Indian Elections – A Multiparty Masala

This will be the first of two articles about this year’s Indian national elections and the first in a series of pieces about major elections in Asia this year.

The largest democracy on Earth is presently in the middle of national elections. In India, three out of five phases of voting have been completed, and in only two weeks the final results will be known. Indian elections are always rambunctious. The democratic process itself is chaotic, accommodating dozens of political parties, thousands of candidates, and around 700 million voters who live in the world’s biggest cities and most remote villages, speak dozens of languages, and represent thousands of castes across a shockingly wide socioeconomic spectrum. Corruption, violence, and outlandish campaigning are a part of elections in any given year. Newspapers and news channels flood the cities and countryside with relentless election news and gossip while politicians crisscross the country in frenetic campaigning that can draw crowds of hundreds of thousands of people. The frequent involvement of cricket and film stars lends an air of celebrity and glamour to the proceedings. Hindi-speakers frequently use the word tamasha to describe elections and politics – a word meaning a “spectacle” and “amusement.” It also connotes rowdiness and a sense of being outside of normal life.

This year’s national elections are no different. But last November’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai have raised concerns about serious violence interfering with the elections. Indeed, after a right-wing Hindu nationalist candidate made inflammatory anti-Muslim remarks in public speeches, a Muslim mafia don allegedly threatened to kill him. But, this is really just par for the course. So far, the press has said little about (presumably Pakistani-based) Muslim militants planning any attacks during the elections. The larger threat – during the first two phases of polling at least – were Maoist guerrillas known as Naxalites, active in many of India’s poorest rural regions, who called for an election boycott and carried out murderous attacks on police forces, detonated bombs, and hijacked a train, leading to the deaths of over two dozen people.

With that said, the chance that India’s elections will be derailed by any violent organization or event is exceedingly small. Barring an unprecedented attack in India, this year’s National Assembly (Lok Sabha) elections will be completed relatively smoothly and on time. With the counting of votes on May 16, the election will come to a climax, and it is difficult at this point for anyone to imagine what is likely to happen. By all accounts, this election is a toss up, and the Election Commission’s ruling that exit polls and post-poll surveys be banned have made it even more difficult to predict what may happen. Complex coalition politics, which have dominated national politics in India since the 1990s, makes this election more unpredictable than the typical close US election, and this year’s addition of a third and an even smaller fourth coalition of regional parties makes these 2009 elections more jumbled than the last national elections five years ago. The stunning emergence of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) since 2004 has also complicated matters.

Consider: The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by the secular, centrist Congress Party, is currently a coalition of 16 parties. The UPA has ruled since 2004 and can claim a rather ho-hum record that is neither impressive nor a failure. The alliance that ruled from 1999-2004, and which has sat in opposition since, is the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the right-wing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has recently been beset by serious infighting and an unclear message for voters. It now contains 10 parties. Until now, these two alliances were the only ones to wield enough power to gain control at the center. The Congress and the BJP have been the largest parties since the 1990s, but their support has gradually been chipped away by communist, regional, and caste-based parties. Until recently, these smaller parties had no choice but to ally themselves with the Congress or the BJP if they wanted to play a part in national politics. However, this year a Third Front has emerged, gambling that a coalition of such parties can perhaps capture as many seats as the UPA and the NDA. This would enable these parties to take power without bowing down to the two parties that have dominated national politics for the past two decades.

With this development, parties are jockeying for power and weighing their options before and after the elections. While some parties have committed to one alliance or another, other parties are waiting until after the votes are counted to pick a side. And whichever alliance is asked to form a government will, with some serious political wrangling, likely attract new parties to its side – whether they have committed to another or not.

In this day and age, this is how elections in India are won and lost. The mathematics and the political sticks and carrots necessary for building a winning coalition have all but drowned out issues, personalities, and ideologies. For evidence of this, just follow the Indian news. The vast majority of election coverage is currently speculation about likely alliances or defections, not about issues. Of course, certain events and issues may shape an election, but they must be extraordinary. Though this is a national election, voters are choosing local candidates (in India’s parliamentary democracy, the party or coalition with the most candidates elected forms the central government). And these local candidates must address local issues – issues which often don’t change a great deal in much of India. Who can ensure electricity, drinkable water, better roads, better health care facilities, and better schools? And with such a plethora of political parties catering to specific caste and religious sensibilities, many voters will simply vote their caste or religious identity. For this reason, I doubt that, aside from Mumbai and maybe other large Indian cities, the issue of terrorism will be important. Nor will the global economic crisis. What will be most important in these elections are the alliances that are negotiated. For now, those alliances have yet to cohere. And there are enough wild cards in the deck that the final outcome is anyone’s guess.

North Korea: An Uncertain Future

Last week North Korea conducted a test launch of what it claimed to be a satellite, now successfully orbiting the globe and beaming patriotic, revolutionary music to the masses. South Korea, Japan, the US, and many others assert this was no peaceful satellite launch but a provocative and threatening intercontinental ballistic missile test in violation of UN Resolution 1718, and have found no evidence of a singing revolutionary satellite in orbit. So either this test appears to have been, in actuality, a missile test or it was a failed attempt to put a North Korean satellite into orbit – both scenarios that contradict North Korea’s version of events.

President Obama, South Korea, and Japan quickly came out with withering condemnations of the launch, describing it as “provocative” and “reckless,” and calling for sharp, immediate action from the UN, possibly including further economic sanctions. China and Russia, the other two participants in the Six-Party Talks and closer to North Korea, cautioned against “an emotional knee-jerk reaction” to the test, reminding all parties to remain focused on the main goal of the Six-Party Talks – the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Regardless of what happens in response to this immediate crisis, one has to wonder: What is going on in North Korea? Often described as reclusive and one of the world’s most closed societies, North Korea is something of an enigma – especially to Americans. Of course there was the Korean War of the early 1950s, but fewer and fewer Americans remember it, know much about it, or care about it. And to be honest, it is hard to see how that conflict – over 50 years ago – has much relevance as a way of explaining what is going on today. However, it does frame the current situation, and for that reason I will provide a brief history of the Korean peninsula and the complex and usually vitriol US-North Korean relationship since 1945.

The Cold War

In August of 1945, World War II ended, and Korea was granted independence from its Japanese colonizers. This independence came with a price however. Korea, like Germany, would be split in two – one part, essentially, to be a US puppet state, and the other to be a Soviet one. Exiles Syngman Rhee (who had been living in the US) and Kim Il-Sung (who had been in the USSR) returned to Korea to rule the South and North, respectively. Within five years, North Korea invaded the South in an effort to unify the peninsula under its own rule. Much of South Korea, including its capital Seoul, was captured by the North, prompting a massive military response from the UN – led by the US and South Korea. By the end of the conflict, at least 3 million Koreans, almost 1 million Chinese, and over 50,000 Americans had died. After the conflict was over, Korea remained divided almost exactly as it had been before 1950. Relations between the North and South have remained uneasy ever since, and tens of thousands of US troops and (until 1991) thousands of nuclear warheads have been based in the South. Over the years, clashes along the 4 km wide Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) dividing the two countries have not been uncommon. US spy ships and airplanes have been captured or shot down by the North, the North has often threateningly tunneled beneath the DMZ, and the North was responsible for the hijacking and downing of Korean Airlines flight 858 in 1987. At the same time, for 50 years after the Korean War, the US vigorously supported harsh economic sanctions against the North.

Post-Cold War

With the fall of the USSR in 1991, North Korea lost a significant supporter and has struggled with food shortages and a collapsing economy ever since. Since that time, there has been constant speculation about the North’s developing of a military nuclear program and its sharing of military knowledge and technology with nations such as Pakistan and Syria. In 1993 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was disallowed from inspecting North Korean nuclear sites, and the North withdrew from the IAEA the next year. In 1994 Kim Il-Sung died and was replaced as North Korea’s head of state by his son, Kim Jong-Il. While the US and North Korea signed the 1994 Agreed Framework to improve relations, its implementation has been rocky, with both sides failing to fully follow through on their commitments. In 1998 the South’s new president Kim Dae-Jung introduced his sweeping new “Sunshine Policy,” a policy of engagement aimed at spurring improved North-South relations and increased cross-border trade and cooperation. The North continued developing its missile program, but largely within the guidelines agreed upon with the US and the South. At the same time, the US played a role in militarily strengthening Japan and South Korea against the North.

Efforts continued to normalize North-South and North-US relations until 2001. At that time new US President George Bush took a much more hawkish position toward the North than President Clinton had, and famously included North Korea in his “Axis of Evil” along with Iran and Iraq. This stance worsened US-North Korean relations considerably, and over the next few years North Korea defiantly expanded its nuclear program and withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003. New governments in South Korea and Japan treated the North more coolly. Bogged down in Iraq, the Bush administration was compelled to try negotiation through the Six Party Talks – which involved the US, North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan. Further bellicose statements by President Bush and disagreements over the terms of the Agreed Framework gave the North excuses to withdraw from the talks, and in October of 2006 North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. Incredibly, talks continued after this test, and were successful enough that some foresaw a breakthrough in US-North Korean relations in 2007; yet by late 2008 talks broke down again. Complicating matters was the reported stroke of North Korea’s “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-Il in August of 2008, creating fears about the North’s immediate future – including the stability of its political system and the fate of its nuclear weapons. However,  the US and the North worked cooperatively during this time to alleviate the effects of famines in the North and to find the remains of American servicemen killed since 1950 in the North, and war was in fact averted through diplomatic channels on many occasions.

Prelude to a Transition?

To the average American observer – myself included – North Korea’s actions are perplexing. Why exactly are they test firing rockets over Japan? Why now? What are their motivations? And more generally, why has North Korea spent so much money and risked so much global animosity on developing its nuclear weapons program? Why has it remained such a closed country? With the fall of the USSR and China’s transformation to free market heavyweight, why has it clung to its rigid form of communism? And this is just the beginning.

Here are a few thoughts, first concerning the immediate situation. Despite Kim Jong-Il’s very public appreciation for the launch, it was the first time since August that he has appeared in public, probably due to his questionable health. If he is in fact in poor health, the North may be facing a rocky transition of power and this launch may be a way of declaring North Korea’s continued military strength and its intention to proceed with a space and military program regardless of whether he continues to rule or not. Indeed, after considerable diplomatic progress in 2008, in recent months the North has been more hostile toward Japan and South Korea, has kicked out US humanitarian aid teams, and has detained two American journalists, indicating an unpredictable government possibly undergoing a significant change.

A Negotiation Tactic?

On the other hand, North Korea has used provocative military tests in the past to extract concessions from the US during the Six-Party Talks, such as having its name dropped from the US’s state sponsors of terrorism list or to procure humanitarian and development aid. So, this week’s action could be a signal that the North’s political regime is weak and in need of assistance, for which it would like to use this test as a bargaining chip.

That the North’s military activities are mainly a tactic to drive a harder bargain with the US is the accepted explanation for North Korean motives. While this is certainly part of the picture, it is hard to believe that this is North Korea’s sole purpose for developing such a large military program. Nearly a quarter of the North’s GNP is devoted to military spending, and it has 1.2 million active duty military personnel, nearly double the South’s standing military. This makes North Korea’s military one of the largest in the world, despite the fact that it is a nation of just 23 million people. So, long before the Six Party Talks, the North has been building a formidable military for its own sake, not just as a bargaining chip. The large and threatening US presence in northeast Asia since 1950 is surely a factor, as is the significant drop in military support from Russia and China in recent decades. It is not surprising that the North feels vulnerable, and its massive military is surely one reason that its government has endured and that it continues to exist at all as a nation.

Game Theory with Obama?

The US is experiencing a transition of power as well, and this launch was perhaps directed at a young, inexperienced President Obama. Before the launch, Obama’s administration indicated a willingness to pursue high-level bilateral talks with North Korea and received no answer from Pyongyang. Perhaps, the launch was an effort by North Korea to get the attention of the new administration, and to engage the US on its own terms. It could also have been, in part, a test just to see what reaction the launch would prompt from the US. Over the past few decades, the North has seemed interested in engaging with the US and the South when given the chance. Some also have argued that the recent launch does not explicitly violate UN Resolution 1718, indicating that the North wants attention, but not to actually break its obligations under 1718. This test may have been a way of gauging the sincerity of the Obama administration’s overtures to the North. If Obama can keep a cool head and avoid Bush’s war-mongering rhetoric even in a sticky situation, the North may take Obama’s offers to engage more seriously. Obama declined to use the US missile defense system to shoot down the North’s rocket, and instead sharply denounced the launch and steered the issue to the UN while working with other members of the Six-Party Talks to come up with a constructive response. Time will tell how much Obama’s strategy will differ from that of former Presidents Bush or Clinton.

Why Isolation?

As for North Korea’s more general isolation from the global community, there seem to be a few compelling explanations. The most obvious and simplistic reason is the desire of a small circle of political and military North Korean elites to retain power at any cost. Life in North Korea is hard, stifling, and unforgiving. The North’s particularly harsh interpretation of communism has propped up a family dynasty and benefited a small group at the expense of most for over 50 years. Yet today’s rulers are not as “beloved” as Kim Il-Sung and the North’s focus on military success seems to be a way of demonstrating its power and bestowing legitimacy on a regime that has few other successes to point to.

Demonizing the North Korean leadership is the easy way to explain its actions, but other factors are in play as well.  As mentioned above, the North received substantial economic and military support from both the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War. With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 however, much of the North’s support gave way. In contrast to much of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics, North Korea’s leadership has adjusted poorly to a post-Cold War world, prioritizing its own survival over a more holistic concern for North Korea’s people and place in this new world. It has remained largely isolated economically and politically and has suffered devastating famines since the early 1990s. Legitimate and imagined fears have resulted in disproportionate military spending that certainly prevents the North from investing in economic development, improving government services and infrastructure, or providing humanitarian aid to the extent necessary. This inability to adjust effectively to a new world has led to economic and political weakness that military strength has attempted to compensate for.

Additionally, as mentioned above, between 1950 and 2000 the US enforced an economic embargo on the North that isolated it from the capitalist world. That was not much of a problem during the Cold War when the North could count on support from the USSR and China, but afterward the North suffered tremendously. Economic sanctions in various forms have often been the response to the North’s more recent military activities. Intended to punish North Korea’s defiant leaders, limiting trade and aid to the North since the 1950s has contributed to the small country’s international isolation and have been an obstacle to normalized relations with other nations.

What’s Next?

What the future holds for North Korea is anybody’s guess, especially if Kim Jong-Il’s health deteriorates further. Will he remain in power, engaging with the international community in his characteristically bold and theatrical way? Will a smooth transition of power take place? Or does the country face a political upheaval with unpredictable and potentially frightening consequences in the near future? And what of denuclearizing and even reunifying the Korean peninsula? Both the North and the US show signs of wanting to increase engagement and economic cooperation, and this would certainly be preferable to the prickly and potentially disastrous path they are on now. Yet both must work hard to overcome their mutual distrust of one another while saving face and appearing not to give up too much to the other, long-feared side of the 38th parallel.

Hillary’s Trip to Asia: A Foreign Policy Reality Check

President Obama ran his election campaign on a slogan we all now know – “Change We Can Believe In.” However,  I have always been skeptical of Obama’s ability or commitment to bring fundamental change in US foreign policy. Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s February trip to Asia, as well received and heavily covered as it was, has only confirmed my skepticism. Here’s why.

First, while Clinton’s words in Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China were a departure from Bush’s simplistic might-makes-right foreign policy, they weren’t too different from the foreign policy followed by her own husband, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan (you get the idea). Obama’s foreign policy “change” appears to be a return to how the US has conducted foreign policy since World War II. That is, we work cooperatively within the UN, NATO, and other alliances; we engage other countries diplomatically; we don’t declare preemptive wars; we promote a certain type of economic model; we support nuclear non-proliferation; etc.  While this is undoubtedly better than George W. Bush’s foreign policy, it doesn’t look like a fundamental foreign policy shift. Nor does it bode well for those optimistic that President Obama will base his foreign policy on human rights, as many had hoped for during the campaign.

Admittedly, I did start out happy with how Clinton was conducting herself during this trip. She discussed relevant issues in the countries she visited and met with officials, students, and  activists. People seemed to be generally impressed with and charmed by her performance.  However, after following her trip for a while, I began to feel like it was just that–a performance. She was saying what she needed to say (and not saying what she needed to not say) depending on where she was, and her priority was selling the US, President Obama, and herself to officials and the public. This was sorely needed after eight years of George Bush, and while she showed her serious professional side as well as a softer personal side, Clinton is a seasoned, hard-nosed politician who surely understands the realities of being the only global superpower’s top diplomat. Realpolitik rules. Mushy sentimental support for human rights does not guide international relations or foreign policy. Clinton did after all vote against a Congressional bill to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas because it would make her look weak on terrorism (her new boss supported the ban). 

The dissonance of her message was most jarring when comparing her speeches in Indonesia to those in China. She wooed and flattered her Indonesian hosts by talking up their democratic government, their thriving and diverse civil society, and the inclusive positive example they show to the Muslim world. China was another matter. Before she even arrived, Clinton emphasized that human rights concerns would not interfere with major issues like the economic crisis and global warming. She curbed her earlier harsh criticism of China’s human rights record in favor of other topics (which, to be fair, were not much easier to confront). While implying human rights are a marginal issue was not music to the ears of human rights advocates, it is consistent with US foreign policy historically. Human rights have had their place when they support US policy, but are always easily swept aside when they don’t. So far, the Obama administration doesn’t seem to offer a change from this realist worldview.

This is not to say that changes are not likely on the horizon. Obama is certainly charting a different course than George Bush did. His early choices about China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria indicate a new tack, and he is making a concerted effort to clean up the US image in the world’s eyes. Human rights may be more important to President Obama than many previous US presidents, but Clinton’s stance in China makes it clear that they will not be the guiding principal of his foreign policy. The US participation as a mere observer at the recent UN Human Rights Commission and its boycott of the UN Conference on Racism also show that Obama’s administration is wary of treading new ground in the defense of human rights.

So then what is Obama’s guiding principle for his foreign policy? Not surprisingly, it appears to be essentially the same as every other US president–to protect and promote American interests abroad. This definition clearly leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Obama has pledged deeper and more sustained diplomatic engagement with allies as well as enemies–even Iran! Cuba! Venezuela!–in an effort to forge constructive relationships across the globe. As a caveat to this policy, Obama has explicitly said he will act in such a way only if it is in America’s self-interest.

Fair enough. This is the president’s job, and the reality is that US foreign policy probably will never be guided by any principle other than American self-interest. I understand this, and though it sounds amoral and opportunistic to my ears, I understand the necessity, and benefit, to advance a flexible foreign policy in an effort to engage with as many other countries as possible. And, in reality, should it be any other way? Maybe what Obama is offering is the best we can hope for when it comes to US foreign policy. George Bush’s presidency clearly demonstrated the pitfalls of having a foreign policy that stubbornly brooks no opposition to its moral certainty. Any moral justification can be abused by those in power–even a commitment to human rights or democracy or freedom. (Such a commitment to worldwide democracy is in fact one of the guiding principles of both idealist foreign policy, put in practice historically by those such as Woodrow Wilson, and modern neoconservatism under President Bush.) Promoting and protecting American interests abroad can be abused too, but at least it is an honest selfish justification for how our government behaves overseas. Protecting American interests is perhaps all the president should commit to, and if he (or one day she) is willing to keep as many channels of communication open with friend and foe, this may be the best long-term strategy. To expect anything more just may be naive, unrealistic, and unfair.

Will Love of Cricket Spell the End for Terrorism in Pakistan?

Today the BBC news brought word of an attack on the Sri Lankan national cricket team in the Pakistani city of Lahore. A driver and six policemen were killed and eight Sri Lankan players were wounded. They have now returned to Sri Lanka (also in the news today for its looming humanitarian disaster) to their grateful families and fans. This may not be of much significance to Americans who know and care little about cricket. Just another tragic terrorist attack on the other side of the world. Just another sign that Pakistan is a failed state. Just another demonstration of the craziness and ruthlessness of Islamic militants.

But this should be the event that finally turns most Pakistani leaders and public opinion firmly against domestic Islamic terrorists. Though this attack was against the Sri Lankan cricket team, the militants may as well have attacked the Pakistani team since their actions have essentially killed international cricket in Pakistan for the foreseeable future. Since the Mumbai attacks in November (linked to Pakistani militants), India has refused to send its team across the border. Sri Lanka went home without playing and New Zealand is likely to cancel its upcoming trip for fear of a similar attack. It certainly hurts Pakistan’s chances of co-hosting the 2011 Cricket World Cup, as had been planned. As long as violence threatens visiting teams, no one will be motivated to play in Pakistan.

Americans may not understand cricket-playing countries’ obsession with the sport. I can’t think of anything comparable in the US. We just don’t have a national sports team filled with popular superstars that is constantly in the public eye and that is closely and devoutly followed by so many. I have not spent time in Pakistan, but if the public’s fanatical devotion to the national team and players is anything like the Indian public’s (and I have been assured that it is), then denying these national heroes and their rabid fans of the future matches, prestige, and excitement international cricket brings will not be taken lightly. The Pakistani public may be willing to condone or overlook terrorist activity that does not affect them – that is limited to Kashmir, that only takes place in India, or that is in the remote border tribal areas. Attacking militant groups with substantial public support is politically dicey for Asif Ali Zardari’s weak government, and firm action can be difficult to carry out. But will the public and the government be willing to forgive this attack on their beloved sport, and indeed a way of life?

I doubt it. Despite previous suicide attacks, car bombs, and shootouts in Pakistan, today Islamic terrorists may have turned the Pakistani public against them in a way that no one else could have. This attack may finally force Pakistani politicians and the army to firmly crack down on what is a serious domestic threat. What may follow is a true fight for the soul and future of Pakistan – between violent, militant, fundamentalists and average, law-abiding Pakistani citizens. Believe it or not, things could be worse than they are in Pakistan. They may also get worse before they get better. But one can hope that if there is any silver lining to this attack, it is that it will ultimately save Pakistan from falling into the hands of violent fundamentalists. Pakistanis know that publicly stoning adulterers to death is just not as Pakistani as a rousing cricket match.

Slumdog Millionaire and What to Do About Global Poverty

I walked out of Seattle’s old Harvard Exit Theater on a cold Friday night in December. I had just seen the film Slumdog Millionaire and overheard two people talking. One was telling the other how she had seen Bollywood movies before and that all they contained were dance scenes and Jane Austen-like plots. She hesitated, “Actually, maybe what I’ve seen were spoofs of Bollywood movies and this was, like, a real Bollywood movie.” I smiled.

At the time, Slumdog Millionaire hadn’t yet won Best Picture at the Golden Globes. It hadn’t been nominated for the Best Picture Oscar (nor was it running as the heavy favorite to win Best Picture and Best Director), and director Danny Boyle and the movie’s two young lead actors – Dev Patel and Freida Pinto – hadn’t yet been hosted and gushed over by Oprah and Ellen. It was playing at a single, mostly empty theater in Seattle. Contrary to what many American viewers believe, Slumdog Millionaire is no Bollywood movie, but it is certainly a film with plenty of genuine Indian elements. It is based on the novel Q & A by Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup. Most of its music is by Bollywood super-composer AR Rahman, and it even contains a (relatively mediocre) song and dance routine. Lead roles are played by famous Indian actors Irrfan Khan and Anil Kapoor. It was filmed entirely in India and the child actors were all Indian – some of them slum dwellers themselves. There is plenty of melodrama and a love story. While Slumdog Millionaire clearly draws inspiration from Bollywood, it is directed by an Englishman and is mostly in English, leading many Indians to treat it as just another Hollywood movie.

By now you’ve probably heard of Slumdog Millionaire. It is the story of three street kids growing up in Mumbai. It is part rags-to-riches fairytale, part love story, and part horrifying look into the difficulties of street life. It has been scooping up awards and critical acclaim in the US and the UK while being dogged by more controversy than other Oscar-nominated films. Most of the debate centers around the poverty shown in the film, and whether a white British male (Boyle) has the right to present Indian society in such a way in a commercially successful feel-good (kind of) film. To tell an Indian story through the lives of impoverished street children embarrasses and enrages much of India’s upper-class who see the film as a stereotypically Western view of India as poor, chaotic, violent and dirty. They see Slumdog Millionaire as a “white man’s imagined India.” Some Hindu organizations accuse the film of denigrating Hindu gods. Some human rights groups in India have condemned the film for its use of the term ‘slumdog’ (a term not commonly used that recalls the days of British colonizers calling Indians ‘dogs’). Others see Boyle’s slick, colorful production of such impoverished settings as “poverty porn” – rendering Indian poverty visually appealing and exciting for a mostly white, Western audience. Finally, the compensation given to the film’s young actors is, with Slumdog Millionaire’s success, seen to be inadequate and a way of exploiting real life slum children. No matter how Slumdog Millionaire does at the Oscars, these controversies are unlikely to die down, even if they fall off the pages of US newspapers.

I do not intend to debate each of these controversies here, though I find some of the accusations frivolous while others have some validity. What is most interesting to me is the way in which Slumdog Millionaire has brought the issue of global poverty into the limelight (literally) and has exposed our collective squeamishness with having images of it thrown in our face by a film. If we middle-class Americans must see poverty, we like to see it portrayed in a particular way – most likely in a low-budget documentary that condemns it and that offers a way out. A movie like Born into Brothels does this very well. But Slumdog Millionaire treats poverty and those who live in poverty differently, not as faceless objects of pity, but as individuals – as a story must – with agency and the capacity to be happy and full of dreams in the midst of often horrifying surroundings. In this way Slumdog Millionaire resembles Rohinton Mistry’s impressive novel A Fine Balance – also set in India, that does not shy away from the poverty that is a given in many people’s lives, but something that need not rob people of their humanity, that need not reduce them to objects to be pitied by the world’s wealthy. With this perspective poverty need not limit the range of human experience and emotions. Those who are poor have a story like everyone else, and in fact, those who are poor make up a huge amount of the world’s population. Confronting middle-class Westerners (and Indians for that matter) with the horrors of poverty and the injustice of their own affluence, while avoiding defining the poor by this label alone is something few films do. Slumdog Millionaire does it well. And if it does well at the box office, all the better.

When discussing global poverty and the political and social attempts to alleviate it, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the numbers and to be numbed to the experiences of individuals who must live in such dire conditions. It is easy to feel guilty that you are not the one living in extreme poverty or to feel that those who are poor deserve it, that they just need to try harder. It is also easy to feel hopeless in the face of such a widespread and complex problem. How exactly should the global community address the problem of poverty? Should we place an emphasis on greater individual incomes and saving and buying power? Or should the emphasis be in developing societal infrastructure to improve quality of life by ensuring better health care, education, access to employment, etc.? Some put their faith in the free market to lift all boats, but then the free market seems to demand that many people remain poor, and it doesn’t provide any plan for improving societal shortcomings that contribute to poverty. Some believe government programs are the answer, but improving education, health care, job training programs and the like can be costly and complicated, and simple welfare schemes may perpetuate poverty. A host of non-governmental organizations and foundations play a growing part in addressing poverty, but can arbitrarily bestow charity that perpetuates cycles of economic dependence. The work of groups like the UN’s Development Program connects these participants and strategies offering a practical and promising way of addressing poverty on a global scale.

But uplifting the poor is not all that is needed. Our relatively new found awareness of the toll we inflict upon the environment requires that the discussion about alleviating poverty must include the using and distributing resources. Ending poverty through growing economies and enabling hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese to drive gas-guzzling cars and to use energy as recklessly as we in the US do is no longer an environmentally viable option. And neither is telling people in poorer countries that they can’t have what we do, that they can’t live how we do. Rapidly developing countries need to do their part to make their growth politically and environmentally sustainable, no question. In a way, the more difficult task is ours however. If global economic growth continues (a given in most minds before the last six months of economic turbulence) most other people in the world will be increasing their consumption and use of resources. The Brazilian student may move up from a bike to a scooter, the Vietnamese family may upgrade to an oven from a cook top stove. In the US however, unless we plan on aggressively defending our unfair hoarding of resources from the global community, we will need to begin to reduce the amount of resources we use. Drastically. Even if free markets can lift all boats, it will mean environmental disaster. The middle class American lifestyle has never been sustainable. We are realizing this just as the world’s two largest countries are economically booming, and striving for that lifestyle. No longer will the United States – six percent of the world’s population – be able to consume 30% of the world’s resources. That’s a fact.

But, I suspect it is a fact that will go ignored or denied. Sure, we may use compact florescent bulbs instead of incandescents. We may recycle and compost. But most of us probably won’t give up our car (or even our second car). Most of us won’t give up our washer and dryer, or our oven, or our spacious homes. In the end, I suspect that we’re all just a bit too selfish and stuck in our ways to make large personal sacrifices for an abstract common good. We want to end poverty, but we don’t want to give up what we’ve been blessed with, and without this sacrifice on the part of the better-off, poverty will continue no matter how much effort is directed at alleviating it.

Like any movie, Slumdog Millionaire has its shortcomings. Its plot is somewhat thin and its characters are not very well-developed. It is a movie more about image than substance. Its details are easily refuted by Indian audiences. However, its vividly showing audiences who have not faced poverty and hardship the lives that many in this world are compelled to lead allows it to be more than just a film. It gives poverty a face and a story that will open most audiences’ eyes to something new – hopefully bringing tangible benefits to the world’s poor while eliciting an honest introspection about what people often must and can do without.

Obama, Mexico, and the Drug War

Remember the War on Drugs? Sure you do. It was after the Cold War and before the War on Terror. It continues to be an attempt to crack down on the illegal drug trade into the U.S. It turned out to be little more than an excuse to continue the Cold War in places like Colombia. It also resulted in new domestic judicial rules such as three-strikes-and-you’re-out, and draconian mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, over-crowding prisons with disproportionately minority, nonviolent, first-time offenders in possession of small amounts of drugs.

Since September 11, 2001, we haven’t heard much about the War on Drugs. With the attacks of that day, the threat of religiously and ideologically motivated radical Muslim terrorists immediately became more grave than the crime and violence connected to Latin American (mostly) drug cartels. Our collective focus has been on the threat posed by Islamic terrorism since 2001 and we have largely ignored the growing threat posed by increasingly powerful drug cartels on our southern border.

Last year, drug violence and corruption in Mexico surged, especially in towns and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2008 over 6,000 people were probably killed – that adds up to over 16 people every day – twice as many as in 2007. Many of these killings were particularly gruesome – beheadings and execution style killings. Drug cartels are suspected of downing a plane, killing Mexico’s Interior Minister, and corruption related to drug trafficking has reached the highest levels. The Sinaloa, Gulf, and Tijuana cartels have infiltrated the judiciary, the police, and political parties. The director of Mexico’s Interpol Office and an employee of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency were both arrested for collaborating with cartels. Last spring, the Justice Department declared that Mexican drug cartels pose the “largest threat to both citizens and law enforcement agencies in this country and now have gang members in nearly 200 U.S. cities.” And the U.S. Army High Command has determined that due to the violence, corruption and instability caused by drug trafficking in Mexico, its government, along with Pakistan’s, should “bear consideration for rapid and sudden collapse.” Former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey recently stated that thanks to drug cartels “Mexico is on the edge of the abyss – it could become a narco-state in the coming decade.” Mexico’s foreign minister has had to defend her government against accusations of its being a failed state.

These are damning statements that President Obama’s incoming administration should not take lightly. While I hope the situation in Mexico and U.S.-Mexican relations will be treated with the seriousness they deserve, Obama has not shared his plans concerning Mexico or the Drug War very openly with the American public. Indeed, he appears to have followed Bush’s lead and has focused his foreign policy sights on – you guessed it – Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other problems in the Middle East. Given our country’s complex and numerous entanglements in the region, this is understandable. But with the drug trade destabilizing our southern neighbor and threatening to cross the border and sow violence, corruption, and instability on U.S. soil it is surely necessary to give our attention to all of these situations, however difficult it may be.

The U.S.-led Drug War has always been deeply flawed and arguably ineffective. The U.S. has always been eager to solve the problem by force – instigating violence in other countries (massive military funding to Colombia, Mexico, etc.) and treating the drug trade in the U.S. as essentially a moral and policing problem that can be solved with a zero tolerance approach and enough cops, guns, and jails. The U.S. has been reluctant to pursue cheaper and more effective ways of battling the drug trade – drug treatment for addicts in the U.S., and development aid for farmers in other countries for example. The War on Terror has pushed the War on Drugs to the back burner, and it has pushed ‘soft’ strategies even further back. It seems we have given up trying to reduce the demand or the supply of illegal drugs in the U.S.

So what exactly does Obama plan to do about the threat posed by illegal drug trafficking? He did not mention Mexico or drugs in his inaugural address, and his public statements since being elected haven’t given many clues. The new whitehouse.gov foreign policy agenda page says nothing about Latin America, preoccupied as it is with Middle East concerns. And as a candidate, Obama said little specific about Latin America or drug trafficking, though at least he mentioned Latin America on his campaign website.

It appears President Obama will not be as hands-off as President Bush when it comes to problems in Latin America. He has indicated a desire for closer and improved relations with Mexico. President-elect Obama was visited by President Felipe Calderon in Washington where they discussed economic issues (including Obama’s campaign pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, something Calderon is opposed to), the environment, immigration, and drug trafficking. Neither man gave many details about their discussion, but Obama has indicated support for the Merida Initiative, passed last June, which commits the U.S. to increasing aid to Mexico for equipment and training to combat organized crime. It does nothing to reduce the U.S. demand for drugs, however.

President Obama also envisions an ambitious new Partnership for the Americas”. In a Miami speech during the campaign he declared:

We need an agenda that advances democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom up. So my policy will be guided by the simple principle that what’s good for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. That means measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the policeman in Mexico City, and the shrinking of the distance between Miami and Havana.

This soaring rhetoric is unfortunately not, as far as I can tell, matched by detailed or original strategies for combating the drug trade along the U.S.-Mexico border. Increased cooperation between the U.S. and other Latin American countries will surely be helpful and appreciated, but in the midst of so many other problems, the U.S. may not have the resources or the political will to see these changes through. Yet there are glimmers of hope – commitments to improve cross border partnerships between U.S. and Mexican states and pledges to increase drug treatment programs in the U.S.

It is also instructive to examine the recent decisions Obama and his inner circle have made regarding the Drug War. As a candidate, Obama promised to end DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California, but since his assuming office raids have continued. Obama’s staff has said that as soon as new Department of Justice officials are appointed the raids will end, heartening news for those who support medical marijuana laws – and a difficult promise to avoid making good on. Obama does not support legalizing drugs – not surprising for a U.S. president – while at the same time advocating more treatment than incarceration for users, a significant shift from previous presidents. He has suggested ending mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent first-time offenders, and ending a federal ban on funding needle exchange programs reversing years of federal drug policy.

This appears promising, yet Obama’s coterie does not have a history of breaking ranks with the War on Drugs consensus. Joe Biden has been a strong supporter of law enforcement solutions, toughening sentencing rules for drug users, and criminalizing drug use. He played a significant part in creating the position of Drug Czar. He has made more moderate decisions in recent years, but many Drug War opponents remain skeptical of him. Rahm Emanuel has been a vocal supporter of the Drug War, at least when it fits his political agenda, and has a mixed record on issues like medical marijuana. Incoming Attorney General Eric Holder also vigorously supported harsher Drug War policies during his years under President Clinton and as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Obama’s interim Drug Czar – Ed Jurith, a longtime lawyer for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and former Clinton Drug Czar – has been described as “civil and thoughtful” in the ongoing debate over drug policy though he has by-and-large supported the Drug War. It is rumored that Obama’s permanent Drug Czar pick is Republican Jim Ramstad, who has opposed needle exchange programs, a crucial tool in decreasing the spread of HIV and other fatal diseases amongst addicts. While Drug War opponents may not be thrilled with these selections by Obama, many are taking a wait-and-see approach and acknowledging that these individuals are at least politically open to making policy changes.

And in Mexico? Will Obama put forward drug policies innovative and intelligent enough to effectively curb the violence and corruption flourishing along the U.S.-Mexico border? Will he be able to create a new, smarter mix of drug fighting strategies that reduces the violence and corruption that has accompanied drug trafficking in the U.S. and Mexico? While Mexico and the U.S. border states (dealing with the threat of the same drug-related problems) are committed to effectively managing and limiting, if not stopping, the drug trade, it remains to be seen how committed the Obama administration in far-off Washington will be. Inspirational rhetoric is one thing, but confronting difficult societal problems and defeating organized gangs of unrepentant killers is another – just ask former President Bush.

The Hidden Sides of the Israel-Gaza Conflict

Since December 27, the Israeli military has been attacking the Gaza Strip in a large scale fashion, determined to break Hamas and end the showering of rockets into southern Israel. Thirteen Israelis have died and over 1,300 Palestinians have been killed. Observers have accused Israel of creating a humanitarian crisis out of the already precarious living environment in Gaza. Hopefully,the recent cease-fires will bring the violence to an end.

While the narrative may have some basic facts right, the mainstream media in the US has largely reduced the conflict to too simple a narrative – “Israel’s attack into Gaza is one of self-defense against a Hamas government bent on its destruction. Regrettably, many civilians have died.” Even conceding the excessive scale of its attack on Gaza, Israel is ultimately presented as a victim of terrorism with a right to self-defense. Hamas is presented as an illegitimate government (though democratically elected, “who still refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist’ we are always reminded) and an irrationally violent terrorist organization.

While there may be some elements of truth in this narrative, it is far from the complete picture.  Some observers have noted that not much attention has been paid to anything besides this simplistic narrative. But the simple Israel-victim-Hamas-terrorist narrative ultimately fails to answer many broader political questions about the conflict in a satisfying way. Why would Hamas been firing rockets at Israel now? Why would Israel respond with the large-scale force that it did? Why would the US step back and allow the violence to proceed? Why would other actors – Egypt, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon – behave the way they have?

While there are clearly legitimate and clear-cut concerns over sovereignty and security on both sides of this conflict, the motivations and actions of all actors are muddied by the conflict’s political context. The political motivations and factors that may be playing a significant part in driving the conflict have been largely overlooked. Here I begin to explore how certain political concerns may be influencing what has been happening in Gaza.

Israel–Yes, Israel– justifiably wanted to defend itself by stopping Hamas rocket fire. But, with Israel’s apparent victory in this conflict, it has become clear that a significant reason for its excessive assault was to exorcize the failure of 2006’s war with Hezbollah. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert – stepping down as PM this year – may have wanted to depart with a success under his belt after 2006’s debacle. His Kadima Party, facing a February election, had to show its toughness against attacks on Israel and its ability to protect Israel and take the battle to its enemies. It was also Kadima’s Ariel Sharon that unilaterally withdrew Israeli forces from Gaza in 2005. Perhaps Kadima felt responsible for curbing Hamas’ current aggression. It remains to be seen if the Israeli public’s overwhelming support for Olmert’s attack on Hamas will translate into success at the polls for Kadima’s Tzipi Livni. During the conflict, there was considerable debate within the Israeli government about how to pursue the war on Hamas, and Kadima would not be the only party to gain by pushing the war. Labor Party head and Defense Minister Ehud Barack is a contender for PM in the upcoming election as is Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu. The main political debate in Israel surrounding the conflict has been how hawkish is hawkish enough. The effect of the war on the election looms large.

Hamas – One part of the reason for Hamas’ improper rocket attacks that we hear little about is the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The blockade has effectively amounted to a siege, intended to make life for residents in Gaza extremely hard. By all accounts, this crowded sliver of land has been on the verge of a humanitarian crisis for some time. With the end of a six-month ceasefire in November, Israel began attacks on tunnels in Gaza and denied Hamas’ demand that the blockade be lifted.  While none of this justifies rocket attacks, this series of events helps to explain what led Hamas to begin sending rockets into Israel again. In addition, the on-going fight for Palestine between Hamas and Fatah offers a possible political motivation for Hamas’ attacks. Palestinians have rallied behind Hamas during the conflict, threatening Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah government in the West Bank. This was likely an intentional move by Hamas, to undermine Fatah, often seen as too accommodating to Israel and the US. During the conflict, Fatah has not allowed open protests against Israel for example. The sympathy and pride Palestinians have felt for Hamas during this conflict could tip the scales in Hamas’ favor in the next West Bank election. One also wonders if the timing of the conflict might be an early test of President Obama by both Israel and Hamas. With hostilities barely over when Obama takes office, his pushing a lasting US-sponsored peace deal is highly unlikely. Perhaps this was a calculation by Hamas – who appears unwilling to agree to any two-state solution – and Israel too – who may see current circumstances unfavorable to its interests.

United States – George W. Bush’s lame-duck administration has had little reason to stick its neck out for either side in Gaza. Its support for Israel has been implicit, though not unconditional while it has also, surprisingly, supported UN demands for a ceasefire. What concerns me more is the silence from president-elect Obama. He has shied away from making statements about the situation in Gaza, arguing that there is only one President at a time. But, that same argument has not stopped him from speaking at length about the country’s economic woes. If Obama is avoiding making statements about Gaza, it suggests two things to me. First, he probably does not see a US role in solving the problem in Gaza as a priority for his administration at this time. This is understandable – there are numerous, bigger problems facing the US, and the UN and countries like Egypt have been ably handling the negotiating of the recent ceasefire. I sense that Obama has made the political calculation that the US need not be heavily invested in the Gaza solution for now. The more troubling implication of his silence is that he would not act much differently than Bush has. By his silence, Obama seems to be painting himself into a corner and agreeing with Bush’s policy – essentially ratifying what will be all but a done deal by the time he takes office. As a candidate, Obama courted AIPAC and returned from a trip to Israel with a great deal of sympathy for its situation. He has vowed to continue the “special relationship” between the two countries and probably doesn’t want to make Israel – or the rest of the world – nervous about his intentions toward the region during his administration.

And this is just the beginning. There are undoubtedly other political calculations that have been influencing the conflict, and other players are significant here too – the EU, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran and Egypt. They will be crucial to securing any lasting peace and resolution to this specific conflict and to the Israel-Palestine conflict in general. Yet, all parties bring their own agendas and complexities to the table. We can all hope that peace will one day reign in Israel and Palestine, but it will not be simple, and it will not be possible by looking at the situation simplistically. We will need to see and understand the hidden facets to the region’s challenges and act accordingly.

Mumbai Misperceptions: War is Not Imminent

Following the November 26 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, we repeatedly heard two messages. One, these attacks were India’s 9/11, and two, war between India and Pakistan was just around the corner.

Writer Amitav Ghosh divined a crucial connection between the two messages. “When commentators repeat the metaphor of 9/11, they are in effect pushing the Indian government to mount a comparable response.” Indeed, India’s opposition Hindu nationalist BJP has blustered, “Our response must be close to what the American response was.” Fearful of imminent war, the media has indulged in frantic hand wringing about Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals and renewed fears about the Indian subcontinent being “the most dangerous place on earth.”

As an observer of the subcontinent for over a decade, I am optimistic that war will not be the end result of this event. As horrifying as the Mumbai attacks were, they are not likely to drive India and Pakistan into an armed international conflict. The media frenzy over an imminent nuclear war seems the result of the media being superficially knowledgeable about the history of Indian-Pakistani relations, of feeling compelled to follow the most sensationalistic story, and being recently brainwashed into thinking that the only way to respond to a major terrorist attack was the American way – a war.

Here are four reasons why the Mumbai attacks will not result in a war:

1. For both countries, a war would be a disaster. India has been successfully building stronger relations with the rest of the world over the last decade. It has occasionally engaged in military muscle-flexing (abetted by a Bush administration eager to promote India as a counterweight to China and Pakistan), but it has much more aggressively promoted itself as an emerging economic powerhouse and a moral, democratic alternative to less savory authoritarian regimes. Attacking a fledgling democratic Pakistan would not improve India’s reputation in anybody’s eyes.

The restraint Manmohan Singh’s government has exercised following the attacks indicates a desire to avoid rash and potentially regrettable actions. It is also perhaps a recognition that military attacks will never end terrorism. Pakistan, on the other hand, couldn’t possibly win a war against India, and Pakistan’s military defeat would surely lead to the downfall of the new democratic government. The military would regain control, and Islamic militants would surely make a grab for power – an outcome neither India nor Pakistan want. Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has shown that this is not the path he wants his country to go down. He has forcefully spoken out against terrorist groups operating in Pakistan and has ordered military attacks against LeT camps. Key members of LeT and other terrorist groups have been arrested. One can hope that this is only the beginning, despite the unenviable military and political difficulties in doing so.

2. Since the last major India-Pakistan clash in 1999, both countries have made concrete efforts to create people-to-people connections and to improve economic relations. Bus and train services between the countries have resumed for the first time in decades along with an easing of the issuing of visas to cross the border. India-Pakistan cricket matches have resumed, and India has granted Pakistan “most favored nation” trading status. The Mumbai attacks will undoubtedly strain relations, yet it is hard to believe that both sides would throw away this recent progress. With the removal of Pervez Musharraf and the election of a democratic government (though a shaky, relatively weak one), both the Indian government and the Pakistani government have political motivations to ease tensions and to proceed with efforts to improve relations. There are also growing efforts to recognize and build upon the many cultural ties between the populations of India and Pakistan and a decreasing sense of animosity between the countries.

3. Both countries also face difficult internal problems that present more of a threat to their stability and security than does the opposite country. If they are wise, the governments of both countries will work more towards addressing these internal threats than the less dangerous external ones. The most significant problems facing Pakistan today do not revolve around the unresolved situation in Kashmir or a military threat posed by India. The more significant threat to Pakistan comes from within. While LeT has focused its firepower on India instead of the Pakistani state, other militant Islamic outfits have not.

Groups based in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan have orchestrated frequent deadly suicide bombings and clashes with the Pakistani military, including the attack that killed ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in 2007. The battle that the Pakistani government faces now is not against its traditional enemy India, but against militants bent on destroying the Pakistani state and creating a Taliban-style regime in Pakistan. In order to deal with this threat, it must strengthen the structures of a democratic, inclusive political system that can also address domestic problems and inequalities. On the other hand, the threat of Pakistani based terrorists to India is significant. However, suicide bombings and attacks are also carried out by Indian Islamic militants, and vast swaths of rural India are under the de facto control of the Maoist guerrillas known as the Naxalites. Hindu fundamentalists pose a serious threat to the safety of many Muslim and Christian Indians and to the idea of India as a diverse, secular, democratic society. Separatist insurgencies in Kashmir and in parts of the northeast have dragged on for years. And like Pakistan, India faces significant challenges in addressing sharp social and economic inequalities. Additionally, Indian political parties, especially the ruling Congress Party and others that rely on the support of India’s massive Muslim population to win elections, are certainly wary about inflaming public opinion against Pakistan (and Muslims). This fear could lead the investigation into the Mumbai attacks to fizzle out with no resolution, as many other such inquiries have.

4. The international attention to this attack – somewhat difficult to explain in my opinion given the general complacency and utter apathy in much of the western world about previous terrorist attacks in places like India, Pakistan, and Indonesia – is a final obstacle to an armed conflict. Not only does it put both countries under a microscope in terms of how they respond to the terrible events, it also means that they will feel international pressure to resolve the situation without resorting to war. India and Pakistan have been warned by the US, Russia, and others not to let the situation end in war. India has been actively recruiting Pakistan’s closest allies – China and Saudi Arabia – to pressure Pakistan to act against militants, and the US has been in the forefront of pressing Pakistan for action. Iran too has expressed solidarity with India in the face of the attacks and is using its regional influence to bring more diplomatic pressure on Pakistan.

Still, however unlikely, it must be said that an unforeseen constellation of unfortunate events and colossally stupid decisions could result in war. Just before Christmas, Pakistan began moving military forces from the west where they had been engaging the Taliban to its eastern border with India as tensions between the two countries rose, despite recent conciliatory gestures on both sides.  However, because of the reasons outlined above, one can hope that both India and Pakistan will continue to aggressively engage in diplomacy, intelligence sharing, and military cooperation to cripple the types of organizations that have carried out the heinous attacks in Mumbai, and who threaten both countries.  If these efforts are fruitful, peace is indeed possible. War is not imminent.

« Previous Page