Baluchistan: The one part of Pakistan we should be embracing?
While doing less elsewhere in Pakistan, the United States should do more to support anti-Islamist forces along the southern Arabian Sea coast. First, it should support anti-Islamist Sindhi leaders of the Sufi variant of Islam with their network of 124,000 shrines. Most important, it should aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression. Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.
Bravo, for putting this out there in the public domain. Many ex-Pakistani military and officers are speaking out about growing evidence that the CIA is already supporting the Baloch separatist movement and has been since 2002. In fact many Pakistani analyists believe this is a major role of the presumptive 313 CIA/Blackwater agents in Pakistan (the number of Americans with diplomatic passports who serve no diplomatic function) - and that Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan, is the real target of current US war efforts.
I blog about this at "Our CIA freedom fighters in Pakistan" http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2011/03/07/our-cia-freedom-fighters-in-pakistan/
Umm, remember how during the Civil War, the British were toying with the idea of recognizing the Confederacy until Lincoln told them that in no uncertain terms that doing so would constitute an act of war?
Moreover, it probably wouldn't work. One of the legacies of British rule in the region was to give the Punjabis supremecy in the military establishment. Therefore, not only would the U.S fatally cripple relations with Islamabad - and drive it into an even closer relationship with al-Qaeda and the Taliban - it would still lose. Unless, of course, American troops that aren't available were inserted.
Then there are the interests of the greater region. Let's assume the Baluchs prevail. More likely than not, they would then aid the Baluch insurgency in Iran, the consequences of which would be unknown, but probably unpleasant for everyone. I can't imagine that Tehran wouldn't retaliate, the only question is how.
And I can't imagine that India would be overly thrilled about this, given that American support for one regional seperatist movement could be seen as encouragement to all of them. After a couple of decades of calm among the Sikhs in Indian Punjab, that's probably the very last thing New Delhi wants.
A national independence movement in Pakistan that's aided by the United States probably wouldn't be limited to Pakistan for very long. It could hopscotch across the border, just as the Arab Spring is today or the fall of communism in Europe did twenty years ago. The possibility exists that it could further spur the Uyghurs against Chinese rule.
There's no way that guarantee that this would stay localized and there's no way that you can help those people In India, China and Iran if it doesn't. But you can safely assume that India, China, Iran and Pakistan would be less than pleased with the United States.
Furthermore, Delhi understands that a fracturing Pakistan might to try to seek national consensus from hostilities against India, and that would very quickly lead to war.
It would seem to me that destablizing three nuclear powers in the region over a losing war in Afghanistan is the furthest imaginable thing from the American strategic interest.
Pakistan looks like its going down the road to being Somalia, but with nukes.
I don't know what the answer is for the country as a whole, but if there's a possibility of carving a stable region out of that mess, then I think it's worth looking at.
The problem is that it likely wouldn't remain a stable region for long, assuming that it ever achieved real autonomy. Remember, this is the fifth Baloch insurgency.
But let's assume that Baluchistan gained outright independence. First, you'd almost certainly have some agitation for "national reunification" with the Baloch populations in Iran and Afghanistan, which is also the major stumbling block for Kurdish independence in Iraq. If the Baloch's could break away from Islamabad, a dubious position at best, the neighbours would never tolerate it as it outs their borders at risk.
Then there's the issue of the gas fields and uranium reserves. The central government relies on that revenue deribed from those natural resources and isn't likely to just walk away from them. Since the Chinese have an interest in them as well, I would expect Beijing to use its clout on the Security Council to prevent anyone else from recognizing a new Republic of Baluchistan.
More importantly, there's no indication whatsover that the Balochs have the wherewithal to develop those resources themselves, which could put them in the same position that Iran was in following the 1952 nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which you now know as BP.) That's even more true if Islamabad, backed by Beijing, implements an embargo.
The only regional power that could aid Baluchistan, India, won't because the precedent might very well encourage Sikh seapartists in the Punjab. There's also the very real concern of another war with Pakistan over something that isn't in their interest to begin with.
Then there's the matter of Pakistan itself. A sudden splintering of the country due to foreign influence would only rally the population around the Islamist elements of the military and ISI, which would then control the country's nuclear arsenal.
If you believe the propsition that an Islamist government would pass WMD to terrorists, it seems to me far more likely that it would happen in a jihadi Pakistan than it would in Iran, which has no history of national suicide. Pakistan, on the other hand, has already lost half its territory simply to keep the Bengals in line forty years ago. At some point, it might rationally decide that it has nothing left to lose.
Given even the possibility of any of that happening, I can't see how stability could come from that, even in the short term.
I'm not opposed to Bakoch populations in Iran and Afghanistan forming their own nation. One of the terrible betrayals in the Iraq wars was the way that the Kurds were sold out to keep Turkey happy. The Kurdish area of Iraq may be the most stable and prosperous in that country, but denying them independence and compelling them to remain part of an unstable country that was arbitrarily cobbled together by British mapmakers after WW1 is going to lead to even more problems for them sooner or later.
Pleasing Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are not the noblest of players on the international stage, at the expense of almost anyone, is not a big priority as I see it. And anything that pisses off Iran is usually a good idea.
Low priorities and pissing off bad guys might be an ideal way of seeing things until they decide that they can and will do something about it. And the bad guys can greatly complicate an alredy losing war in Afghanistan.
Then there's the matter of the damage that it would do to India's national interest and the ability of the Chinese to pretty much stop the U.S in its tracks whenever it wants.
There's also the matter of CIA's history of incompetence in the region to consider. Has anything they've ever done there worked out they way they planned it?
Yes, they got the Soviets out of Afghanistan, but that only created the conditions for the Taliban and al Qaeda to bloom there. They removed Mossedegh to reinstall the Shah, only to later wind up with Khmoneni.
Given that history, one should at least consider the possibility that CIA meddling in regions that it clearly doesn't understand won't work out the way anyone would like it to.
Bravo, for putting this out there in the public domain. Many ex-Pakistani military and officers are speaking out about growing evidence that the CIA is already supporting the Baloch separatist movement and has been since 2002. In fact many Pakistani analyists believe this is a major role of the presumptive 313 CIA/Blackwater agents in Pakistan (the number of Americans with diplomatic passports who serve no diplomatic function) - and that Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan, is the real target of current US war efforts.
ReplyDeleteI blog about this at "Our CIA freedom fighters in Pakistan"
http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2011/03/07/our-cia-freedom-fighters-in-pakistan/
Umm, remember how during the Civil War, the British were toying with the idea of recognizing the Confederacy until Lincoln told them that in no uncertain terms that doing so would constitute an act of war?
ReplyDeleteMoreover, it probably wouldn't work. One of the legacies of British rule in the region was to give the Punjabis supremecy in the military establishment. Therefore, not only would the U.S fatally cripple relations with Islamabad - and drive it into an even closer relationship with al-Qaeda and the Taliban - it would still lose. Unless, of course, American troops that aren't available were inserted.
Then there are the interests of the greater region. Let's assume the Baluchs prevail. More likely than not, they would then aid the Baluch insurgency in Iran, the consequences of which would be unknown, but probably unpleasant for everyone. I can't imagine that Tehran wouldn't retaliate, the only question is how.
And I can't imagine that India would be overly thrilled about this, given that American support for one regional seperatist movement could be seen as encouragement to all of them. After a couple of decades of calm among the Sikhs in Indian Punjab, that's probably the very last thing New Delhi wants.
A national independence movement in Pakistan that's aided by the United States probably wouldn't be limited to Pakistan for very long. It could hopscotch across the border, just as the Arab Spring is today or the fall of communism in Europe did twenty years ago. The possibility exists that it could further spur the Uyghurs against Chinese rule.
There's no way that guarantee that this would stay localized and there's no way that you can help those people In India, China and Iran if it doesn't. But you can safely assume that India, China, Iran and Pakistan would be less than pleased with the United States.
Furthermore, Delhi understands that a fracturing Pakistan might to try to seek national consensus from hostilities against India, and that would very quickly lead to war.
It would seem to me that destablizing three nuclear powers in the region over a losing war in Afghanistan is the furthest imaginable thing from the American strategic interest.
But, hey, what do I know?
Pakistan looks like its going down the road to being Somalia, but with nukes.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the answer is for the country as a whole, but if there's a possibility of carving a stable region out of that mess, then I think it's worth looking at.
The problem is that it likely wouldn't remain a stable region for long, assuming that it ever achieved real autonomy. Remember, this is the fifth Baloch insurgency.
ReplyDeleteBut let's assume that Baluchistan gained outright independence. First, you'd almost certainly have some agitation for "national reunification" with the Baloch populations in Iran and Afghanistan, which is also the major stumbling block for Kurdish independence in Iraq. If the Baloch's could break away from Islamabad, a dubious position at best, the neighbours would never tolerate it as it outs their borders at risk.
Then there's the issue of the gas fields and uranium reserves. The central government relies on that revenue deribed from those natural resources and isn't likely to just walk away from them. Since the Chinese have an interest in them as well, I would expect Beijing to use its clout on the Security Council to prevent anyone else from recognizing a new Republic of Baluchistan.
More importantly, there's no indication whatsover that the Balochs have the wherewithal to develop those resources themselves, which could put them in the same position that Iran was in following the 1952 nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which you now know as BP.) That's even more true if Islamabad, backed by Beijing, implements an embargo.
The only regional power that could aid Baluchistan, India, won't because the precedent might very well encourage Sikh seapartists in the Punjab. There's also the very real concern of another war with Pakistan over something that isn't in their interest to begin with.
Then there's the matter of Pakistan itself. A sudden splintering of the country due to foreign influence would only rally the population around the Islamist elements of the military and ISI, which would then control the country's nuclear arsenal.
If you believe the propsition that an Islamist government would pass WMD to terrorists, it seems to me far more likely that it would happen in a jihadi Pakistan than it would in Iran, which has no history of national suicide. Pakistan, on the other hand, has already lost half its territory simply to keep the Bengals in line forty years ago. At some point, it might rationally decide that it has nothing left to lose.
Given even the possibility of any of that happening, I can't see how stability could come from that, even in the short term.
I'm not opposed to Bakoch populations in Iran and Afghanistan forming their own nation. One of the terrible betrayals in the Iraq wars was the way that the Kurds were sold out to keep Turkey happy. The Kurdish area of Iraq may be the most stable and prosperous in that country, but denying them independence and compelling them to remain part of an unstable country that was arbitrarily cobbled together by British mapmakers after WW1 is going to lead to even more problems for them sooner or later.
ReplyDeletePleasing Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are not the noblest of players on the international stage, at the expense of almost anyone, is not a big priority as I see it. And anything that pisses off Iran is usually a good idea.
Low priorities and pissing off bad guys might be an ideal way of seeing things until they decide that they can and will do something about it. And the bad guys can greatly complicate an alredy losing war in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteThen there's the matter of the damage that it would do to India's national interest and the ability of the Chinese to pretty much stop the U.S in its tracks whenever it wants.
There's also the matter of CIA's history of incompetence in the region to consider. Has anything they've ever done there worked out they way they planned it?
ReplyDeleteYes, they got the Soviets out of Afghanistan, but that only created the conditions for the Taliban and al Qaeda to bloom there. They removed Mossedegh to reinstall the Shah, only to later wind up with Khmoneni.
Given that history, one should at least consider the possibility that CIA meddling in regions that it clearly doesn't understand won't work out the way anyone would like it to.