So looks like things are finally cooling down between Pakistan and India….siiiiike! An anonymous former US Defense department official told the New York Times that American intelligence agencies had determined that former officers from Pakistan’s Army Inter-Services Intelligence agency helped train the Mumbai attackers. This is obviously a serious charge and we don’t know what the Indian intelligence or government knows, as that is more important. So what happens next?

While some are calling for restraint and calm in India, thousands of others are demanding accountability from the government and action aimed at curbing future attacks. The ruling coalition in India faces quite the challenge as the temerity and attention-grabbing nature of the Mumbai attack virtually guarantees that they make some kind of action, or else face the fall of their government. India has already demanded 20 suspected terrorists from Pakistan’s government and though President Zardari has pledged cooperation, it does not appear that this request will be met. Indian Foreign Minister Mukherjee in a press conference with Condi Rice, responded to a question of how India would handle this denial from Pakistan:

“So far, Government of India is concerned, more action will be taken by the government — will depend on the response which we have from the Pakistan authorities. We have given (inaudible) and expecting the response. After obtaining the response (inaudible), the government will consider it necessary to protect its territorial integrity, sovereignty and security of the — of its civilians, government.”

This was not the strongest statement, but it does leave the door open for more aggressive action by the Indian government in response to the Mumbai attack. Secretary of State Rice pledged her support for the Indian government in this trying time, but warned against actions that would have ‘unintended consequences.’

While the states and citizens of Pakistan and India obviously have much to lose and gain in this rising conflict, so does the United States, as Condi Rice is not just in Mumbai to give condolences, as her first name might suggest.   Right as India was ramping up its rhetoric regarding  Pakistani involvement in the attacks, Pakistan’s military and government warned that it would move some its 100,000 troops stationed on its Western border with Afghanistan to its Eastern border with India if New Delphi made any type of power play.  If this were to happen the main beneficiaries would be the Taliban as they could even further concentrate their energy on destabilizing the Afghanistan government and demoralizing the West’s forces.  One can also not assume that an actual hot war could occur between India and Pakistan near the Kashmir region, as one almost occurred under similar circumstance in 2001.  These are two possibilities that the US desperately wants to avoid and Rice is no doubt there to try to restrain India.  However, this will be difficult as evidence mounts of Pakistani military-terror involvement and India’s ruling coalition faces tremendous domestic pressure to show results and strength.  I wish I didn’t have to write ‘siiiike.

(On a bit of a side note, here is an excellent editorial by Thomas Friedman calling for all Pakistanis to protest as loudly against the Mumbai Massacre as they did for the Dutch cartoons.)

Physical Remnants of the Mumbai Attack

Tensions between the states of Pakistan and India are increasing as the Indian government officially demanded that the Pakistani government arrest and turn over a list of 20 of its citizens who they believe were connected to the Mumbai Massacre.  No one has officially accused the Pakistani government or army in the terrorist attack, but the lone surviving terrorist is Pakistani and admitted that he was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist group based in Pakistan that has strong links to previous terrorist attacks in the Kashmir region.  

It also appears that all ten of the Mumbai attackers were from Pakistan and the Indian police recently reported that all of the attackers came on boats, a further link to Pakistan.  In an earlier post, I mentioned that Pakistan’s government was to send their top ISI intelligence official to India to help with the investigation and show cooperation, but sadly this has not been followed through.  

For India, these days immediately following an attack which many average citizens and high officials regard as a major breach of their sovereignty and security, will be looked on microscopically by all the world’s actors.  What approach will they take to combat future terrorism?  How will they attempt to bring to justice those responsible for this attack?  Will they use this incident as a way to push Pakistan into making concessions?  

Here are two interesting analytical pieces about the massacre and its consequences, one by Robert Kagan, the other by Christopher Hitchens.

Tonight, I will discuss Obama’s new national security cabinet.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

With the assault on Mumbai finally at an end, we can start to look at some of its likely consequences. The attacks, allegedly perpetrated by an unknown radical group in the name of Allah, killed at least 195 people, including several Americans, and created unseen havoc in one of the world’s great economic capitals. Though the nation of India has seen its share of terrorist attacks, including an assault on its parliament and a tremendous train bombing, it appears that Mumbai attack of November 2008 may be lead to a sea change in the way the Indian populace looks at Islamic terrorism.

The Times of India immediately put out an editorial basically stating that the nation was at war: 

“The scale, intensity and level of orchestration of terror attacks in Mumbai put one thing beyond doubt: India is effectively at war and it has deadly enemies in its midst.” 

Many of the citizens of Mumbai and state government officials have also made comments that ‘this is enough’ and referenced the US War on Terror as a possible strategy to follow.  These coordinated and dramatic attacks were carried out in a way that resembled war, they even featured a beach landing assault, and the targets chosen, major centers of commerce and foreign travelers, also raised the assault’s international exposure.  One cannot pretend that only India was attacked, as Americans, Britons, and Jews were all targeted and Mumbai’s businesses touch nearly every part of the globe.

For Indian perspective, one issue to immediately look to is the failure of their intelligence network to sniff out any possibly leads to prevent this incident.  Considering the sophistication and breadth of this attack involving tens, maybe hundreds, of perpetrators, how could they so effectively hide this coming calamity? The Indian police and commando units fought valiantly, but why did they have to come all the way from New Delhi?  That’s like an attack occurs in NYC and the US government had to send in elite fighting forces all the way in DC.  

Mumbai’s place as the center of Indian commerce also plays an important part in the possible ramifications of this incident.  Economists and investors are already saying that this attack could cause the city from becoming a regional financial powerhouse that it so much desires for itself.  As I mentioned on the day of the attack, the continuing presence of terrorist attacks hurts India’s ability to project its power outward.  A nation with internal fissures that are still volatile will struggle in its attempts to spread its influence elsewhere.  Now I’m not saying India is an anarchial state by no means, but it is true that incidents like this, if seen to be unstoppable and consistent, will decay international views of the state, and this includes less foreign direct investment.    

The Mumbai Massacre also puts India’s geopolitical position concerning Pakistan in more muddled waters. India’s President Singh has already stated that he believes there were ‘foreign’ influences in this attack, aka Pakistan.  With the perpetrators origins still unknown, it is too early to say if the Pakistani state or ISI had any involvement, but years and years of distrust lead to suspicions that may be just as powerful as the truth.  Pakistan’s has already agreed to send their top ISI chief to India to help in the investigation and to try and show transparency and cooperation, and this is a very positive sign.  If the perpetrators were in fact homegrown radical Islamists or from Pakistan, but unconnected to the ISI, other problems of course arise, but at least this may not lead to a greater war.  

This massacre will likely have consequences over much of India’s future and it will be worth watching to see how the nation, both its citizenry and its government, react in the near and extended future.  Will India start to more aggressively hunt terrorists and terrorist networks, a la the US War on Terror?  Or will this incident just be seen in the prism of the ongoing Indian-Pakistani clash over Kashmir?  

I’ll end this post on a positive note by quoting none other than Dubya:

“The killers who struck this week are brutal and violent, but terror will not have the final word,” President Bush said. “People of India are resilient. People of India are strong. They have built a vibrant, multiethnic democracy that can withstand this trial. Their financial capital of Mumbai will continue to be the center of commerce and prosperity.”

Mumbai Carnage

Just hours ago a spectacular terrorist attack occurred in Mumbai, India, the nation’s commercial capital. Several tourist locations were struck by bombs and armed men who were specifically looking for Americans and Britons to take hostage or kill.  The attack was so vicious and widespread that a feeling of panic swept through the city as Indian police and army personnel tried to get the situation under control.  Reportedly Mumbai’s police commissioner and their chief of anti-terrorist unit were killed among dozens of others, and I should caution that details are still coming in.  It is still unknown if any specific group is responsible, but the previously unknown Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility.  

This horrific incident occurs just after India was glowing from international recognition of their successful naval efforts against Somali pirates.  Unfortunately, attacks like this and ongoing conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir, both intertwining issues, hinder India’s great power ascendence and global reach.  The Indian state will need to find a way to contain these type of attacks if the state is ever going to fulfill its potential.

In conjunction, these radically violent Islamists groups need to be shown that these types of gruesome actions will only lead to further pain and disenfranchisement.  To me the Mumbai attack of November 26, 2008 is an attack on all human decency and the world needs to stand up shout that this is unacceptable. 

(Photo Source: New York TImes)

"Dude, what a beautiful, peaceful day....what? Pirates!!!"

The year is 2008 and lately you can’t read the newspaper without seeing the word ‘pirate attack.’  In September it was an Ukrainian ship full of armaments, a couple days ago it was the giant oil tanker Sirius Star, yesterday it was an Iranian-owned and Hong Kong-flagged vessel carrying wheat, and earlier today the Indian Navy stopped another pirate attack off the Horn of Africa.  The pirates are mainly from the failed state of Somalia (Here is a great map of pirate attacks!) and they are becoming braver and more dangerous everyday.  

Why are they so dangerous to world security and international commerce?  While, it is mainly because there is no really anyone there to stop them or deter them.  Besides the Indian Navy’s recent successful counterattack, these Somali sea criminals have largely been rewarded for their actions, collecting tremendous ransoms for the ships, goods, and hostages.  Nations and companies have continually given in to the perpetrators as they are left with very little options.  In return, the pirates gain wealth and the ability to increase their weapons and capacity to continue the criminal practice again and again.

Now, along with the Indian Navy, the US and NATO are in charge of patrolling the Gulf of Aden, Horn of Africa, Indian Ocean, and other near by waterways where the pirates are most active, but their mandate is too weak.  The US has the most powerful blue water navy in the world by far, yet it does not have legitimate rights to police pirates unless they are in the act of committing a crime.  This lack of international agreement on policing the sea criminals combined with their ingenuity and stealth maneuvers make them difficult targets.  

India's Navy kicking some pirate butt (Source: Los Angeles Times)

The negative consequences of these attacks goes beyond the ships companies and personnel involved in them, as higher insurance and transportation rates are slowly driving up prices for goods transported through the Gulf region.  Just the news of the Sirius Star takeover caused oil prices to uptick.  

The US, India, and NATO should organize a more comprehensive international agreement/pact, which would layout clearer methods of countering the pirate scourge, including more aggressive policing.  There also needs to be some form of international agreement concerning negotiations for captured ships, though this will be difficult as narrow business and national interests will likely clash.  Lastly, the root of the problem is a lack of opportunity in the state of Somalia.  Young men who have chosen the life of a pirate need to have other more legitimate options at making a living.  Aaarghhh, this is a tough issue! (Nominated for best joke on GPP) 

PS: Scholar Donald Puchala wrote a fascinating article comparing the war on terrorism to the 1700s war on piracy.  Of Pirates and Terrorists

Tomorrow, leaders and representatives from most of the world’s most powerful states, 20 to be exact, will convene in Washington DC to see what they can do to stop the present economic bleeding and protect against future breakdowns. These leaders face quite the challenge, as the Economist has pointed out in great depth, and I for one am not expecting Bretton Woods II. However, a lot of good can come out of this summit, stronger international financial systems with a greater mandate for action, a greater shared understanding of domestic problems, and a renewed sense of global cooperation that can be transferred to other problems with global reach, aka climate change, terrorism, poverty. According to the Economist, this summit at the very least provides a bull market for new schemes for global economic governance.

Browsing through the American newspapers and television news channels, I could not find much coverage about this weekend’s summit to my chagrin, they were too busy speculating on Hillary Clinton’s role in Obama’s administration. An important subject undoubtedly, but the current economic crisis and its affects spanning the entire globe take precedence. Here is a telling quote from Kevin Warsh, a Federal Reserve governor:

“We are witnessing a fundamental reassessment of the value of every asset everywhere in the world. The establishment of a new financial architecture, thus, is the essential policy response to the greatest economic challenge of our time.”

Now, the issues to be covered at the conference, the regulation and restructuring of international and domestic financial and banking systems, is mostly beyond my expertise for me to comment further, but what I do know is geopolitics, and oh baby does this economic downturn have some consequences in the world of interstate and intrastate conflict.

A world facing a shrinking global economy or one barely growing is a world with a greater amount of dissatisfied states and citizens. In other words, there is less of the pie to pass around within and among states. In some ways, this may lead to more measured and cautious policies, as is the hope with Iran and Russia, with their dwindling energy supply returns, but this is no guarantee. When it comes to China, the world should definitely be concerned of a dramatic domestic economic crisis as its government’s legitimacy is tightly tied to economic progress. All of a sudden, internal unrest may foment to ever greater degrees, destabilizing the country, East Asia, and the rest of the globe.

WR Mead, a primo expert on US foreign policy, argued in his book ‘God and Gold‘ that the greatest fear for world security was not the rise of China or India, but in fact the failure of one. This would mean that East and Southeast Asia would be an off-balanced region, which may be prone to conflict, a la Europe in the early 20th century. Of course any conflict in East and Southeast Asia would involve the US, which is the guarantor of security for several key states in the region.

This short list of possible conflicts exacerbated or brought on by the economic crisis, is just that short, and unfortunately it is more likely that smaller, but still quite deadly and destructive conflicts, could occur in Africa, Central Asia, etc.

So let us hope that the leaders of the DC Summit can get to work and mitigate the effects of this crisis.

(Photo Source: The Economist’s Bill Butcher)

Update: The Washington Post wrote and excellent piece detailing some of the US intelligence communities strongest security concerns related to the economic downturn. Examples are fears that China’s gaining geopolitical leverage and that Al Qaeda may use security holes created by governments facing budget difficulties, on border security for instance. Check it out: Experts See Security Risks in Downturn: Global Financial Crisis May Fuel Instability and Weaken U.S. Defenses