India’s Role in a Changing Afghanistan by Shashank Joshi. The Washington Quartely 37:2, 87-102

This is a newspaper and media evidence rich analysis of India’s thinking on the draw down of US troops and the development of political resolutions in Afghanistan.

It begins by outlining that India has thought the reluctance to cross over the border into Pakistan was ‘botched’ and the US have ‘subcontracted’ peace to the ISI.

Joshi says India feel threatened by the local political solutions being discussed and see it as ‘a euphemism for Taliban dominance in parts of Afghanistan’

It seems India and the US have lots in common, they both fully support ANSF efforts to impose control and the US should consider more support of Indian efforts in this regard as it begins to draw down. Joshi explains that concomitantly, the US should persuade the new Modi government to involve the Taliban is discussions. Joshi makes a good point here that India probably make the error of thinking the Taliban are Pakistan ISI. In reality the Haqquani network are probably more affiliated to ISI and the modern day Taliban are more independent of the old guard.

The most useful contribution this article makes is the thoughts on how India should see the Taliban office in Doha. While it does legitimise the group somewhat it also distances them from ISI and Pakistan, something New Delhi should be pleased off.

Suggestions for India include ramping up the 500 or so troops India train and somehow stem the 5000 per month attrition rate in the ANSF. With Indian experience in counter insurgency and dealings with terrorism the replacements they train maybe good for the security of India and Afghanistan. Pakistan seem comfortable with this idea and would, over time install Indian culture and practices in the ANSF.

All in all this tight production of 15 pages is very useful. It present the idea of India accepting the Doha office as a step away from ISI influence very convincingly and makes good suggestions for India’s role in training troops for the ANSF.

A British Bill Of Rights is Wrong

With the announcement by David Cameron at this years Tory party conference of wholesale changes to our position on Human Rights law, what effects will it have on people outside of the UK? A lot has been said of how it will improve the lives of British citizens but we also, as a developed economy and beneficiary of a history of oppression, hoodwinkery and violence against others have to consider other nation states.

By abandoning our commitment a universal human rights
law or set of laws and the creation of a British Bill of Rights we will loose the ability to question the human rights of other nation states.

I am specifically thinking off China but also of other states with any issue with their human rights record. Qatar for instance and its workers rights building FIFA world cup stadia or Nigeria and the rights for its gay community.
If Britain breaks from ithe human rights act how can we possibly question the behaviour of other states in relation to their human rights? As long as they have some codified rights in law they are no better or worse than the UK would be as the universality of human rights would no longer exist.

Unless we prescibe to the universality of human rights we begin to loose the battle. The English School looks at International Relations theory as a way of using human rights as a method of formalizing international relations,where are these supporters now? I expect more forceful opposing of the new British Bill of Rights from these people.
Its also, unfortunately, a death for our diplomacy. If our arguements for change, e.g prisoners not geting the vote then they should stand up to debate in European Legislature and Parliament. If it does not, why are we persueing in this we’re taking our ball home kind of way.

A British Bill of Rights, fails to consider anyone but ourselves, this is not a 21st Century British characteristic. The universality of human rights was what is so strong about it and an idea that has helped develop new ways of thinking about Foreign Policy.

Without this universality we cannot possiblely condemn other states and their individual interpretations of what constitutes human rights. If human rights is culturally determined then who are we to say Chinese treatment of Tibetans is wrong?

Keep the Human Rights Act as part of British Law and influence others to follow it not run away and put all the hard work at risk.