Time is Running Out
We are less than a month away from the conference. Things are beginning to take shape, in both the real world and in our own crisis world. I hope you’ve been paying attention to the news in South Asia, as the election results are all over the place. Read about it here, here, and here.
To summarize briefly, the PPP (Pakistani People’s Party) “won” the elections by taking 87 of 272 parliamentary seats. For Musharraf, this hurts, and it looks like democracy might prevail in Pakistan. Be warned, however, that there are still strong forces in Pakistan, and the nation is nowhere close to stability.
Please comment below and discuss what you think about the results of these elections and the implications for India. Think, also, about things that might go wrong in terms of the relationship between Pakistan and India. After all, that is what Crisis about- worst case scenarios that we will be throwing at you.
We’ve had a lot of fun preparing for the conference as well. Now that the elections are over, we can brainstorm even further on how to challenge delegates in our committee. I want to remind you again that this is an advanced committee, and it does require a lot more than the typical MUN delegate. Critical thinking is an absolute must at this stage. Do not fret, however, as it will be a lot of fun.
Continue to e-mail me if you have any questions about the topic, or if you just want to chat (I’m down for that too). My e-mail is bhuang419(at)berkeley.edu.
More updates to come soon!
February 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
A democratic victory will not necessarily mean immediate benign Pakistani-Indian relations. As seen in the past, the military could overrule this political statement and cause the people’s choice to turn null and void.
India should watch with caution and assess the strength of the new country’s leaders before making or accepting any binding deals with the country. Just because there is a new democratic party in power does not take away the fact that it still possesses nuclear weapons in the midst of the turbulent Muslim extremists and a brand-new government that could have trouble controlling them.
Should the country show signs of becoming stable and amiable to the people and politics of India, then India will be able to explore the new, possibly friendly relations with Pakistan (without completely relaxing its guard, of course).
February 20th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
It is imperative that we take caution with any change of power in Pakistan, as I have said in the past - we must take covert action to insure peace and security. We must not stand back and wait for something to happen without taking decisive action to prepare. As soon as possible I will direct the Indian RIW to step agent activity in Pakistan, and the IPS and Intelligence Bureau to heighten internal security as civil unrest will deteriorate into a crisis if insurgent activity and cross border politics spark violence.
The nuclear issue is at the height of this issue, an unstable new government still has authority within Pakistan to launch a nuclear strike. We must consider diplomacy as well as contingency plans if safety and security become compromised. We must also take heed in the fact that the Musharraf regime still holds power and has a firm grip on the Pakistani military, meaning that there will not likely be a major shift in military leadership - and the status quo will remain as it has in the past with regard to the political loyalties and overall strategies of the military.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Both of you seem to be quite concerned with the Pakistani nuclear capability, and I think that it’s definitely something that should concern the Republic of India. Considering both Pakistan’s relatively advanced missile technology (thanks to China) and the heavily populated cities in India, a nuclear strike on India would be devastating. It’s something that keeps many a policy maker awake at night.
Interestingly enough, I had a professor once who remarked that the closer to Pakistan he got, the safer he felt about the nuclear situation. This was because Pakistani officials would reassure him about the safety of their nuclear weapons. Pakistan keeps their nuclear weapons “unmated”, meaning that the warheads and the delivery systems are not connected and are kept in different physical locations. The mobile launchers themselves generally take hours to reach designated launch sites. It is normally accepted that the Pakistani command and control system is one of the most secure in the world (especially compared to India’s). That still doesn’t mean the things can’t go wrong…
With the new Ghauri-III and Tipu class missiles, any target in India can be hit by a Pakistani nuclear weapon. What are the multiple stages before, during, and after a launch that India may respond? How should India respond if say, the Pakistani military threatens India with nuclear weapons (unlike India, Pakistan does NOT have a “no first use” nuclear doctrine)? How would India respond if Pakistan actually launched a missile?
February 24th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I’m not exceptionally worried about the nuclear threat: there are simply too many safeguards for any sort of serious diversion of missiles. Even if the arms were to fall into the hands of some anti-India group, it would not be in a large enough quantity to pose more than a moderate threat. The military isn’t likely to initiate nuclear war on their own either, because there’s simply no great benefit from doing so.
India stands to lose more from the turbulence of a civil war in the region. The economic impact would be devastating (via capital flight and the reduction of India-Pakistan trade), it may even spread into India, igniting miscellaneous local tensions, giving certain groups the political pretext for military action, leading to a civil war of our own.
With this in mind, we have to be very careful to maintain stability in Pakistan, perhaps even tolerating another military dictatorship until a more robust attempt at democracy can be made. The intelligence thing is also dangerous: on one hand, we’ll have a better appraisal of the situation, on the other, discovery could lead to misinformation or inflame current tensions, meaning Pakistan would be less likely to accept help, which is in the end good for no one.
If we’re talking about (hopefully) hypothetical nuclear holocaust, and assuming we’ve done everything possible to prevent it, we’d obviously have to gauge the severity of the attack and potential damage before deciding to retaliate. Retaliation would have to be immediate and proportional, so as to avoid international outcry. After the fact, it would be important to minimize our own loss of life (through evacuation), and consider possible conventional military action. Afterwards, we’d need to allay the global community to avoid action against ourselves (through the SC, news spin, and possible some token effort to help those we’ve bombed), and get around to the process of reconstruction.
Depending upon the risk represented by both cases, we might have to declare an emergency, in order to avoid coups and allow for faster response to emerging crisis.
February 24th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I agree that the nuclear threat is not of the utmost importance because of the circumstance and knowledge of equal destruction in return. Our procedures would again be to absorb an initial strike and retaliate accordingly.
The more important and impending crisis would be the threat of internal outbreaks of civil strife. It is not debatable that we need to increase our readiness and internal security with this crisis looming. Measures must also be taken to prevent an economic collapse in problem spots such as Central Indian province of Chhattisgarh and the northern border provinces near Jammu and Kashmir. In the event of civil unrest or assault from any force the regions’ already fragile infrastructures and economies would run the risk of plummeting on a grand scale.
As for the intelligence situation in Pakistan, we already have agents in and around Pakistan, the procedures of those entities are adequate to protect the image and security of India. We run almost no risk of an agent being exposed and even if they were - we run an even smaller risk that such could be traced back to our government. It is imperative that we expand these operations, already undermanned, these ops would be able to give us important intelligence in sectors that we are unable to with the current staffing. We would be better prepared to stabilize any situation and more able to protect Indian interests, therefore more able to maintain international peace and security.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I agree as well. I have less of a concern about nuclear attack because Pakistan is aware of India’s policy on nuclear retaliation; yes, Pakistan can reach and devastate almost any part of India, but India also has the ability to virtually destroy Pakistan with her counterstrike. I certainly agree that the stability of the region is a more pressing issue.
The northern provinces of India are definitely turbulent as already stated - the possibility of any civil war in the region would spell out great problems for our country in terms of igniting the people of the area (the Northwestern provinces of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab, for example, are all centers for staunch Hindus who would not be one for negotiations should civil war break out among the principally Muslim people of Pakistan and spill into their area). Jammu and Kashmir have already been plagued with many terrorist attacks over the past few years (although they have been decreasing). Instability and possible civil war - as already highlighted - would only fan the fire.
I agree with both of you. We should focus our attentions on promoting stability by (carefully) strengthening the intelligence operations in order to assess the state of Pakistan’s stability; India’s need for information is more important at the moment, but that does not mean that we should dump more intelligence operations immediately. A gradual flow would be safer, regardless of the low risk of being discovered.
Should the situation grow hostile enough, I would advise the placement of troops in the area, especially in Jammu and Kashmir, to provide a safer guard against the possible civil unrest.
Furthermore, should the unlikely threat of nuclear attack from Pakistan become strengthen, I would definitely agree with the evacuation of the major cities, especially New Delhi, considering that would be the one most likely to be hit as the nation’s capital. We have already been having very successful talks with the United States lately and although they are also committed to Pakistan through anti-terrorist operations, they would become a participant in reconstruction and political recovery afterward.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
We are all indeed in general agreement in the grand scheme of things - though as for procedure in these security matters - I must advise that such action would be very dangerous in the event of nuclear threat. Evacuating New Delhi with a population of 14.1 million, and other large cities would spur mass chaos and allow for even more destruction. Our nation could not handle a mass exodus out of the cities and into the countryside if a nuclear threat should arise. The solemn truth is that we must absorb a first strike and retaliate accordingly - regardless of the destruction the perpetrator shall receive equal destruction in return.
Though the United States cooperates with Pakistan in the war on terror - their support for us is key, and will play a huge role in the turn of events. I believe with the correct diplomacy and strategic negotiations the United States might end up on our side.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
The U.S. loves its anti-terrorism, but really, we have the leverage here. We’re their counterbalance against China, as well as managing our own potential extremism and they of course rely on us for some trade. So long as our position is morally defensible (and it would be, given our No-First-Use and general “scientific temper” most of the time), they’d probably side with us.
BMUN Crisis/ People who’ve done Crisis before:
Is it considered “Out-Of-Character” if we start upping security and rehearsing crisis scenarios at the start of the conference?
February 29th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I have done many crises before and it is not necessarily “oit of character” tp begin committee on such a note. Crises are generally moderated caucus and in all of the ones that I have been to in the past, general issues, ranging from international to domestic issues. Crises such as the aforementioned will come up depending on the personality of the committee. As for rehearsing crisis scenarios, in the past none of my committees had rehearsed them but rather we played by ear and handled the crises as they arose.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I don’t know if BMUN is ran in the same manner, but that is all of the input that I can give from my experiences.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I don’t know if BMUN is ran in the same manner, but that is all of the input that I can give from my experiences. I hope this helped in some way, shape or form, but it all depends on the personality of the committee and the way that committee is run.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Yes - indeed it is all a manner in which you put forward these plans that determines your outcome. If too much information gets leaked or intel is intercepted by an opposing nation the situation can escalate.
Though in this matter it would not be out of character for you Mr. Prime Minister - in fact as National Security Adviser I beseech you to heed my prior warnings and consider the forementioned course of action regarding internal security and external intelligence operations. I shall present more detailed contingency plans if requested at the start of the conference. Mr. Prime Minister - if you have any questions or requests specifically for me please do not hesitate to ask - I am here to advise.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Although Mr. Narayanan may be here to advise, I am here to direct the interests of India in the eyes of the global community and to develop the best course of actions involving Indian foreign relations. As Mr. Narayanan should know, less then a decade ago information was leaked from Intel and the focus of such a position should be directed towards protecting the Intelligence Agency from such leaks. it is the interest of the Minister of External Affairs to quickly provide the Prime Minister with foreign affairs matters. Which is why I would like to bring up the successful nature of the current Indian-Chinese trade relationship set to commence in late March. I would also like to address the importance of letting the Pakistani government recover from such a blow, but as we have a half-century old tiff with Pakistan, namely Kashmir, if any extremist behavior prevails, it is within all foreign policy measures to retaliate when the security of the Indian people is in jeopardy, at which point such a drastic course of action would be pertinent.
- Minister of External Affairs