1. A short thread on the U.S.-India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, Secretary Pompeo's trip to South Asia, and the emergency of a China-focused South Asia policy in his own words.
2. Washington has long viewed South Asia as a hedge against a perceived threat--first the USSR & later al-Qaeda. Pompeo is revamping the US posture in South Asia with a new cast of characters but the same failed reactionary & threat-based approach. This time the focus is China.
3. When @ThePrintIndia's @ShekharGupta asked about the significance of US-India ties apart from China, Pompeo oddly fantasized about a world where a nation of 1.4 billion people recedes into the shadows.
4. Speaking yesterday in the Maldives, Pompeo trashed multilateralism and blamed global warming on China--a phenomenon his administration denies even exists. No solutions. No leadership. Only finger pointing.
5. In Sri Lanka, Pompeo claimed the choice is clear: the US offers free enterprise & China which he calls a "predator" offers exploitative loans. But the prevailing view on the ground in the region is China is the only show in town. Ambassador @dinopattidjalal (Indonesia) argues:
6. Sri Lanka’s President Gotabaya Rajapaksa made it clear that his country isn’t picking sides:
7. And there are other motivations not to pick sides besides the obvious benefits of non-alignment as described in this @NikkeiAsia report. It is almost as if the cost-benefit analysis nations conduct is more complex than Pompeo's talking points:
8. In India, Pompeo delivered empty “with us or against us” remarks that divide the world between authoritarianism and freedom loving nations--inconvenient US “partners” aside.
9. Empty civilizational rhetoric about the shared destiny of two increasingly illiberal democracies is great for opening remarks but it doesn’t equate to a coherent policy toward South Asia -- a region of over one billion people.
10. So what did Pompeo’s trip to South Asia accomplish? It restated obvious realities that exist regardless of the US, rattled Pakistan at a time when cooperation is crucial, & alienated partners by asking them to unilaterally sacrifice for the sake of Washington's China policy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. The backlash against Dr. Moeed Yusuf offers a case study of the obstacles that Pakistan will face as it attempts to professionalize its bureaucracy. The allegations that Yusuf is unduly influenced by Washington is a projection of Pakistan's own nepotism and sycophancy.
2. The assumption that Yusuf's success in Washington is entangled by a quid pro quo understanding only makes sense if you have existed as a big fish in the small pond of Pakistan's policy world. DC suffers from nepotism too, but merit still plays a role.
3. Instead of asking what a green card holder who returns to Pakistan is beholden to, one might consider what allows the traditional elites of the country to feel secure without other options in a country where ambitious young people see few avenues for upward mobility?
1. The condescension & lack of depth of US coverage of #ElectionsPakistan2018 w/ clickbait headlines & Tom Friedmanesque "playboy turned extremist" ledes is unfortunate. The issue isn't criticism of IK but the shallowness of the examination of #Pakistan. We can do better.
2. The WaPo Editorial Board's "#Pakistan’s likely next leader is a Taliban sympathizer" raises some valid concerns about Imran Khan's record. But it glosses over the PMLN's own past & at times verges on an outright defense of Sharif. It then cherrypicks IK's platform.
3. NYT's social media team couldn't resist the juxtaposition of sex symbol, Islamic Republic, & nukes. The writers opened w/ "Is Imran Khan, a legendary cricket player and international sex symbol, about to become the leader of #Pakistan, an Islamic republic with nuclear weapons?