forces out of Asia-Pacific. If that were to eventuate, China will have no real challenge to its regional primacy.

In this tug of war for regional primacy, another important contentious issue is the South China Sea. In the nineties, China declared South China Sea as its territorial waters, thus overriding the rival claims of some of its neighbors to a clutch islands in these waters. However, it agreed to resolve these issues through diplomacy. But now it regards South China Sea as its “core national interest”, which puts it beyond any negotiation.

Even though some of China’s South East Asian neighbors might grumble about its high-handedness, most, however, are getting resigned to China’s growing power. The US, though, is not resigned to it because, among other things, China could restrict or control commercial and naval traffic through South China Sea through its exercise of sovereignty. For instance, one-third of global commercial shipping is said to pass through the waters that China claims its own.

In other words, the strategic competition between China and the United States is likely to intensify in Asia-Pacific region. Considering China’s “century of humiliation” by the West (in which the United States was a late entrant), it is seething with anger, just below the surface, to exclude foreigners from “its” region. Such anger is reflected in the comment of a retired Chinese admiral (reported in the Economist) who likened “the American navy to a man with a criminal record ‘wandering just outside the gate of a family home’.”

It would appear that even though neither the United States nor China is itching for military confrontation, there is always the danger of some miscalculation in a charged atmosphere. Over time, the strategic competition is likely to increase and intensify. And if the history of the two World Wars is any guide, there is always the danger of such competition sliding into confrontation and, eventually, leading to conflagration.

Note: This article was first printed in Daily Times

China’s push to oust US from Asia-Pacific

By S.P.SETH

China is flexing its muscles to assert its power on a range of issues. An interesting recent development of considerable significance over a period of time is the downgrading, by China’s Dagong Global Credit Rating agency, of US Treasury bonds from the top AAA rating to AA rating, with negative outlook.

This is China’s first entry into the world of rating credit worthiness of different countries. China believes that the existing international credit rating system (involving agencies like Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch) hasn’t worked well.

The Dagong chairman, Guan Jianzhong, reportedly said, “The essential reason for the global financial crisis and the Greek crisis is that the current international rating system cannot truly reflect repayment ability.”

By downgrading the US Treasury bonds and assessing other countries’ economic credentials (for instance, Japan, Britain and France have low AA- ratings), China is setting itself up as the alternative, if not the only, economic powerhouse.

If China were to follow the logic of its own Dagong agency, it would stop investing in US Treasury bonds and might even start winding down its considerable investments in the US bonds. Which could be very de-stabilizing for global economy, and damage China’s US-denominated investments.

The important question is: what leads China (Dagong obviously is a government approved credit agency, because nothing of this significance happens in China without its authorization) to believe that it can do a better job of credit rating than the existing agencies?

The assumption here is that China has a strong economy, with virtually no sovereign credit risk. But, if China were an open and transparent country, it would have to be concerned about its economic vulnerability on two counts. First, China’s total debt (to include central, regional and local authorities as well as other government instrumentalities) is estimated by some experts as close to 100 per cent of its GDP. If the hundred percent figure is true or close to reality, China’s credit worthiness is as flaky as the most indebted countries in the world.

Any country that rates its debt at 20 per cent, when the real figure is so much higher, cannot be trusted with rating the sovereign credit risk of other countries.

It should also apply to Western credit agencies because their track record in predicting the recent global economic crisis, as well as the Asian crisis of 1997 and 1998 and the bursting of the dot.com bubble of year 2000, was pretty terrible.

In their case, though, one might be able to say that they didn’t speak for their governments. In China’s case, despite the Dagong’s claim of independence, it is not believable. For instance, its report was launched at the headquarters of China’s official Xinhua News Agency.

At the second level: in the last year China experienced a phenomenal growth in lending by its banks and other agencies. According to one estimate, in the first half of 2009, Chinese bank lending was 28 per cent higher than official figures.

More and more loans have been repackaged into investment products, not unlike the subprime mortgage products. As William Pesek writes in Bloomberg, “Repackaging loans and moving them off balance sheet is exactly what got corporate America into trouble and almost killed Wall Street.” He adds, “Such practices raise the odds that China is paving the way for a wave of bad debts.”

China’s economy seems to combine the elements of both American and Japanese economic malaise of phenomenal credit growth, and emerging bubbles in real estate and stock markets.

In other words, setting up a credit rating agency doesn’t make China a superpower.

But China is not only challenging the US on the economic front, but also in regard to issues of territorial and maritime sovereignty. For instance, in the nineties, it had passed domestic legislation claiming South China Sea as its territorial waters.

However, at that time, it looked like an ambit claim still subject to peaceful negotiations with its Asian neighbors, with rival claims. China has now proclaimed the South China Sea into its “core national interest” beyond any negotiation.

Which means that China could restrict and control traffic through South China Sea, with one-third of all global commercial shipping passing through it.

In this way, China is not only claiming sovereignty, but also challenging the dominance of the US navy.

But the US response is as timid as it could be, with its Assistant Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell, emphasizing the importance of dialogue “not just with China but with our friends in south-east Asia, to ensure that we fully support the 2002 process between China and south-east Asian states to deal with any outstanding issues through diplomacy.”

China certainly doesn’t have any intention of doing it through diplomacy when it has nominated South China Sea as its “core national interest.”

At the same time, China has reacted strongly to the joint US-South Korea naval exercises in waters around South Korea. Coming as these exercises do after the sinking of the South Korean naval ship, Cheonan, by North Korea, these are a warning to Pyongyang that the US remains committed to the defense of South Korea.

China’s foreign ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, had earlier warned that China “firmly” opposed any foreign warships or aircraft conducting activities undermining China’s security in the Yellow Sea and China’s coastal waters.

China, though, is unwilling to exercise its leverage on Pyongyang to draw it back from its brinkmanship.

Indeed, North Korea is ratcheting up its rhetoric by warning of a “physical response” to new US sanctions—whatever that means.

The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said at the recent ASEAN Regional Forum gathering in Hanoi that ”… Peaceful resolution of the issues on Korean peninsula will be possible only if North Korea fundamentally changes its behavior”.

That doesn’t look like happening soon, if at all, while China looks the other way.

North Korea’s belligerence, as well as China’s assertive claims to maritime areas in South China Sea and elsewhere, is causing great concern in Japan. The US is also worried about China’s expansive claims to regional waters, now backed up with its blue-water fleet.

A Japanese government panel has reportedly recommended deploying more armed forces in coastal areas where Chinese naval traffic has increased.

The panel also recommends a more activist role for Japan in its alliance with the US. The report, as quoted in Yomiuri Shimbun, says: “From the viewpoint of strengthening the Japan-US alliance, there should be political will…to allow [Japanese forces] to attack missiles bound for the United States.”

In other words, the recommendation is for further strengthening and tightening of US-Japan security relationship.

China is pursuing a policy of laying claim to as much of Asia-Pacific (whether as sovereign territory or sphere of influence) as it can get away with it.

Most of its neighbors, even where they contest China’s claims, are not inclined to stand up to Beijing because of its growing power.

As for the US, it seems to have lost its puff. China obviously wants to push the US out of the Asia-Pacific region. And if the US doesn’t take a stand on issues like South China Sea, the US might find itself pushed out of Asia-Pacific region.

At present the US has two loyal allies in the region—Japan and Australia. In the case of Japan, unless the United States asserts its regional role and presence, Tokyo might feel abandoned and start adjusting itself to a China-dominated region.

As for Australia, its medium and long-term prospect looks like being China’s quarry, with Beijing eventually able to dictate its policies.

.