Political India: Engaging America

Labels: Lashkar-e-Taiba, Mumbai attacks, Pakistan ISI, U.S.-Pakistan relations

From The Hindu

The United States had “information and concerns” on the terror-related activities of the 2008 Mumbai attacks mastermind David Coleman Headley, based on communications received from his spouses. However the U.S. did not provide India with full information or a stronger warning due to a lack of “specific information.”

At a press briefing this week, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that regarding the nature of the information provided to U.S. authorities by Headley's wives, “there was concern expressed by both spouses at the same time,” although the information “was not specific.”

He added that had the U.S. possessed specific information on Headley, it would have provided it to the Indian government beforehand. However the information received did not detail a “time or place of the attack.”

In particular, Mr. Crowley acknowledged that the U.S. law enforcement authorities held two meetings with one of Headley's spouses in late 2007 and early 2008, during which she provided information that was followed up on and relayed to the relevant agencies across the U.S. government.

Commenting on the U.S.' slow response to the information, Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank, told The Hindu, “Many officials in the U.S. government responsible for Pakistan policy often failed in the past to understand the close links between Pakistan-based terrorist groups targeting India and those that target the West.”

Ms. Curtis said that rather than viewing the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terror outfit Headley was said to have been trained with, on par with the Al-Qaeda, U.S. officials tended to see it only through an Indo-Pakistani lens.

“Not specific”

When Mr. Crowley was asked whether the information provided by Headley's spouses did not mention that he was involved with the LeT, implying that this would have provided a clue about whether Indian targets would be involved, Mr. Crowley only repeated, “There was no specific information as to who he was associated with or what they were planning to do.”

Mr. Crowley's comments came even as reports emerged on Monday that in his statements to Indian authorities in June Headley admitted that the Pakistan spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, had been “deeply involved in planning the 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai, going so far as to fund reconnaissance missions to the Indian city.”

The Associated Press quoted a secret U.S. government report on Headley's interrogation as saying, “According to Headley, every big action of the LeT is done in close coordination with the ISI.”

Mr. Crowley said the U.S. had been pressing Pakistan to take more aggressive action inside its borders to deal with a threat that was of concern to the U.S. and the region.

In the context of the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue in Washington this week, he added, “Clearly, this is an ongoing threat and more needs to be done. That will be among the issues talked about during this week's Strategic Dialogue.”

However with regard to the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, Ms. Curtis cautioned that legal issues could arise in the event that direct ISI links were made to the Mumbai attacks, which also killed six U.S. citizens.

She said, “From a policy perspective, there could be major blowback on the Obama administration if it is perceived as stifling information related to a terrorist incident in which U.S. citizens were murdered.”

There were also questions being raised whether the U.S. authorities had failed to follow up on terrorism leads associated with Headley “because it could potentially implicate Pakistan's intelligence service, with whom the Central Intelligence Agency is closely working,” Ms. Curtis, formerly with the CIA, said.

Labels: 26/11, David Headley, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Lashkar-e-Taiba, mumbai terror

From The Hindu

Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake underscored shared interests and dimensions of cooperation between the United States and India in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including action against terror networks in the former and development projects in the latter.

Addressing media at the Foreign Press Center here Mr. Blake said that counter-terrorism was the U.S.’ “highest priority” and the one area in which the U.S. had “made the greatest progress in terms of our cooperation with India — in terms of not only law enforcement cooperation but also intelligence cooperation”. He added that the U.S. would never be soft on terrorism.

Terror syndicates threat to India, Pak

Mr. Blake further noted, “We take extremely seriously the threats against both of our countries because we believe increasingly that there is a syndicate that is operating in countries like Pakistan that threatens both of our countries.” This syndicate of terror networks also threatens Pakistan itself, he added.

Mr. Blake emphasised that the U.S. had been at “the forefront of countries urging Pakistan to not only continue the progress it has been making in Swat and South Waziristan, but also to address the problem in the Punjab, namely the Punjab-based groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, that are operating against India, that have also targeted the U.S., in the Mumbai bombings and elsewhere.”

Speaking at a televised discussion with Teresita Schaffer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Blake further noted that the U.S. was aware of India’s concern regarding the possibility of U.S. aid to Pakistan being diverted to use against India. He said, “I think [India understands] that we are trying to build up Pakistan’s counter-insurgency capabilities and we are seeking end use assurances to insure that… the weapons that are provided will not be used against India.”

During the discussion with Ms. Shaffer, Mr. Blake also announced that the U.S. and India would engage in joint projects in Afghanistan. On India’s work in Afghanistan he said, “We have welcomed the very important role India has played so far. It is really up to India to decide where it wants to take its cooperation but we commend the steps it has taken so far and we had a discussion on ways that we might be able to cooperate together.” He added that such joint projects may be a promising new area of cooperation between the two countries.

Mr. Blake’s comments came shortly after External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna firmly underscored India’s intention to continue its work in Afghanistan despite its mission there coming under attack from insurgents. India’s approach to Afghanistan has been the subject of recent discussion in policy circles, with some analysts such as Raja Karthikeya of the non-partisan India Research Group think tank arguing that “India enjoys tremendous soft power in Afghanistan but the challenge lies in converting that soft power into influence”.

Labels: Lashkar-e-Taiba, Pak terror networks, Robert Blake

From The Hindu

Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said the three key issues discussed during the strategic dialogue were reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that recognised India's central role in global politics, counter-terrorism cooperation and the need for a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, and defence modernisation, including relaxation of export controls for sensitive high-tech items of trade.

Speaking at a seminar hosted by the Brookings Institution on ‘India and the United States: A Strategic Partnership,' Ms. Rao said the three driving factors behind what President Obama had described as an “unprecedented partnership” were shared values, growing economic and people-to-people contacts, and convergence on major global issues such as terrorism, and energy and food security.

On possible future discussions regarding reform within the United Nations, Ms. Rao said: “The question of reform of the UNSC and the expansion of its membership is an important item on the agenda of our dialogue as we seek U.S. support for India's case for permanent membership of the Security Council.”

Describing India's vision of enhanced South Asian cooperation, Ms. Rao noted: “That vision is, however, being challenged by violent extremism and terrorism which originates in our region and finds sustenance and sanctuary there.” She added that the recent failed terrorist attempt in Times Square, New York, had again revealed the global reach of terrorist organisations, whether Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Touching upon the Afghanistan link to terror, Ms. Rao said India was “supportive of the U.S. efforts to fight terrorism in Afghanistan” and help with restoring stability there. She noted that Indian assistance amounting to over $1.3 billion had helped develop vital civil infrastructure, build human resources and capacities in the areas of health, education, agriculture and rural development among others.

Ms. Rao reiterated the comments of External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna during the dialogue, saying that India stood by its development partnership with Afghanistan “despite repeated terrorist attacks on the Indian mission and our brave men and women who are working there to help transform the lives of ordinary Afghan citizens.”

In her speech, Ms. Rao also emphasised that an important element with regard to ongoing U.S.-India partnerships in defence modernisation would be “progress on the easing of U.S. export control restrictions as they apply to India.”

She argued that this would not only be a logical outcome of the civil nuclear initiative, but would also be a catalyst for promoting trading and cooperation in high-technology, defence and the space sectors. “It would also be consonant with the nature of the strategic partnership that exists between us and the growing mutual trust and confidence that is an important driver in our relations today,” she added.

Labels: Afghan terror link, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Nirupama Rao, S.M. Krishna, Strategic Dialogue

From The Hindu

There is no escaping a strong sense of déjà vu surrounding the upcoming United States-India Strategic Dialogue to be held here this week. Both countries are poised, yet again, to do what they have done ever since President Obama took office, namely, skip through policy minefields while professing unwavering cooperation on a range of less exigent issues.

Much like the previous meetings, this one will not be about Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to deliver justice through the prosecution of the masterminds of the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Speaking before the talks Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, said that regarding Punjab-based terror groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, “Pakistan has [acted against them] in the past between 2004 and 2007, and that laid the basis for a very significant expansion in relations between India and Pakistan.” Then why exactly did the Mumbai attacks occur? This “softly, softly” approach towards Pakistan may be wearing dangerously thin.

Neither will this meeting recognise a fundamental dissonance within President Obama’s nuclear security and non-proliferation agenda — that powers such as the U.S. and Russia continue to maintain significant and less-than-secure arsenals even as they turn up the heat on de facto nuclear powers like India.

Questions to be raised

Would India dare remind the U.S. that it was on American soil that six nuclear warheads fixed to cruise missiles were mistakenly carried on a B-52 bomber in 2007, violating numerous Cold-War-era treaties? Would India even contemplate asking the U.S. to bring Israel’s nuclear programme into the spotlight as it has done Iran’s?

Much like the previous dialogue, this one will certainly not be about understanding India’s views on third parties like Iran, regardless of India’s strategic closeness to that country.

Given its absence at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), India will have no say in the decision by the P5+1 group to mete out rough justice to Iran through UNSC sanctions, which completely undermine Iran’s promise to move low-enriched uranium off its soil under the fuel-swap deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil.

Global, bilateral issues on agenda

Instead, global and bilateral issues have been placed on the agenda which, though worthy of holding the relationship to a positive pitch, make a proverbial 200-pound gorilla of the other burning questions.

The most telling sign that the U.S.-India engagement is set to simmer but will never get fully cooked was a statement by Mr. Blake to a question on what the deliverables of the Strategic Dialogue would be. He said, “I do not want to talk about the deliverables now. But we are really not focused that much on deliverables.”

Labels: India-U.S. ties, Lashkar-e-Taiba, non-proliferation agenda, nuclear security, Robert Blake, Strategic Dialogue, UNSC

From The Hindu

Federal authorities investigating Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad should look into his activities and links in Pakistan, especially given that he had spent five months there prior to the planned attack in New York, according to Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a think-tank based in Washington.

Speaking to The Hindu Ms. Curtis, formerly with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the CIA and the State Department's South Asia Bureau, said she expected there would be a “serious investigation into his links in Pakistan,” including contact with international terrorist networks in the country and ideological links.

Drawing parallels to such links that the suspects in the London subway bombing case had, Mr. Curtis said that though it was too early to say with certainty whether Shahzad was a ‘lone wolf' or not, U.S. authorities would be likely to look into his connections with not only Al-Qaeda but also its affiliates such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Ms. Curtis recently provided expert testimony on Lashkar-e-Taiba at a Congressional hearing during which Congressman Gary Ackerman had noted that the LeT was an organisation of growing scope and ambition and a threat to the U.S. “Pakistan was in a delicate dance with a Frankenstein's monster of its own making... which was now going global,” Mr. Ackerman had said.

Shahzad, a Pakistan-born naturalised citizen of the U.S., was arrested on Monday night following a trace of the Vehicle Identification Number of the Nissan Pathfinder that loaded with explosive materials and parked in Times Square, New York. According to reports the trace led back to a Connecticut woman who had allegedly sold the vehicle to Mr. Shahzad.

A dramatic arrest on the tarmac of New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport followed, which saw the Dubai-bound Emirates flight that Mr. Shahzad was on being recalled to the airport after takeoff.

According to a statement from the White House on Tuesday, President Obama had been briefed regularly about the investigation and was notified of the Shahzad arrest by John Brennan, the administration's top counterterrorism advisor.

Labels: Al-Qaeda, Faisal Shahzad, FBI, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Times Square bomb

From The Hindu (shorter print edition excerpt)

Robert Blake is the United States Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs a position he has held since May 2009. A career Foreign Service Officer, Mr. Blake has served at the American Embassies in Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria and Egypt and in senior roles at the State Department in Washington. Mr. Blake was also Deputy Chief of Mission in New Delhi between 2003-2006, and Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives from 2006 to mid-2009. He has a B.A. from Harvard College and an M.A. in international relations from Johns Hopkins. In a recent interview with The Hindu, Mr. Blake touched upon a number of current foreign policy issues.


Two questions on economics and trade, firstly, several Indian ministers, including Sachin Pilot and more recently Mallikarjun Kharge, have made references to the fact that Indians and Indian companies pay a lot of money towards social security here in the U.S. and yet do not see any benefits coming out of such contributions as they do not remain in this country long enough. From these statements it is obvious that this is becoming a growing concern in India. Can you explain what, if anything, the U.S. is planning to do to address this concern?

Well this has been a long-standing issue on our agenda and it is called “totalisation.” The problem is that our social security systems are not synchronised. We certainly have heard the Indian concerns on this and sought to be responsive. But our social security administration has really grappled with this but thus far not found a way to be responsive. But we will continue to look at this and see what we can do.

With Indian state institutions such as ISRO still on the Entities List of the BIS, there is a real concern in India that this will come in the way of high-tech trade and cooperation promised under the Obama-Singh umbrella of initiatives (especially for dual-use items). While the administration has said that its policies in this area will be reviewed, the concern on the Indian side has been magnified by the fact that the administration is altering tax laws against off-shoring of U.S. business and the rhetoric seems to point towards a deliberate intent towards greater protectionism. What could you say that would reassure India in this regard?

I can tell you that we are not moving towards a more protectionist position vis-à-vis India or any other country. The President has repeatedly stated his commitment to free trade and has stated his commitment to the existing trade agreements that we have with countries that are pending, like Colombia, but more broadly to the Doha Round. Obviously the role and cooperation of countries like India is going to be critical in achieving a successful outcome. You have seen our trade representative Ron Kirk make statements with Minister Sharma on this.

On the question of export controls, there is a broader administration-wide export-control review that is taking place. You saw, recently, statements by Secretary Gates, that referred to the fact that the laws on the books are now quite dated and do not reflect the tremendous advances that have taken place in technology; and the fact that many of the technologies that are now controlled are available in RadioShack and there is usually not need for any controls on many of these things [laughs]. So there is a need to rationalise that list and there is also a need to make one agency responsible and not the whole bunch of agencies right now that have responsibilities for export control. The administration is really committed to trying to look at this in a really positive way. One of the most important benefits to the United States is that it will enable us to export more to countries like India.

As part of that export control review we will then be able to look at what we might be able to do on the Entities List, for example, with India – I know ISRO and there are several others. We have already been looking at ways that the U.S. and India could take reciprocal measures that would allow us to continue to enhance trade in high technology goods of all kinds. As you know we have already had the high-technology corporation group which has been in existence for many years and has made really very significant progress in reducing the number of goods that require a license for export to India. Now it is well over 96-97 per cent of the things that we trade are not subject to any license at all. It is really a very small proportion of the overall goods.

But again we feel that there are very significant opportunities to work in space. We were already part of the Chandrayaan launch. We are already doing a lot of cooperation through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on things like meteorological forecasting and things like that. We would very much like to do this and space will be another important area of cooperation going forward.

On David Coleman Headley, it has been over one month since he struck a plea agreement with the Department of Justice. When you spoke to us at the Foreign Press Centre you said that no decision had been made on giving India direct access to Mr. Headley. So there are a few questions here: Could you please explain why Indian authorities should not feel frustrated that this process is taking so long and how much longer will they have to wait? Secondly what is the exact nature of the procedures that are stalling the process – is it simply a question of formal filings required by either side or is it something more fundamental such as Mr. Headley reconsidering his offer to cooperate or the U.S. still trying to put in place modalities to manage Mr. Headley’s interaction with India tightly?

It is not so much a question of the U.S. putting [modalities in place]. It is more a question of getting agreement from Mr. Headley and his lawyers about this – what are going to be the parameters of that access, should it occur. I do not think anyone should read too much into this. People at a very high level with very good intentions are working on this and we are in very close touch with Indian authorities on this. I think it is just important to be patient, but I can tell you that we are well aware of India’s interest but also India’s equities as well. Obviously Mr. Headley was involved in reconnoitring sites for not only the Mumbai bombings but perhaps other ones. They have a very clear interest in knowing what further information he may have and we understand that.

So what is it that is the specific problem, because the plea agreement clearly says that the death penalty was waived based on his cooperation.

I really do not want to say more than what I have already said. It is not really our department that is working on this but the Department of Justice.

On your recent trip to the region, you mentioned that you had urged authorities in Pakistan to take action against Punjab-based groups, such as LeT, “not only because that is important to India but it is important to the U.S..” Apart from the earlier indirect actions by Pakistan in the Swat and South Waziristan offensives, in what ways are they following your advice? How about more immediate goals such as banning them and their associates from holding public meetings (as they have been doing) or seeing through the trial of the Mumbai attacks suspects to its completion?

First of all with respect to the case, my impression is that is moving forward and that there is not any effort on the part of the Pakistani government to slow that down in any way. It is just that the judicial process is moving ahead.

On the question of LeT, I will just say what I have said before, which is that we really see that LeT is an organisation of growing scope and ambition, as the Headley case itself illustrates; and also a threat to the U.S. but also a threat to India and other countries, and potentially a threat to Pakistan too. So it is important for all countries to do what they can to circumscribe and control the activities of LeT. We will be continuing to urge our friends in Pakistan to deal with this. As I said earlier, they have made a lot of progress in Swat and then in South Waziristan, in arresting senior members of the Taliban. There is good momentum that has been taking place. At the same time it is important for all of us that these other groups – many of which have attacked Pakistan itself, like Jaish-e-Mohammed and groups like that – that they also be a target of Pakistani actions. We will continue to urge for progress on that.

It has wider benefit for not only counterterrorism priority, but also Indian and Pakistani relations. One of the things that I said to our Indian and Pakistani friends when I was there, particularly to the business community, is that there are tremendous under-exploited opportunities for trade between the two countries and that if progress can continue to be made on terrorism and on the judicial actions that we talked about earlier, that would really open up a way for the business communities of both sides to expand trade relations and business investment relations.

From my conversations both in India and Pakistan, they are both ready to do that. But they are both waiting for political signals from their governments before they take actions. These small but important steps on things like LeT can have a wider and positive effect on bilateral relations.

Yes but in that same vein do you not think that some of these related organisations could have public meetings and also the slightly unrelated point on attacks in Afghanistan on Indian personnel. Do these things not dissuade this sort of process from kicking off?

Well they do, yes, so again that underlines the importance of Pakistan fulfilling what it has always said it would do, which is to not allow its territory to be used as a platform against other countries.

Well I guess what many Indians would wonder is, what role could the U.S. play in pushing that forward on the ground. Certainly they have made the right statements but there is a sense that action is not following.

Yes, Pakistan has a sovereign government and they are a friend of the U.S. and we will continue to work with them on this but all I can say is we have identified this as a priority.

President Obama said at his Nuclear Security Summit press conference that the U.S. wanted to reduce nuclear tension in South Asia. Does the U.S. see Chinese nuclear weapons and the Chinese proliferation link with Pakistan as factors which have contributed to this tension historically and at the present time?

We all know the historical ties between Pakistan and China. But I do not think I would want to make any statements about the current [situation]. I do not think that there are any significant proliferation issues right now with regard to China and Pakistan.

There are no concerns?

I do not think that that is at the forefront of things that we are working on. Our dialogue with China now is first of all urging them to work with the international community to help stabilise Pakistan and then help provide the assistance that it needs. But then also on the counter-terrorism front there are groups operating in Pakistan that are antithetical to Chinese interests – [for example] the East Turkistan [Islamic] Movement. It is certainly in their interest and in our interest to see that action is taken against those groups to prevent the destabilisation of China. Then we are of course very closely working with China in Afghanistan as well, and we appreciate the role they are playing there in terms of new investments and a lot of the projects they have undertaken there.

On Sri Lanka, what would you say is your single biggest worry about how the post-election scenario could play out in terms of continuing the process of rehabilitations of IDPs and a longer-term political solution for lasting peace between the major ethnic groups? Does the President’s appointment of his brothers to powerful portfolios and his attitude towards Sarath Fonseka, who is still in custody, worry you at all in this regard?

I would rather not talk about worries; I would rather talk about opportunities. Again I think the President has scored a very significant victory in both the Presidential elections and in the Parliamentary elections. It shows that the President has a great deal of personal support around the country and particularly in the south, where he won an overwhelming victory. Now, he has a really historic opportunity to unify the country, to bring the country together as one country as never before – or at least not in the last 30 years. So we look very much forward to working with the new government to help that process of unifying the country. I hope to have the opportunity to meet with President Rajapaksa during the SAARC summit which is going to be taking place in Bhutan next week to hear about his plans in that regard.

So what about the question of Mr. Fonseka?

That is a in the Sri Lankan judicial system now and I do not have any independent information about the charges that are against him. We will have to wait and see on that. Our interest, like the interests of the Sri Lankan people, is to make sure that he is tried in accordance with Sri Lankan law.

Do you see any obstacles at all in terms of this President reaching out to Tamil groups and IDPs and fostering a long-term solution? That is the harder bit and that is something that this country wrestled with for decades and that is what people are going to be watching for now.

The election results were only announced yesterday so we have to give the President a chance to articulate his plans. I do not want to make statements that are going to in any way circumscribe what he is going to say. I would rather give the President a chance to make his comments and then we will comment after that [laughs].

Finally as the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs, what is your view of India, Pakistan and Iran joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation? The SCO is expected to announce membership criteria at its Tashkent summit next month and all three countries are known to be interested. How does the U.S. see the SCO in general, and specifically, in relation to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Could the SCO play a role in stabilising the situation there?

We see that the SCO can play a very important role in bringing in the countries of Central Asia and the wider region together. That could be a very important vehicle for dialogue and also for economic development and economic integration. As long as the SCO sees those things as its goal, we certainly welcome that. The expansion to other countries, such as India and Pakistan, would be welcome. I know India particularly has a great deal of interest in trying to expand relations into Central Asia, and many Central Asians tell me that they have interest in doing more business with India, and also Pakistan eventually. But the security situation in Pakistan sometimes constrains them right now. But many Central Asian business people that I have spoken to see quite significant trade and investment opportunities both from South Asian countries coming up to invest in Central Asia but also in terms of export opportunities into South Asia for Central Asian companies. The SCO can play quite an important role in that respect and it is good for friends like Pakistan and India to be involved in that.

Again in that context you earlier mentioned that you were concerned about both India and Pakistan tying up with Iran, in the context of pipelines, talking of business in the region. What is your thinking on that either in the context of the SCO or even otherwise, with such projects going forward? Do you think that both at forums such as the SCO and on independent commercial projects the coming together of countries like India and Iran is a cause for concern for the U.S., vis-à-vis stability in the region or what you are trying to achieve with Iran in a global context?

You are well aware of what we are trying to accomplish with Iran right now. We are at a very sensitive stage in our diplomacy with them. The President has pursued the dual-track policy of holding out a hand of friendship, but if the Iranians are not willing to accept that, to build international consensus to bring the Iranians to the table and stop their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. At the moment we are trying to discourage all countries from pursuing projects that would put significant resources into the hands of, particularly groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps, that have pursued terrorist actions and that have given money and weapons to terrorist groups in the Middle East and have sought actively to destabilise and attack Israel and pursue terrorist policies in the wider part of the world.

So we have a very strong interest in stopping that. All the countries of the world have a very strong interest in stopping that. It is in that context that we discourage friends like India and Pakistan from pursuing, for example, energy projects and so forth.

But the coming together of these countries on the platform of the SCO per se does not worry you?

I do not know, I cannot comment on the Iranian part of the SCO. I have not really followed it that closely – what Iran’s intentions are with regard to SCO.

Labels: David Coleman Headley, India-U.S. ties, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Robert Blake