Reframing a regional approach to South Asia for the new administration of Barack Obama. A report prepared by the New York University Institute of Public Knowledge Working Group on South Asia, including Amrita Basu, Shah Mahmoud Hanifi, Nyla Ali Khan, David Ludden, Zia Mian, Senzil Nawid, Sahar Shafaqat, Kamala Visweswaran and Chitralekha Zutshi.
At no time has South Asia figured more prominently in US foreign policy. Today, the new administration of Barack Obama has an unprecedented opportunity to transform US foreign policy in the region, and therefore to transform the region itself. President Obama is already executing a renewed US commitment to multilateralism. After his 6 April proclamation in Turkey that the 'US is not at war with Islam', many are newly optimistic about the administration's aim of reversing the deleterious effects of the last eight years, by building relationships with the Muslim world based on mutual respect and seeking common ground. This reorientation toward dialogue and diplomatic engagement will be of particular value in South Asia, where the majority of the world's Muslims reside and where half of the region's eight countries have Muslim majorities. Yet despite the administration's recent jettisoning of the language of the 'war on terror', there is growing concern that its underlying framework remains unchanged, and will generate another decade of failed policy in the region.
With the view that the central stated goal of US policy – 'disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan' – is too narrowly drawn and counter-productive, nine scholars on South Asia recently got together to attempt to reframe the discourse, on the belief that interdisciplinary academic expertise has an important role to play in this discussion. (This report is the result of those discussions.) With the broad, long-term objective of US foreign policy of facilitating the development of a sustainable peace, the short-term goals to achieve that objective should be step-by-step demilitarisation of the region. A transitional process of this type requires careful thought and planning, and will be difficult. But the reverse scenario – increasing military aid and troop build-up in the region – is as precarious, with multiple known negative consequences for the region. While there may be short-term negative consequences from demilitarisation, the overall benefit from a 'human security' perspective will be both immediate and long-term. It thus makes ethical, political and economic sense to undertake strategies of demilitarisation to stabilise the region.
Increasing numbers of Pakistani and Afghan civilian deaths have fuelled anti-American sentiment against what is now popularly understood in South Asia as an American occupation of Afghanistan, and an American war against Pakistanis. In such a situation, the US can best demonstrate its commitment to peace in the region by announcing a plan for the phased withdrawal of US and NATO troops and replacement with UN peacekeeping forces. This will sound counter-intuitive to some; but by removing a major source of recruitment to neo-Taliban and jihadi groups – American authorised bombing of civilians, and the increasing presence and visibility of US troops – popular support for these groups will inevitably erode. When this happens, the Taliban and other groups will use force to extract people's compliance (a process already taking place), and it will be the role of UN peacekeeping forces to help protect the Afghan and Pakistani people from extremist violence.