U.S. seeks Congressional nod for financing F-16 sale to Pakistan

After notifying Congress of its intention to sell eight F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, the Obama administration has quickly moved for Congressional approval for financing the deal under the country’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) scheme. U.S. administration proposes to pay the bulk of the $699 million cost of the deal while Pakistan is required to pay $200 million.

The administration’s request to Congress is for the first tranche of money, though the exact amount sought was not immediately known. While the notification itself does not need a positive approval from Congress, spending by the administration requires legislative approval, which is not going to come easily.

“While it is my intention at this time to clear the sale of eight F-16 aircraft to Pakistan, I do not plan to support the expenditure of the very limited FMF account to finance this deal, now or in the future,” Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the powerful Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, had said in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry last week.

Bipartisan resistance
Sources familiar with the developments pointed out that given the resistance being bipartisan — this is not one of the Republicans versus Democrats stalemates that routinely block Obama’s moves — the administration will find it tough to win a vote for financing the deal. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturers of F-16s, continues to lobby hard for the deal with the argument that it will create jobs in America.

“But the argument that American taxpayer cannot finance a deal for arming Pakistan has turned out to be lethal and has taken the administration by surprise,” a source said.

Meanwhile, an official of the U.S. State Department reiterated its commitment to sell F-16s to Pakistan. “We support the proposed sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan to assist Pakistan’s counter terrorism and counterinsurgency operations. Pakistan’s current F-16s have proven critical to the success of these operations to date… These operations reduce the ability of militants to use Pakistani territory as a safe haven for terrorism and a base of support for the insurgency in Afghanistan. These operations are in the national interests of Pakistan, the United States, NATO, and in the interest of the region more broadly,” the official said.

Read More

U.S. considers re-merger of India, Pakistan desks

Seven years after the State Department was restructured to ‘de-hyphenate’ U.S. relations with India and with Pakistan, it is considering a reversal of the move.

De-hyphenating refers to a policy started by the U.S. government under President Bush, but sealed by the Obama administration, of dealing with India and Pakistan in different silos, without referring to their bilateral relations. It enabled the U.S. to build closer military and strategic ties with India without factoring in the reaction from Pakistan, and to continue its own strategy in Afghanistan with the help of the Pakistan military without referring back to India.

‘Active’ consideration

A proposal to re-merge the office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP) back with the Bureau of South and Central Asia (SCA) that handles India, the rest of the subcontinent and Central Asian republics is under “active” consideration, senior-level sources told The Hindu.

The re-merger proposal is ostensibly timed with the international troops pullout from Afghanistan.

Ministry of External Affairs officials would not confirm whether they had been informed of the move they described as an “internal” matter of the U.S. government. However, asked about the possible impact of bringing India and Pakistan under one bureau again, the former National Security Adviser, Shiv Shankar Menon, said: “It looks like a re-hyphenation of the India-Pakistan equation that is not in our interest. Our relationship has grown because it stood on its own, as it is important that bilateral relations with India won’t be overshadowed by its relations with the region.”

The de-hyphenation policy of the U.S. was crystallised when the SRAP was set up in 2009 soon after President Barack Obama had taken over, with the appointment of Richard Holbrooke.

At the time, Mr. Holbrooke had hoped to include India in his mandate, and even to discuss the resolution of Kashmir as a means to extract greater cooperation from Pakistan. India had strongly opposed the move.

According to a diplomatic cable published by the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks which was accessed by The Hindu, the then External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, had objected to this when U.S. Ambassador David Mulford paid a farewell call on him.

“He expressed his deep concern about a special envoy with a broad regional mandate that could be interpreted to include Kashmir, and shared his hope that the U.S.-India relationship not be viewed through the lens of regional crises,” Mr. Mulford recorded of Mr. Mukherjee’s message. (http://bit.ly/1QAu279).

Subsequently, Mr. Holbrooke remained only engaged with NATO and Af-Pak affairs until his death some years later, and was followed by subsequent SRAPs. “Even when U.S. officials wanted to discuss the situation in Afghanistan or Pakistan with us, we would insist they didn’t travel to us via Islamabad,” a senior MEA official working on the Americas desk in those years told The Hindu.

Mr. Menon, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, had also repeated the message of de-hyphenating the ties in his talks with the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, other cables from WikiLeaks record. “We didn’t want to be party to U.S. actions in Afghanistan at the time,” explained Mr. Menon.

“We don’t believe in talking to the Taliban, for example, so how would we manage that conversation.”

Third party

Other officials objected to U.S. involvement as a “third party” in talks with Pakistan, which would become the case if special representatives would travel between Delhi and Islamabad regularly.

“We also saw that many of the officials including Mr. Holbrooke saw regional solutions through the ‘Pakistan prism’, which is why our relations really improved only after the two desks were separated,” a former official said.

There are indications, however, that even as the U.S. is planning to bring the desks back together, India may not object as strenuously as it did in 2009.

To begin with, India has dropped its objections to talks with the Taliban in the past few months, instead asking to be “kept in the loop” on developments in the U.S. talks on Af-Pak.

In a major shift in December, India decided to supply 4 Mi35 attack helicopters to Afghan security forces, the first such transfer of lethal military hardware, and a move that would have required U.S. approval.

Indian officials also point out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government are being consulted more often by the U.S. government on matters relating to Afghanistan, and 2015 saw the first visits by two U.S. Generals in combat to India, as well as a visit by Cameron Munter to Delhi, shortly after he demitted office as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan.

In December 2015, the visit of SRAP Richard Olson to Delhi, just before his visit to Islamabad was another key indicator of the shift in New Delhi’s position on the ‘re-hyphenation’ of U.S. visits to India and Pakistan. Asked about the State Department’s possible move to bring together the officials and desks handling both, a senior official told The Hindu: “It would be good for us,” adding that the merger “would introduce a balance between the two” when it came to advocating India’s point of view.

When contacted by The Hindu, the U.S. embassy in Delhi, and the State Department refused to comment on the possible move, calling the reports “rumours” at present.

Read More

Obama, Hollande seek shift in Russian strategy before joint action

United States and France on Tuesday said they would like Russia to be part of their joint efforts to fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but put the onus on Russia to prove its credentials by giving up its support to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

Hours after NATO member Turkey downed along its border with Syria a Russian warplane, US president Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande indicated a toughening in the coalition’s stance towards Russia. “We have a global coalition of 65 countries and Russia is an outlier. Russia and Iran are a coalition of two, supporting Assad. Given Russia’s military capabilities and their influence on Assad, their cooperation can help the fight against IS,” Mr. Obama said. “But Russia must make a strategic shift” he said, Mr. Hollande by his side at the White House, after a meeting in which they decided to “broaden and intensify strikes” against IS targets.

Mr. Obama defended the Turkish strike that brought down the Russian plane. “Every country has a right to protect its territory and its airspace,” he said, suggesting that Russia was responsible for it. “Russia and Turkey must talk to each other. This points to an ongoing problem as Russian planes have been targeting moderate opposition forces in that area, who are supported, also by Turkey,” Mr. Obama said while Mr. Hollande added that he could “only regret” the incident. The France president, called for Russia and Turkey to take measures to avoid escalation of the conflict.

Asked whether the coalition could consider coordinated operation with Russia against IS, Mr. Obama said for that to happen, Russia must “refocus its attention on IS.” “Until that happens, it (coordinated operation) is very difficult,” he said.

Mr. Hollande, who is scheduled to travel to Moscow after his Washington visit, said he would make the same request to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. “When I go to Moscow, I will request President Putin that we must have a single goal, which is to fight the IS,” Mr. Hollande said.

“All that we are doing now to degrade the IS, cutting down their supply lines and financing, sharing intelligence with ground forces can be supplemented by Russia, if they are willing to change their strategy. Perhaps they will do so in the future,” Mr. Obama said.

Read More