Moo Shu Pakistan and Washington's Baluchistan Problem: Calling Samantha Power! Hello? Samantha? Hello? Hello?

I was so depressed last night after I listened to 15 minutes of the latest Republican presidential hopeful debate that I went to jump out the nearest window, so it's a lucky thing I decided to visit the Glittering Eye first or I might be nursing a sprained toe right now. Dave Schuler's comments about Fareed Zakaria caused me to burst into surprised laughter. I thought I was the only one who'd noticed that Zakaria had turned out to be a complete ass. Refreshed and restored I braced myself for yet another night of wading through news on Pakistan and the Afghan War.

Two items caught my eye: Aziz Haniffa's January 20 summary for Rediff of a panel discussion at a Hudson Institute-hosted conference, Pakistan: The Crisis State.

Haniffa dutifully wastes his time and yours by quoting "noted South Asia expert" Stephen P. Cohen (NOT to be confused with my idol, Russia expert Stephen F. Cohen), who hangs out at Brookings Institution, and who wants the world to know that Pakistan is too nuclear to fail "implying that this is why it has got to [be] continually propped up by the likes of the United States."

So now we're deep in Thinktankistan territory, gas mask on and battery-powered gibberish decoder spitting out coordinates. The funniest quote is from Marvin Weinbaum, Scholar-in-Residence at The Middle East Institute:

I've been looking at Pakistan some 40 years now and as a Pakistan observer, I really don't know that there's been any time in that period when I would have characterised Pakistan as a 'normal' state. I know when you use the term crisis and you have a crisis all the time, the term crisis loses its meaning. So, I am asking here, whether there's something deeper involved here -- deeper in the body politic, deeper in the political culture of Pakistan, of which this is the latest and perhaps in the order of things, only of the most dangerous."

Please someone assure me it didn't take Weinbaum 40 years to arrive at that question.

The panel included Lisa Curtis, "former Central Intelligence Agency official and currently Senior Research Fellow for South Asian Affairs at the Heritage Foundation -- the conservative DC think tank." Curtis made an observation that I consider ominous:

If Pakistan feels that it needs to force the US to choose between India and Pakistan to have a strategic relationship, it's not going to happen. Yes, there has to be an understanding that yes, the United States would like a strategic partnership or relationship with Pakistan, but it's certainly not going to choose between India and Pakistan.

Given even the recent history India's government should not take that assurance to the bank, but the idea that Washington still wants Pakistan as a "strategic" partner is very bad news for Americans -- not to mention Afghans and Indians.

Lisa Curtis popped up again in the other report I noted, which is a January 19, 2012 Heritage Foundation background paper she co-authored with Derek Scissors titled The limits of the Pakistan-China alliance.

The gist of the paper will come as no surprise to Pundita readers but the authors provide considerable detail to shore their argument that the relationship between China and Pakistan is not as extensive or close as many in Washington believe; for that reason the paper is important. Or rather the paper would be important if not for the fact that Pakistan's water carriers in Washington will simply conjure another argument for the U.S. to maintain a "strategic" relationship with Pakistan if it's demonstrated that Washington's concerns about China's relationship with Pakistan are overblown.

The paper omits discussion of Beijing's increasing worries about Pakistan's designs on Afghanistan. And although Curtis and Scissors mention the glitch with the Gwadar Port deal in Baluchistan province, there is no discussion of what has become an extremely difficult problem for China's relationship with Pakistan -- That is the problem called 'The Pakistani military's atrocities in Baluchistan.'

To show you how popular any such discussion is in Washington, recently a former U.S. foreign service officer named M. Chris Mason had to go to a Canadian newspaper to get a media platform for his idea that the USA should consider supporting the Baluch independence movement. (Solve the Pakistan problem by redrawing the map; Globe and Mail, December 21, 2011.) But even Mason's tough-as-nails recommendation tactfully avoids mentioning the huge conundrum for Washington not to mention the 'international community' and the Human Rights crowd, to include Right to Protect hawks such as Samantha Power: Just how do you make an exception for the Pakistani military's atrocities in Baluchistan while you're yammering about the human rights violations of Assad's regime and when you advocated bombing Ghadafi's regime out of existence to protect the civil rights of freedom-seeking Libyans?

To put it all another way, how do all those human rights defenders keep covering for Pakistan's regime without appearing to be self-serving phonies? This is the great, unanswered question of the early 21st Century. And it's one of the many reasons I keep advising Washington to cut its relations with Islamabad to the bare bones of a purely transactional relationship.

When it comes to the point where even China's leaders, who have to fend off accusations about their own regime's human rights violations, worry that Pakistan's regime is becoming toxic in the international arena, this is a Sign. On the one hand Beijing doesn't want to encourage "splittist wolves" in Baluchistan because this would encourage China's own splittist wolves (the Tibetans, etc. who want independence). On the other hand China is trying to be the world's most admired power and for that type of social climbing one has to least put on a show of frowning at government-instigated mass murder.

And it's getting increasingly hard for Washington and the 'international community' and the press outlets that serve them to keep a lid on the Baluchistan Problem, as B. Raman's recent observations suggest:

The Killing Fields of Balochistan have started shocking the conscience of the international community. Not only non-governmental human rights organisations, but even Governmental spokesmen of other countries---including a spokesperson of the US State Department in response to Tweets on the sufferings of the Balochs--- have started getting over their hesitation in expressing their concern over the steady flow of reports from Balochistan about the atrocities committed by the Pakistani security forces on the people of Balochistan.

2. The atrocities have taken many forms. Brutal killing of the Baloch youth in false encounters for opposing State repression. Custodial deaths of Baloch youth rounded up by the security forces for interrogation on their suspected association with the on-going freedom struggle. Hundreds of missing Balochs, who were rounded up by the Security Forces for interrogation and who have since disappeared from public view and public conscience. Frequent recoveries of dead bodies of Baloch youth here, there, everywhere after they were allegedly tortured to death. Despite all this, the Baloch freedom struggle continues unabated.

3. Even the conscience of right-thinking sections of the Pakistani civil society have been shocked by the atrocities committed on the Balochs by the Pakistani security forces which bring to mind the atrocities committed on the Bengalis of the then East Pakistan before 1971.
[...]
7. Even though the Western world has started showing signs of being disturbed by reports suggesting a systematic genocide of the Balochs by the Pakistani Security Forces, they are unable to go beyond expressing lip sympathy for the bleeding Balochs.
[...]

Raman does not limit his criticism to the Western world; his post is specifically to take India to task for not stepping up, but it's not New Delhi that's leading the Right to Protect movement; it's Washington and Brussels.

Gilani didn't get all he wanted from his China visit but he sure caused more questions about U.S. aid to Pakistan

Drill down in the following report to see why I warned yesterday that Pakistan shouldn't attempt to use China as a wedge against the United States.

China to Speed Up Fighter Jets for Pakistan
[Emphasis throughout mine]

By Jeremy Page
Wall Street Journal
May 19, 2011

BEIJING—China has agreed to provide 50 more JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan on an "expedited" basis, a spokesman for the Pakistani air force said, one of the most concrete illustrations yet of how China could fill the vacuum if the U.S. scales down its aid to Pakistan following the raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The agreement to accelerate supply of the jointly developed jets, the first 50 of which are being assembled in Pakistan, came as Pakistan's Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani held talks in Beijing during a visit that he has used to portray China as an alternative source of military and civilian aid.

The air-force spokesman, a high-ranking officer who declined to be identified by name, said the deal had been reached during Mr. Gilani's four-day visit to China, which concludes Friday following a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

"We're getting the 50 jets, on top of the ones we already have. Something has been agreed in Beijing, so they'll be expedited," he said, declining to give further details.

Mr. Gilani's visit was arranged long before bin Laden's death raised questions about Pakistan's efforts to hunt down the al Qaeda leader, and the trip is ostensibly to mark the 60th anniversary of bilateral relations on Saturday.

But as political pressure mounts in the U.S. for a review of aid to Pakistan, Mr. Gilani has used his visit to highlight his country's long and increasingly close relationship with China, which he described Tuesday as Pakistan's "best friend".

China is Pakistan's biggest arms supplier and its third-biggest trading partner.

The JF-17 is a potent symbol of the two countries' friendship, and a key part of Pakistan's plans to upgrade its aging fleet of American-supplied F-16s and French-made Mirages and to try to match the air power of neighboring India—its arch rival.

The U.S. has repeatedly delayed delivery of F-16s to Pakistan, and has insisted that they not be used against India, with which Washington is now cultivating a strategic partnership to counterbalance Beijing's clout in Asia.

China and Pakistan began developing the relatively cheap multipurpose fighter in 1999 and Pakistan, which has said it wants 250 of them altogether, inducted its first squadron of JF-17s last year, and a second earlier this year.

The air-force spokesman said he did not know whether the second batch of 50 jets would be assembled in Pakistan or delivered whole from China.

He also declined to discuss whether they would be the basic so-called Block I models, like the first batch, or an upgraded Block II version, which military aviation experts say could include radar-evading stealth technology—potentially giving Pakistan that capability for the first time.

Questions also remain over the new jets' engines. The first batch were all fitted with Russian ones, but Russian officials have expressed reservations about supplying more of those engines as Pakistan and China have been marketing the JF-17 in many of Russia's traditional markets.

China has been developing its own engine, but it is still undergoing tests, military aviation experts say.

The Pakistani Embassy declined to provide further details about the deal, and a spokeswoman for Mr. Gilani did not respond to repeated phone calls. China's Foreign and Defense Ministries both declined to comment, as did China's air force and the Chinese company which jointly produces the JF-17 with Pakistan.

China has hailed the strength and longevity of the relationship this week, praising Pakistan's efforts to combat terrorism, and supporting its response to the U.S. raid. Wen Jiabao, the premier, said China and Pakistan would remain friends "forever" when he met Mr. Gilani on Wednesday.

However, Beijing's rhetoric has been more reserved than Pakistan's, reflecting a desire not to antagonize the U.S. or India or to become too entangled in Pakistan's domestic and international problems.

Nonetheless, diplomats and analysts say China sees an opportunity in the aftermath of bin Laden's death to enhance its economic and military influence in Pakistan with a long-term view to containing India's rise, and opening new trade routes to Central Asia and the Middle East.

China and Pakistan are also discussing plans for Pakistan to buy China's more advanced FC-20 fighter, also known as the J-10, Ahmad Mukhtar, Pakistan's defense minister told reporters Wednesday.

Pakistan's efforts to showcase its close ties with China are causing consternation in the U.S.

During a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, Republican Senator Jim Risch of Idaho expressed frustration at Mr. Gilani's statement that China was Pakistan's "best friend" despite billions of dollars of U.S. aid over the last decade.

"It just—it just doesn't make sense...Because, frankly, I'm—I'm getting tired of it, and I think Americans are getting tired of it as far as shoveling money in there [to] people who just flat don't like us," he said, according to a transcript.

At a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, Congressman Michael McCaul (R) of Texas raised particular concern about whether U.S. military aid had been diverted into the JF-17 program.