How to Make Peace With a Fractured Polity?

 

shutterstock_58375939The Subcontinent got a nice Christmas present on 25 December 2015:

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a surprise visit to Pakistan on Friday — a significant sign the icy relationship between the two neighbors is thawing.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif greeted him at an airport in Lahore during his short layover in the city while en route to New Delhi from Afghanistan. Sharif was accompanied by his brother Shahbaz, Punjab province’s chief minister…

The visit occurred after Modi called Sharif to express his desire to make a stop in Pakistan, Pakistani Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry told reporters in Lahore. Sharif happened to be in Lahore at the time.

Chaudhry described the “goodwill visit” as pleasant and said the two leaders needed “to understand each other to open the doors of peace and stability in South Asia.”

Modi and Sharif talked about restarting a dialogue and increasing people-to-people contacts between their nations, he said.

The foreign secretaries of both counties are to meet in Islamabad at the end of the month, Chaudhry said.

It was the first time an Indian prime minister has visited Pakistan in almost 12 years.

Exactly one week later, however:

Heavily-armed Pakistani terrorists today carried out a pre-dawn strike at the Air Force base [in Indian Punjab], triggering a fierce gunbattle in which three securitymen and all five infiltrators were killed, days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surprise stopover in Lahore.

With the obvious intention of destroying fighter jets and attack helicopters housed there, up to six terrorists in army fatigues attempted to storm the base which is barely 35 kms from the international border with Pakistan but failed to go beyond the outer periphery.

In heavy exchange of fire, a commando and two other personnel of the IAF were killed along with five of the attackers. Blasts and intermittent exchange of fire was continuing this evening.

There was no clarity as to the number of attackers who are believed to have infiltrated from Pakistan and there was speculation that they may belong to Jaish-e-Mohammad headed Maulana Masood Azhar of the Kandahar hijack episode.

The impact this will have on the planned end of month meetings between the Indian and Pakistani Governments in Islamabad is likely to be bad. Domestic politics will require India to take a harder line. Domestic politics will require Pakistan to respond similarly.

It’s possible the meetings won’t even take place. Cui bono?

The thing is, the bones of it look familiar.

Sharif…noted that he was involved in a major peace initiative with India in 1999 when his then counterpart Atal Bihari Vajpayee [the Prime Minister of India] visited Pakistan.

The effort collapsed within months as Pakistan-backed forces infiltrated the Indian zone of Kashmir, which has been the source of two full-fledged wars between the nuclear powers.

Sharif blamed the 1999 Kargil conflict on army chief Pervez Musharraf, who later ousted him from power [in a coup], and repeated his past criticism of the focus on military spending.

“Had our countries not wasted their precious resources in a never-ending arms race, we would not only have avoided the futile conflicts, but also emerged as stable and prosperous nations,” he said.

So how it looks to me:

Pakistan’s civilian government wants to make peace with India.

Pakistan’s Army does not — and undercuts any peace initiatives by the civilian Government — either by acting directly, or by using proxies like the Jaish-e-Mohammad.

It is without a doubt in the interests of the people of the subcontinent for these two countries to make peace. But is it possible for India to make peace with Pakistan if an unaccountable, unelected power centre in Pakistan sees peace as a threat to its financial and political interests and is able to act in ways that make that peace hard to achieve?

If India doesn’t make peace, it’s rewarding and empowering exactly those parts of the Pakistani State (the Armed Forces) that are most opposed to it.

It occurs to me that this is an issue that comes up when dealing with any polity with competing centres of power — the most obvious being Iran — with a Reformist (it’s relative) elected Government headed by Rouhani trying to make peace, and the Revolutionary Guard seeing its interests better supported by ongoing conflict.

The civilian governments of these countries (Pakistan, Iran) are not capable of taming their unelected power centres. So how should countries which negotiate with fractured polities like that proceed? (Threats don’t seem to work. Is there anything else?)

Published in Foreign Policy, General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Good questions. In a sense, Egypt is almost opposite with the military going for peace and stability and the civilian governments causing trouble.

    • #1
  2. Melissa O'Sullivan Member
    Melissa O'Sullivan
    @melissaosullivan

    A really great article about an important part of the world.  To what extent is the Pakistani military coopted by the Islamists?  And why has Pakistan not followed the path of other developing nations where the military is a force for modernity?  And what will Pakistan think of the events unfolding – conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the beheading of the cleric/subsequent retaliation on embassy?  Sorry I didn’t offer an answer to your question.  Sometimes there isn’t one.  I’m thinking of the tragic assassination  of Benazir Bhutto in 2007, implications it was directed by elements in Musharaff’s government,  criticisms of the U. S. gov’t for encouraging her-prematurely, according to critics-to run for President, the implication that the Pakistani military knew where Osama  Ben Laden was hiding, etc.    Thanks, Zafar!

    • #2
  3. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Arahant:

    Good questions. In a sense, Egypt is almost opposite with the military going for peace and stability and the civilian governments causing trouble.

    In the India-Pakistan scenario it is, jmho, in India’s interest to do what it can (by acts of commission and omission) to strengthen Pakistan’s civilian Government against the Pakistani Army.  Self interest and democratic morality conveniently coincide and make the outcome sustainable (if it’s achievable – a big if).

    Wrt Egypt your scenario might indicate that it’s in the West’s (?’s) interest to do what it can to strengthen the Army and weaken the civilian Government (eg by accepting flawed elections as legitimate). Perhaps that’s realistic, but pollyanna me can’t help thinking that it’s not sustainable because it elevates the unelected over the elected – I mean it’s precisely the approach that created the pressures that resulted in the Arab Spring uprisings, right?

    • #3
  4. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Right. I wasn’t saying it was good or bad, just noting the difference.

    • #4
  5. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Melissa O’Sullivan:To what extent is the Pakistani military coopted by the Islamists? And why has Pakistan not followed the path of other developing nations where the military is a force for modernity?

    You’re welcome, my pleasure.

    This (gloomy) 2013 article seems to cover the issues pretty well – I don’t think anything fundamental has changed – summarising:

    The Pakistani state lacks clarity in its approach to militant Islamism; Pakistan’s politicians are often part of expedient political alignments with Islamist groups; and Pakistan’s media allows Islamist views, including conspiracy theories, to prevail without allowing arguments against their beliefs to be amplified. As a result, Islamists with different strategies for acquiring political power continue to flourish in Pakistan while the writ of the state continues to weaken.

    • #5
  6. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    I’m with the Times of India (and probably you) on this one:

    To call off the proposed talks with Pakistan because of this attack would be a mistake. It is no secret that there is a string section within the Pakistani ‘deep state’ that is hostile to the idea of peace with India. If India responds to every terrorist attack on its soil launched from within Pakistan by putting the process of talks on hold, it would play into the hands of these elements. It makes more sense to strengthen the hands of pro-peace elements in Pakistan, including the civilian government, by staying engaged. On its part, the Pakistani government must show real intent in curbing the use of its territory for attacks on India.

    And Modi’s in a better position to do this than any of his predecessors have been, for obvious reasons. There really is no alternative. I hate to sound like a ravening conspiracy theorist, but “sources” are spinning this to the Times of India as a heroic intelligence success. That suggests to me that the talks will go on, albeit perhaps with fewer warm-and-fuzzy photos of the granddaughter’s wedding.

    And again, I hate to sound like a ravening conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me very unlikely that Modi made a “surprise” visit to Pakistan, where Sharif “just happened to be in town.” There are obviously a lot of contacts behind the scenes. (Conspiracy-theorists in India agree with me.)

    Nor is it entirely obvious that “Pak-based” terrorists are under the control of the military. There are clearly many “Pak-based” terrorists over whom they’ve got no control. (Although given the location and the target, this does sound like the kind they’ve got under their control.)

    • #6
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Claire, you don’t sound like a conspiracy theorist – I absolutely think that it was well coordinated, though I don’t thank the ToI for blabbing about Sharif giving India some intelligence re the raid. (Unhelpful, imho.)

    Have you ever been to Wagah/Attari, the land border crossing between India and Pakistan in Punjab?  They have this whole opening and closing ceremony thing with soldiers from India and Pakistan, and an audience on both sides to shout ‘Yayyyy India, boooo Pakistan!’ or ”Yayyy Pakistan, booo Indian!’ as appropriate.  Anyway, here’s a video of this ‘spontaneous ceremony’ – the Indians are in khakhi, the Pakistanis are in a darker colour:

    Sometimes I think that it’s an illustration of many of our dealings.

    • #7
  8. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Add that in Egypt the army owns maybe the majority of the economy?

    In Pakistan, the army–or some parts thereof–is in bed with the Taliban & whoever else does crazy Islamic terrorism.

    • #8
  9. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Armies that run countries tend to be rich.

    • #9
  10. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Zafar: Have you ever been to Wagah/Attari, the land border crossing between India and Pakistan in Punjab?

    No — I really wanted to see that (having heard all about it). I was going to go from Amritsar, but the drive from Delhi to Amritsar took 14 hours instead of the expected six. I had to be back in Delhi the next day, so I missed that.

    Those who want to watch this unfold live on Indian TV may do so here.

    • #10
  11. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Is there any economic liberalization taking place in Pakistan?  What type of legal system do they have?  Is it Islamist?  Are there any remnants of British Common law?

    • #11
  12. Wiley Inactive
    Wiley
    @Wiley

    I’m proud of you.

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: I hate to sound like a ravening conspiracy theorist, but …

    In our PC culture, all it takes to become a conspiracy theorist is to state the truth.

    • #12
  13. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Zafar:  But is it possible for India to make peace with Pakistan if an unaccountable, unelected power centre in Pakistan sees peace as a threat to its financial and political interests and is able to act in ways that make that peace hard to achieve?

    But what if the unaccountable, unelected power centre is also more representative?  Where’s the way forward?

    The two latest surveys I’ve read of Pakistani opinion, political and social, aren’t very encouraging.  The military receives much higher approval — nearly 90% — than civilian government.  India is seen as the chief threat by double the numbers who see that threat from ISIS and Al Queda combined.  In the social survey, 90% of Pakistanis support sharia law, stoning for adultery, capital punishment for conversion.  Pakistan is often exceeded in this support by, you can guess it, Afghanistan.

    Let’s stipulate that a democratic government can be accountable to its voter on a range of critical issues and NOT be representative of the man of the street demand for violent action.  It might be one of the chief duties of a diplomatic, foreign policy and military establishment to NOT represent or pursue hoi polloi preferences.

    But what can you accomplish when the military not only sabotages peace efforts but is far more representative of voter opinions and more highly esteemed by those voters?

    • #13
  14. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Quake Voter:

    Let’s stipulate that a democratic government can be accountable to its voter on a range of critical issues and NOT be representative of the man of the street demand for violent action. It might be one of the chief duties of a diplomatic, foreign policy and military establishment to NOT represent or pursue hoi polloi preferences.

    Possibly (arguably) a universal.  But then what are we voting for?

    But what can you accomplish when the military not only sabotages peace efforts but is far more representative of voter opinions and more highly esteemed by those voters?

    The military is often a country’s most respected institution (in India for sure, I think probably in the US as well – certainly when compared to Congress).

    Wrt Pakistan – the country is a (somewhat flawed) democracy.  And yet either there are no political parties which preach the Army line (I can’t imagine why not), or such parties do not get a majority of the vote share. (Neither do the nuttier Islamist parties.)

    Regardless of opinion polls, the majority votes for basically centrist, somewhat secular parties (Bhutto’s or Nawaz Sharif’s.)

    • #14
  15. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Zafar,

    I have great respect for India & Pakistan. They make the effort for the right result. However, I must suggest a name for the phenomenon you have witnessed. I would call it the Jihadist’s Veto. They want murder and conflict because they hold to the most extreme beliefs. These beliefs refuse to allow coexistence.

    If Sharif and Modi can rise above the occasion it will be a miracle. I will pray for a miracle. My father had both Pakistani and Indian graduate students. They were quite wonderful and I loved both they and their families very much.

    So much good from so many to be destroyed by the obsessions of a few.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #15
  16. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Zafar: The military is often a country’s most respected institution (in India for sure, I think probably in the US as well – certainly when compared to Congress).

    I think some of your comparisons are more rhetorically clever than fair. Neither the US nor India has succumbed to a military coup or military engineered regime change in the past 50-60 years.  In Pakistan it has occurred at least four times, more if you count intracoup maneuvers.  And that is only the successful coups.

    The US military is held in high esteem precisely because it is militantly subservient to civilian and secular (not somewhat secular) rule.

    I am no expert here.  Read and watch Al Jazeera and read the Economist and follow footnotes, probably guided somewhat by confirmation bias.  Yet Pakistan, it seems, is in a peculiarly pessimistic position.  The military has the power, the propensity and the popular support to define the scope or choose to sabotage whatever the civilian government wishes to attempt vis-a-vis India, the Taleban, or the Haqqani precincts.

    • #16
  17. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    I don’t disagree with much of what you say QV – but regard for one’s military seems a very widespread thing – coups or no coups.

    • #17
  18. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    I recall reading several years ago that 22 families owned over 70% of Pakistan’s land and/or economy. There will be no improvement until that kind of oligopoly problem is addressed. I’m told many area experts do not expect to see a country called “Pakistan” on the map in 25 years, just as we probably won’t see Syria,. Iraq or other handiwork of Mr. Sykes and M. Picot.

    • #18
  19. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Why does anyone doubt Pakistan’s future existence?  In 2040, it’s likely to be a country of 250 million with an economy of $2 trillion NOT based on extracting minerals.  It has reasonable and improving linguistic coherence, uneven but impressive educational gains, entrepreneurial gusto, strong religious identity (which has merits as well as demerits after all) and a geographic heart based on one of  the world’s great river systems. And that nuclear program wasn’t the work of Sykes and Picot.  Don’t think a comparison with the killing fields between Damascus and Baghdad is really fair to either the Pakistanis or the poor souls trying to survive those killing fields over the next decades.

    • #19
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Quake Voter:Why does anyone doubt Pakistan’s future existence?

    No, I don’t see Pakistan disappearing into a bunch of smaller states either. (Although there is that Baluchistan thing….and the precedent of Bangladesh….)  If anything, Afghanistan is more likely to crack, with Pashtun areas joining into some sort of union/confederation with Pakistan.

    But there is this:

    Petty Boozswha:I recall reading several years ago that 22 families owned over 70% of Pakistan’s land and/or economy. There will be no improvement until that kind of oligopoly problem is addressed.

    And until they find a way of dealing with that, then it will continue to place a strain on their system.

    Imho Pakistan’s real problems overwhelmingly stem from economic and maybe ethnic divisions in society and have very very little to do with religious divisions, but the format of the state and its institutions mean that a(n overwhelming) focus on religious identity and differences is the default setting.

    So – any ideas?  I really really don’t want to do a ‘Pakistan is awful’ screed, because (1) not helpful and (2) there but for the grace of God goes India.

    How should India deal with this problematic neighbour?

    • #20
  21. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    In a sad but telling comment from an Indian I follow on Twitter:

    Wait for 6-12 months to read detailed report on Pathankot in US magazine. Till then be patriotic as necessary.

    That the attack is still ongoing and was obviously so well-planned and coordinated is very ominous. It does strongly suggest state involvement, rather than enthusiastic self-starters or splinter groups. But as the comment above suggests, many Indians don’t have confidence that their media can or will do trustworthy investigative reporting. One thing a democratic government can do is be more transparent with its own citizens and reduce the reality and the appearance of media collusion with the government: If Indians don’t trust their institutions, it will be hard for them to trust Modi’s approach to this. And as far as I can see, Modi (or any Indian PM) has only a few viable options. And he should be honest about them.

    When something like this happens, the question “What can be done about it?” depends, obviously, on the answer to the question “What exactly happened?” From the preliminary news reports, it sounds as if one thing to focus on is improving border security along the Gurdaspur-Pathankot belt. Someone more expert than I am could say which among those proposals makes more sense.

    We’re not ever going to know what Indian intelligence officials believe about the situation and whether they’re correct to believe it; but they’ll have to assess whether the instructions came from General Sharif (as opposed to the prime minister of the same name), or from a cell within the military. The “right” response obviously depends on the answer to questions like that: If this came from the top of the army, it makes it very hard for India to do business with Pakistan right now. If it didn’t, it could certainly be possible that with improved relations, including, ultimately, military-to-military relations, they’d be willing and motivated to make tracking the rogue elements down a priority.

    The public already understands full well that this is a pattern: Every major diplomatic overture is met with a major terrorist attack on Indian soil. These are designed, specifically, to put a spanner in the works, and either India can play the game by reacting as it always has, or it can try something different. Modi has an unprecedented democratic mandate and has the best chance of bringing the country along with him in these overtures. He’s the only prime minister in memory who could say it: India can’t go to war with Pakistan. All the hawkish talk of “stern responses,” including his own, are nonsense. (I suppose Modi can’t go so far as to actually say that, but he can say that there are only two options: the status quo — a continued, dangerous, costly Cold War that will become more dangerous over time, given the threats to Pakistan’s stability — or finding some way to unfreeze relations and, ultimately, find a negotiated solution on Kashmir — and that there’s no conceivable military solution.)

    He can say that efforts to negotiate will inevitably result in attacks of the kind we’re seeing now, and that his government will do everything in its power to prevent them, but will continue to negotiate with the elected government in Pakistan, (which has condemned the attacks — and that’s encouraging). It will continue to ask for the full cooperation of the Pakistani military.

    Or he can give in to domestic pressure and the public can live with the situation as it is — including living with the risk of nuclear war.

    • #21
  22. OkieSailor Member
    OkieSailor
    @OkieSailor

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Or he can give in to domestic pressure and the public can live with the situation as it is — including living with the risk of nuclear war.

    It seems to me the reason that India “can’t go to war with Pakistan” is simply that both countries possess nuclear weapons so the risk of annihilation is real for both. I think this reality is also what kept the U. S. from outright war with the U.S.S.R. during the cold war years though it was fought via numerous proxy wars. So, bottom line, does possession of a weapon of ultimate destruction forestall the lesser, though significant, destruction of conventional warfare? I can’t believe either India or Pakistan would willingly be drawn into any conflict that would logically be expected to end in a nuclear exchange so they are stuck in a situation where their conflicting interests can’t be addressed by ultimate conflict, military action. So I expect this kind of low-level exchange of force to continue well beyond my lifetime and probably my kids lifetimes. A bad situation but once in this trap, how does one escape?

    • #22
  23. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    Every major diplomatic overture is met with a major terrorist attack on Indian soil. These are designed, specifically, to put a spanner in the works, and either India can play the game by reacting as it always has, or it can try something different. Modi has an unprecedented democratic mandate and has the best chance of bringing the country along with him in these overtures. He’s the only prime minister in memory who could say it: India can’t go to war with Pakistan.

    Or he could just say (using your very words):

    Every major diplomatic overture is met with a major terrorist attack on Indian soil. These are designed, specifically, to put a spanner in the works, and either India can play the game by reacting as it always has, or it can try something different.

    Which has the additional benefit of appealing to Indians’ intellectual vanity.  As a nation we hate to think we’re being played.

    Modi is one of the few PMs who could say this and pull it off – not because of the size of his mandate, but because he is a creature of the far right, and the people whose default response to anything short of “slaughter the Mughals!” is howling at the moon and setting busses/people on fire are, politically speaking, his people.

    He is their PM, they voted for him, if anybody can keep them from upsetting the ship of state it’s him.

    • #23
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Anecdote: I’m just back from dinner with friends (an Indian/Pakistani couple) – everybody there (all subcontinentals) said that they expected something like Pathankot as soon as they heard about Modi swinging by to say happy birthday to Nawaz Sharif.  Iow: appalled, but not surprised.

    • #24
  25. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Zafar: He is their PM, they voted for him, if anybody can keep them from upsetting the ship of state it’s him.

    That’s exactly what I meant.

    • #25
  26. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Zafar: The civilian governments of these countries (Pakistan, Iran) are not capable of taming their unelected power centres.

    Naivete. The putatively “civilian” governments of Pakistan and Iran work in concert with those power centers; they are one and the same entity, working for common goals.

    • #26
  27. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    I Walton:Is there any economic liberalization taking place in Pakistan? What type of legal system do they have? Is it Islamist? Are there any remnants of British Common law?

    Pakistan’s economy has been doing pretty well, albeit less well than India’s over the last decade.

    Most of the law is Common Law, but there have been some Islamic additions (there’s an odd myth that the two are incompatible, but they’re really not, as a practical matter). Pakistan has a US inspired federal system. In the tribal lands, where the Federal government has less authority, the Common Law never dominated and does not today.

    The terrorist attack was unfortunate (although, really, only at a symbolic level; 2 Indian deaths must be somewhat similar to the average daily number of Indian fatal hair dryer related accidents, and the fact that an ambush planned by terrorists involved their losing five and killing only two is more than a little complimentary to the IAF), but the visit and the response to the attack seem to have been positive.

    Here’s hoping that Modi really can build peace and prosperity and that Zafar’s “I was wrong about Modi” post is one of Ricochet’s finest and most commented threads when that peace comes.

    • #27
  28. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    James Of England: 2 Indian deaths must be somewhat similar to the average daily number of Indian fatal hair dryer related accidents,

    James, spewing tea out my nose is a waste of good tea, not even to mention time wasted cleaning it up.

    • #28
  29. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    James Of England: Here’s hoping that Modi really can build peace and prosperity and that Zafar’s “I was wrong about Modi” post is one of Ricochet’s finest and most commented threads when that peace comes.

    But you know, James, that I am never wrong I would be happy to write that post when Modi delivers.  (Which he might.  Though his way of paying the piper may undermine Brand India in a more practical manner.)

    In India only the Right is capable of making a durable peace with Pakistan. (The RSS et al have even suggested a step towards the unthinkable – which the Congress wouldn’t have the stones to do.)

    I wonder if the same isn’t true of Pakistan – only the Pakistani Right can make peace with India, the Left is too vulnerable to accusations of weakness, gharbzadegi, apostasy and general decadence.

    Hence: does the Right in India (a Modi headed Government) need to talk to the Right in Pakistan (the Army)?  And if so, how to overcome the protocol problems (important in the subcontinent) that in India the Right is the elected Government while in Pakistan the Right is the unelected Army?

    Was the Pathankot attack an attempt to derail talks, or to remind us that the talks were ignoring a vital player?

    Would India’s most practical move be to give the Fauji Foundation an incentive structure for peace while leaving the internal dynamics of Pakistan’s political economy for them to sort out?

    • #29
  30. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Barfly:

    Zafar: The civilian governments of these countries (Pakistan, Iran) are not capable of taming their unelected power centres.

    Naivete. The putatively “civilian” governments of Pakistan and Iran work in concert with those power centers; they are one and the same entity, working for common goals.

    That really doesn’t seem to be the case.  It’s more a matter of foreign policy and diplomacy being (mis)used to achieve goals in domestic power struggles.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.