The following article originally appeared in The Quint on 7 April 2017. The full text can be found here.
Donald Trump, deal-maker. That’s how the president of the
United States has long branded himself. But his tenure as deal-maker-in-chief
has not gotten off to a great start. Whether it is the defiance of North
Korea’s Kim Jong Un in conducting missile tests or Syria’s Bashar al-Assad
using chemical weapons, Trump has not been able to bring such actors to the
negotiating table, let alone broker a deal. Nor has he been able to persuade
Vladimir Putin to adopt a different line on the United States and the West,
despite his lavish praise of the Russian leader. Trump’s mismanaged efforts on
immigration policy and healthcare legislation have shown up even his ability to
seal a deal with members of his own Republican Party. The notion that Trump may
now want to negotiate between India and Pakistan appears both risible and
preposterous.
And yet, that’s precisely how some are interpreting a
recent statement by his Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. “It’s
absolutely right that this administration is concerned about the relationship
between India and Pakistan and very much wants to see how we de-escalate any
sort of conflict going forward,” Haley said at a press conference. “We don’t
think we should wait till something happens. We very much think that we should
be proactive in the way that we are seeing tensions rise and conflicts start to
bubble up and so we want to see if we can be a part of that.” Haley’s
statements echo previous utterings by US Vice President Mike Pence who, when
asked about India and Pakistan in a television interview, said that Trump
“intend[s] to be fully engaged in the region and fully engaged with both
nations to advance peace and security.”
The response to Haley’s comment, in both India and
Pakistan, has been predictable, and drearily so. In India, it was flashed
across television news and appeared in newspaper headlines, with a subtext of
grave concern. Pakistan’s officials have unsurprisingly welcomed her words,
with the country’s envoy to Washington Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry saying: "Any
positive role that the US plays to bring peace and stability in South Asia can
serve the region well." Pakistan clearly hopes to exploit Haley’s
statement to internationalise the dormant Kashmir dispute.
But beyond the fact that Trump has other priorities and
preoccupations – both at home and abroad – there are many reasons to cast doubt
upon Haley’s statements being reflective of imminent US mediation. For
starters, both Haley and Pence were responding to unscripted questions, rather
than making prepared statements, and the absence of clarity in both their
responses revealed a lack of preparedness and coordination. Pence was unable to
offer any details and appeared visibly eager to end that line of questioning,
while Haley seemed primarily keen to suggest that the United States did not
want to be left out on regional developments.
There are also at least three problems that the
possibility of US diplomatic intervention raises. One, India has been adamant
that its differences with Pakistan must be settled bilaterally. This is in
contrast to other disputes – say, Northern Ireland or the Middle East peace
process – in which both sides have accepted American mediation. In 2009, India
successfully resisted much more serious efforts by US diplomat Richard
Holbrooke to intervene in the region. Today, in a world in which the United
States is relatively weaker and India relatively stronger, New Delhi can be
more confident in its ability to deny external involvement in its internal
affairs.
Two, the prospect of American mediation – should it
involve pressure on India to be more accommodating of Pakistan – would run
counter to the Trump administration’s counterterrorism objectives. Such mediation
would embolden those seeking to use terrorism to effect political change.
American involvement of this sort could unintentionally justify the use of
terrorism by Pakistan-based militant separatists. That may not be desirable
from Washington’s standpoint.
Finally, given the deterioration in US-Pakistan ties and
the widespread perception that Washington now tilts in India’s favour, US
intervention may no longer be as welcome in Pakistan as it once was. This is
where a portion of Haley’s remarks appears curious. “I think that will be
something that you will see members of the National Security Council
participate in,” she said, “but also wouldn’t be surprised if the president
participates in that as well.” The mention of National Security Council
officials is a peculiar detail. Lisa Curtis, a long-time South Asia watcher at
the Heritage Foundation, will reportedly be the next Senior Director for South
Asia at the National Security Council. Curtis recently led a task force report
that advocated much tougher US measures against Pakistan for its support of
terrorism. If anything, Haley’s response may be hinting at steps along those
lines. If that is the case, Islamabad – and Rawalpindi – would probably want to
think twice before welcoming a more active US diplomatic role in the region.