South Asia

When Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh comes to Washington next week, the Obama administration will be challenged to reassure India, and the Washington foreign-policy community, that the relationship is keeping up the momentum established during the Bush years.

The visit comes at a time when the Obama administration is making overtures to China and focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Indians are worried their rank on the White House priority list is falling. While U.S.-India relations are generally strong, in what is often seen as the zero-sum struggle for White House attention, New Delhi simply can't compete with Beijing and is increasingly worried about what that means for power politics in Asia.

"From the Indian point of view, they are very unhappy with Obama," said Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, "Indians are really bent out of shape by what they see as a shift of American policy from India to China in Asia. This is complicated by America's dependence on Pakistan."

Administration critics saw Obama's joint statement with Hu Jintao in Beijing as an implicit downgrading of the U.S.-India relationship. The statement said the "two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region."

"If China and America work together on South Asian issues, such as peace between India and Pakistan, then China is the great power while India is simply another South Asian country that needs help from others to solve its problems," wrote former Pentagon official Dan Blumenthal, "With the joint statement, Obama officially accorded India junior status in Asia."

Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific security program at the Center for a New American Security, said that while "the relationship with India is clearly coming second," progress in the U.S.-China relationship indirectly benefits India.

"If the United States and China can't figure out a way to manage their strategic competition, then India and all of us lose," said Cronin. "They need to give the administration more space to try to put the U.S.-China relationship on the most positive trajectory possible."

Nevertheless, the Obama-Singh summit will stand in stark contrast to Singh's 2005 tête-à-tête with George W. Bush, when the two countries embarked on a "strategic partnership" that has taken the relationship far and paved the way for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement.

"Bush already capitalized on what you could from that relationship," said Cronin. "They picked already the low-hanging fruit."

The trip is likely to result in agreements to move forward on second-tier issues, such as an educational agreement, some new military sales to the Indians, or shared information on homeland security. But on big issues like Iran, moving forward with nonproliferation, and coming to terms on climate change, India hands expect little movement.

Underlying the dynamic is a sense that the Obama administration has yet to really commit to a real plan for advancing the U.S.-India relationship. A State Department review is ongoing.

One issue is that there is no real powerful driver for India policy within the administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is well versed on India, but too busy to address it day-to-day. That work has fallen to Under Secretary of State William Burns, but he too has a broad portfolio. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake is the highest identifiable official with a constant, determined focus on the relationship. Even at the National Security Council, India doesn't have a strong advocate yet.

India lobbied against having Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, as its lead interlocutor, leaving the relationship without a specific manager.

Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is hoping the Obama administration will take the opportunity to announce its support for India to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

"Although it would have no short-term practical consequence, it would provide the benefits in ‘atmospherics' sought from Prime Minister Singh's visit," he wrote.

That's not likely, according to most observers, but many argue that Obama must make some show of commitment to actually advancing the relationship, not just maintaining it.

"Obama needs to show that we are trying to institutionalize what is the growing strategic relationship with India," said Cronin. "He can't have the prime minister go back to New Dehli without having a sense that we know where we are going together."

Cohen pointed out that the White House might also be frustrated that India hasn't come through in the one area that could really benefit U.S. interests right now: reducing tensions with Pakistan so that Pakistan can divert its attention and resources toward cracking down on terrorism and militancy.

"Where is their contribution to what's going in Afghanistan and what are they doing with respect to Pakistan that might make our problem there easier?" asked Cohen of the Pakistanis. "What have they done for Americans lately?"

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Thursday he would not support any troop increase to Afghanistan and predicted a troop increase announcement would meet a cold reception on Capitol Hill.

"We ought not to add troops to Afghanistan, I even question staying there, unless it is indispensible to our fight against al-Qaeda," said Specter on a conference call. "Staying in Afghanistan really requires a reliable ally in the government, which we do not have in [Afghan president Hamid] Karzai."

He said he could be persuaded to devote resources to fighting al Qaeda, but remains "unconvinced" that adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan was the answer.

The administration should offer an exit strategy with clearly defined goals and milestones, though not necessarily a timeline, Specter said. He denied that his position was meant to counter his 2010 primary challenger Rep. Joe Sestak, D-PA, who has called for a "measured increase."

"If they talk about 40,000 troops, as the generals there want, I think [the reception in Congress] will be pretty cold," he said, pointing the oft-repeated estimate that each added troop would cost American $1 million per year.

Specter predicted senators would line up behind the idea of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-MI, who has repeatedly called for faster increases in the Afghan security forces before more U.S. combat troops are added.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged those concerns today in his press conference.

"Clearly, a very important part of the strategy in Afghanistan has to be the increase in the size of the Afghan national security forces and their training, and partnering with us," Gates said. "And central to the strategy is the ability to transfer responsibility for security, as soon as conditions warrant, to the Afghans themselves."

The Obama administration won't announce its new comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan until after Thanksgiving, a White House official confirms to The Cable, and observers and experts close to the discussions see it as the White House's attempt to stage a full and controlled rollout over the week beginning November 30.

By waiting until Congress returns from its Thanksgiving vacation, the White House can have the time to directly consult with key lawmakers and then have senior officials testify soon after the announcement is made. In that way, the argument goes, the administration can build more support for the policy, deal quickly with any opposition on Capitol Hill, and then have a more active role in how the story plays out in the media.

"They're going to have to come out with both guns blazing and they're going to have to have their stuff together with consultations and everything," said one senior GOP foreign policy staffer close to the issue.

The administration isn't going to want to make the announcement and then wait a long time before holding the hearings, because that would make it more difficult to keep the message consistent after the news breaks.

Plus, congressional attention will be diverted that week to the health-care debate in the Senate, distracting some attention from the Afghanistan debate, which may be part of the administration's calculations.

"You basically own the space, but you fold it under the debate over health care," the staffer speculated about the administration's thinking, "That way you can't be accused of burying it."

Meanwhile, the staffs of key principals have already begun crafting the rollout and testimony speeches, leaving holes in the text to fill in whatever the President's specific troop and resource decisions might turn out to be.

The reports about the substance of the president's pending decision have been all over the map, with many stating that Obama simply hasn't reached a final conclusion on how to move forward. But there is increasing chatter that one scheme, known as the "Gates option" after Defense Secretary Robert Gates, may be gaining momentum.

That option would deploy three brigades to Afghanistan, short of the four envisioned by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, but with the option to deploy the fourth later should the need be demonstrated.

The president and key national security team members return from their trip to Asia today.

Here is President Obama's full itinerary for his trip to Asia, as conveyed by Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, Jeffrey Bader, NSC senior director for East Asian affairs, and Michael Froman, deputy national security advisor for international economic affairs:

"The overarching theme is that America is a Pacific nation, it understands the importance of Asia in the 21^st Century, and it's going to be engaged in a very comprehensive way," said Rhodes.

"I think it's a common perception in the region that U.S. influence has been on the decline in the last decade while Chinese influence has been increasing," said Bader.

Thursday, November 12: Alaska

President Obama departs Washington, DC and flies to Alaska, where he will speak to soldiers at Elmendorf Air Force Base. The schedule was changed to allow Obama to attend the memorial service at Fort Hood Texas on Tuesday. Leaving Alaska Thursday evening for Tokyo.

Friday, November 13: Tokyo

Obama arrives in Tokyo and holds a bilateral meeting with new prime minister Yukio Hatoyama at 7PM, followed by a joint press conference. He'll be looking to build personal ties with the new leader, whose Democratic Party of Japan took power in a stunning August election. "This government is looking for a more equal relationship with the United States, we are prepared to move in that direction," Bader said. Don't expect any breakthroughs on the dispute over U.S. basing in Okinawa.

Saturday, November 14: Tokyo Day 2

Obama will give a speech at Suntory Hall at 10 AM, giving "his view of American engagement in Asia." Then he will have an audience with the Japanese Emperor Akihito and his wife Empress Michiko. Leaving Saturday night for Singapore.

Sunday, November 15: Singapore

First, Obama will have a bilateral meeting with Singapore president Lee Hsien Loong, followed by the APEC summit leaders' meeting. At 2PM, there will be a bilateral meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Later in the afternoon, Obama will have a multilateral meeting with all 10 leaders of the Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which will for the first time see American and Burmese leaders in the same room. "We're not going to let the Burmese tail wag the ASEAN dog," said Bader, saying that the previous policy of freezing out Burma has preventing U.S. interactions with ASEAN. Obama will also have a bilateral meeting with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Leaving Sunday evening for Shanghai.

Monday, November 16: Shanghai

Obama will start the day meeting with Shanghai Mayor Han Zheng. After that, he will have a dialogue with Chinese youth and then will travel to Beijing to have dinner with Chinese president Hu Jintao. "We've have a smooth transition in the U.S.-China relationship... the relationship is off to a good start," said Bader. Issues that will get the most attention are North Korea, Iran, climate change, human rights, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. "Clean energy is something where we expect to have some accomplishments to show," Bader said.

Obama will not stop by the sight of the Shanghai Expo 2010 and no comment on whether Obama will visit his half-brother Mark Okoth Obama Ndesandjo, who lives there.

Tuesday, November 17: Beijing

There will be a morning bilateral meeting with Hu, followed by a joint press conference. Then, Obama will tour Beijing hot spot before his state dinner. Obama will raise various human rights issues directly with Hu, Bader said, including Tibet, and that message was not undercut by Obama's decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama in Washington last month. "The president has made it clear that he is ready to meet with the Dalai Lama in the future at the appropriate time," Bader said.

Wednesday, November 18: Beijing Day 2:

Obama meets with Chinese premier Wen Jiabao  and do some more sightseeing. Also, "We do not expect that Beijing is going to produce a climate change agreement," said Froman.  That evening, Obama will leave for Seoul, South Korea.

Thursday, November 19: Seoul:

Obama will have a morning bilateral meeting with President Lee Myung-Bak, followed by a press conference.  He will then visit U.S. troops in South Korea before heading back to the United States that evening. No real expectation on movement on the U.S-Korea Free Trade Agreement. "He has noted in the past that there are some outstanding issues... he is prepared to have that conversation with the Koreans," said Froman.

Don't look for a huge "civilian surge" of State Department personnel to Afghanistan, no matter what the pending strategy review says, according to Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew.

The State Department is increasing its presence in Afghanistan and is responding to some increased requests from Amb. Karl Eikenberry, but other than that, State is not planning currently to match any escalation of troops with a huge increase in its presence there.

"I would not expect radical changes," Lew told reporters at a briefing Monday, "To the extent that there's a thickening of presence in an area, that doesn't necessarily mean that you would increase the civilian presence in the area. To the extent that there are new areas that are being covered by the military, that could raise either a redeployment of civilians or a need for additional civilians."

The current plan is to have 974 civilians in Afghanistan, 423 of those would be from State and 333 from USAID, a number that stands in stark contrast to the approximately 68,000 military personnel there, not to mention the tens of thousands of more that could be on the way.

There are 603 civilians currently on the ground in Afghanistan, Lew said, up from 320 in January. Another 282 are in processing to go there and 89 positions are currently being recruited, both from government and outside experts.

"We are going to have, when we're fully deployed, 388 civilians outside of Kabul," Lew said, noting that right now, there are exactly 157 civilians not stationed in the capital city.

He also responded to the question of how hard it might be to get civilians to go to Afghanistan, in light of protests in 2007 when talk of forcing Foreign Service officers to go to Baghdad caused an open revolt.

"It's not for everyone," Lew said. "Some people sign up and by the time they get through training, don't decide it's for them. Some people go out and come back. But that's really very few, compared to the total. And there's no compulsion in this."

The budget for such programs rose from $2.2 billion in fiscal 2009 to $2.8 billion for fiscal 2010, as a result of the strategic review completed in March. Since fiscal 2009 supplemental funding was dispersed so late, there could be a windfall in storewhen the fiscal 2010 money comes through, although there is no telling when that bill will be completed.

The programs in Afghanistan are all managed at the top by Assistant Amb. Tony Wayne, Coordinating Director for Development and Economic Affairs, who was appointed only in June.

Lew also talked about the ongoing effort to transfer nongovernmental aid programs in Pakistan away from Western organizations and toward Pakistani groups.

"The idea of getting our foreign assistance as directly to the people who are going to use it as efficiently as possible is central to the way we're thinking about foreign assistance and development generally," Lew said, adding that since many of the contracts were up for renewal at the beginning of October, it gave the impression this transfer was more immediate and widespread than it necessarily was.

Robin Raphel, the former Ambassador now a part of Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke's staff, is in Pakistan right now leading a case by case review of all of these projects, Lew said.

Before John Kerry could wind down from his whirlwind tour of South Asia this week, the U.S. Senate moved to pass new restrictions on aid to Pakistan, the thorny issue that required the senator to go to Islamabad in the first place.

Kerry was there to reassure Pakistanis that the U.S. was not infringing on their sovereignty after the botched rollout of the $7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package angered many in Islamabad. Conditions on the relatively small proportion of military aid in that bill were not well received, and sparked a harsh reaction from both the Pakistani military and anti-American political elements there.

With that situation largely ameliorated, the Senate may have given Kerry a new headache today. There are several conditions on billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Pakistan found in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill that has just now gone to President Obama's desk for signing.

The conditions include monitoring of goods and services the U.S. is giving to Pakistan and reports by the U.S. administration certifying that the money is being spent in ways that contribute to U.S. interests.

Congressional Quarterly's John Donnelly dug out all the details (subscription only):

One provision affects the $1.6 billion the bill would authorize for a Coalition Support Fund to reimburse other countries, mostly Pakistan, for logistical and military support for counterinsurgency operations. The funds, like those for all the aid programs, are appropriated separately, in this case by the Defense spending measure (HR 3326), which a House-Senate conference is writing.

The Coalition Support Fund has accounted for 70 percent of the $12.3 billion in American military and non-military aid to Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001 - money the U.S. government had little insight into or oversight of, according to a February report from the Government Accountability Office.

The defense authorization measure would require that, before any more such money is spent, the secretaries of Defense and State must certify that doing so is in the U.S. national interest and will not adversely affect the region's balance of power - a polite way of saying the money should not be spent on weapons aimed at India.

And in a provision that an aide said reflects congressional discontent with a lack of controls over the reimbursement program, the measure would require the administration to look for a new approach to garnering Pakistan's support for military operations.

Another certification is required before the Pentagon can begin spending any of the $700 million it might receive from requested State Department appropriations in the coming fiscal year for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund. That program, begun in fiscal 2009, is meant to train and equip the Pakistani military to fight insurgents and terrorists on its territory.

The defense authorization bill would require that, before those funds start to flow, the Defense secretary must certify to Congress that Pakistan is making "concerted efforts" to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban on the basis that Pakistan sees such initiatives as in its own interest...

Finally, after the bill becomes law, the president would have to report to Congress every 180 days on "progress toward long-term security and stability in Pakistan," including the effectiveness of security assistance to Pakistan in contributing to the goal of defeating al Qaeda. The report would have to include goals, timelines and measures of progress.

If I were Kerry, I wouldn't put away my travel toothbrush just yet...

Washington has been abuzz with stories speculating about the role of special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, the gregarious U.S. diplomat who has been somewhat absent from public appearances recently.

Salacious headlines such as "Holbrooke missing from Afghan talks" and "Where's Dick?" have led off articles citing unnamed sources to speculate that the White House had sought to diminish Holbrooke's usually public persona, especially since the last-minute diplomacy to convince Afghan President Hamid Karzai to allow an election runoff was led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry.

But in an exclusive interview with The Cable, Holbrooke refuted the reports of his marginalization with a mix of indignation and bewilderment. He's been intimately involved in all the goings-on related to the situation in Afghanistan and his lack of media appearances is due to his hectic and relentless work as part of the administration's ongoing review of the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, he said.

"I didn't know I was missing in action because I was kind of busy all day," said Holbrooke, denying that the White House had given him any instructions to lay low or stay out of the public eye, as has been alleged.

Holbrooke and his staff have been working late hours every day to feed information to the endless string of White House meetings on Afghanistan. He broke away Wednesday evening to attend a reception at the New America Foundation to celebrate the publication of the latest book by his wife, Kati Marton.

He said he "has no interest" in the press stories discussing his lack of face time with the media, but took exception to one editorial in the New York Times, which wondered aloud about his status.

Holbrooke's absence from Afghanistan during what many see as a crucial time in Afghan politics also spurred rumors and speculation that Holbrooke was not welcome there because of a reported feud with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a feud that Holbrooke has clearly denied.

"The truth is that I go Afghanistan every two months and I was there less than two months ago. When I came back, I knew we were plunging into the biggest imaginable policy debate," Holbrooke said. "So [Secretary of State] Hillary [Clinton] and I mutually felt that my place at this time was to stay here."

Holbrooke said he will travel to Afghanistan and India next month, on the tail end of Clinton's trip to Pakistan, but the exact dates haven't been worked out yet.

"That was always the plan," he said.

His concern is that he isn't sure about the timing of President Obama's decision to rollout the new Af-Pak strategy and he didn't want to be abroad when the announcement is made.

"This is the most intense policy review before a big decision that I've ever been involved in," said Holbrooke. "He's really thinking it through."

There will be a principals meeting on Af-Pak in the White House Thursday and a National Security Council meeting led by Obama within the next few days.

Holbrooke said he had 25 conversations with Kerry throughout the recent election negotiations, including two on Wednesday (although he did not attend Kerry's latest meeting with Obama). Kerry's preplanned presence in the region to deal with the fallout of his Pakistan aid bill was fortuitous, Holbrooke explained, and he fully supported Kerry's representation of the U.S. government in the region this week.

"We encouraged John to get in on this," he said, "I have never seen a better interaction between a member of Congress and an executive branch on a major issue and the stakes yesterday were extraordinarily high."

He rejected the notion that Kerry was supplanting his role as the face of American policy in Afghanistan.

"Only a troublemaking journalist would think of something like that," Holbrooke joked.

ASIF HASSAN/AFP/Getty Images

As Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart, Asif Ali Zardari, arrived in Washington for meetings with U.S. President Barack Obama, White House officials were warning repeatedly of "Pakistan's existential" crisis -- a stark new catchphrase showing the depth of concern, at the highest levels, about the perilous situation in South Asia.

This afternoon, four top administration officials briefed the press ahead of this week's bi- and trilateral meetings, insisting they be identified only as "senior administration officials."

The key message from the White House is that the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan face a common, and mortal threat in the Taliban and allied extremists now battling the Pakistani Army on its sovereign territory. The officials say they think the Pakistani government recognizes the "existential" threat it faces. But they also suggested they would be watching over the next few days to see whether the Zardari government had sufficient will and the wherewithal to battle the problem.

The briefers refused to comment, however, on whether they had seen signs that Pakistan was shifting its security posture by, for instance, redeploying troops from its border with India towards its border with Afghanistan to devote to the fight against militants.

They stressed that the Pakistani state is emphatic that it will not allow foreign troops, saying that this could be interpreted as a positive sign that Pakistan wants to take care of the problem on its own. "Pakistan is determined to fight its own war," another senior administration official said.

During testimony earlier in the day before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke said that until yesterday, the momentum in the war between Pakistani troops and Taliban forces was moving in favor of the Taliban. But Holbrooke noted that Pakistan's Army had sent more troops into Swat Valley, saying the pendulum might be starting to swing the other way. "We do not think Pakistan is a failed state," Holbrooke told the committee.

This week's meetings are the second set of trilaterals the Obama administration has held with Pakistani and Afghan leaders, the previous time being several weeks ago when it was conducting its policy review, at the foreign minister level. This one is at the presidential level; Obama will meet with both presidents separately and then all together tomorrow.

The officials said there would be two more trilateral meetings this year -- the next one in the fall after Afghanistan's August elections, and another about 12 weeks later. With Zardari facing a tough fight with the Taliban, and Karzai up for elections in August, it's not clear whether either president would still be representing his country by then. (One official emphasized that the Obama administration supports both men as the democratically elected leaders of their countries, noting, however, that the United States had no preference for any particular Afghan presidential candidate.)

One senior administration official acknowledged the U.S. had held meetings with former Pakistani prime minister and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, as well as his brother, a provincial leader in Punjab. Holbrooke said in his Hill testimony Tuesday that Pakistan's powerful army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, had not joined Zardari's delegation to Washington, saying Kiyani was back in Pakistan, "where he should be."

A host of Obama administration officials will be involved in talks with their Afghan and Pakistani counterparts: Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, who is practically "commuting" between Washington and Pakistan, as Holbrooke put it at the Hill hearing, is traveling, as is Defense Secretary Robert Gates), Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, USAID's Acting Administrator Alonzo Fulgham, CIA Director Leon Panetta, Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, Holbrooke, and national security advisor Gen. Jim Jones. Vice President Joseph Biden will host the presidents at a dinner tomorrow night, and the chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Richard Lugar, will host a lunch for them with the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the next day.

Agriculture Secretary Vilsack's breakout meeting with his South Asian counterparts would also be the first meeting ever of the Afghan and Pakistani agriculture ministers, one senior administration official emphasized, noting that agriculture accounts for 70 percent of the countries' economies. Similarly, it will be the first meeting of the Afghan and Pakistani finance and interior ministers when they meet in breakout sessions Wednesday with Lew and Holder respectively, he said. "Our goal is to get the two countries to work more closely," he said. "They can't succeed without each other."