As she prepares to take charge as America’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton is expected to restore the State Department to its once privileged position in the US decision-making on national security. At a time when many in the US criticise the Bush Administration for downplaying diplomacy in favour of military options, Clinton appears all set to emerge as a powerful secretary of state. Even the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who has been asked by President-elect Barack Obama to stay on in his job at the Pentagon, said greater emphasis on ‘soft power’ and its effective integration with ‘hard power’ was necessary for America to prevail in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Gates argued that the 36 billion dollars a year the United States budgets for foreign policy programmes is “disproportionately small” when compared to a military budget that is now close to a trillion dollars a year.“What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on civilian instruments of national security — diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development,” Gates said. As the US domestic consensus evolves in favour of diplomacy, Clinton is said to be pushing for a larger budget for the State Department and a strong voice on all major external challenges facing the United States”. Special Envoy, againThe New York Times reported on Tuesday that Clinton is likely to announce the appointment of a few special envoys as part of an effort to focus American diplomatic energies in crucial regions like the Middle East and South Asia. The Times, however, has only added confusion to the unending story on the appointment of a special US envoy for Kashmir. It quotes one Obama transition official dismissing the reports in the Indian media on this as mere “speculation”, but cites another as saying that a “special envoy to India” may well be on the cards. Thanks to all the noise in India, it is now unlikely that Obama and Clinton will appoint an envoy with an explicit and exclusive mandate on Kashmir. But the idea of an “integrated approach” to all issues in South Asia appears to have taken hold in Washington. Whatever might be the stated purpose in Washington of a special envoy to South Asia, it makes sense for India to see its own problems with Pakistan in a broader framework that includes Afghanistan. If the Mumbai aggression last month was about relieving the growing pressure on the Pakistan Army in its western borderlands with Afghanistan, India’s response too must be asymmetric in its conception. If New Delhi plays it right, it is entirely possible that Obama’s search for an integrated strategy towards South Asia could be turned to India’s advantage.Afghan reviewThe Pentagon’s reported plans to nearly double the size of the American troop presence there will be implemented only after an approval from Obama, who will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States next month. Obama’s decisions will be based, in part, on three reviews of US strategy in Afghanistan, which are now in progress, one at the White House and two by the Pentagon. More troops alone will not solve America’s problems in Afghanistan, and the Obama Administration will be compelled in the not too distant future to alter the fundamentals of US approach. India, meanwhile, must hold its post-Mumbai nerve and await the outcome of Washington’s review of its Afghan strategy. While the Pakistan Army appears to be spoiling for a fight on its eastern borders with India and shift the international focus away from its western frontier, New Delhi has every reason to do just the opposite. As the turbulence in Afghanistan comes to a head, there could be greater room for India to generate new pressures on the Pakistan Army.The writer is a professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
