|
PakNews.com, Updated on February 07, 2002
19:16:10
You've Got (Black) Mail!
Anthony J. Aschettino
For some very obvious reasons, most of the world has recently
cast a wary eye towards the continuing escalation of rhetoric and
military buildup on the LOC in Kashmir between long-time
adversaries Pakistan and India. If a war here were to develop it
could very well lead to a nuclear conflict, only the second in
the history of the world. The United States in particular has
been put into a very precarious position because it has interests
in not alienating either side due to her ongoing war against
terror. Since 11th September, the USA has obviously been courting
Pakistani assistance in dealing with the former Afghan regime of
the Taliban.
Meanwhile, India represents the worlds "largest
democracy" and is, according to her supporters, a critical
player in the effort to stamp out international terrorism since
she deals with it in Kashmir on a regular basis.
Perhaps this is why the United States has recently sent Secretary
of State Powell into the region to try and hammer out some kind
of interim agreement: nothing that will solve any of the critical
issues, but that would at least avoid a nuclear confrontation
between the two sides. As long as things remain unfinished in
Afghanistan, the United States needs Pakistan to remain a key
ally. India, however, represents for the business-minded in
America the ultimate target: her billion people will trump any
arguments in favour of selecting Pakistan as the long-term ally
against India. Indeed many argue, and perhaps correctly, that
Pakistan will once again simply be the proverbial condom America
uses to penetrate Afghanistan, only to be flushed down the toilet
once this phase of "Enduring Freedom" is finished.
The real question at hand, meanwhile, is much simpler than first
imagined: where does the buck stop? When will India be satisfied
with Pakistani steps to stem "cross-border terrorism"?
How far must Pakistan go to prove to her neighbor that she is
more than willing to live in peace? Should Pakistan withdraw the
army from Azad Kashmir? Should she turn over her nuclear weapons
to India, so that the latter is no longer concerned that they
would be used in aggression? Perhaps these questions seem
trivial... they most certainly are not.
Pakistan under President Musharraf has taken steps that even two
years ago would have been seen as ludicrous. All major jehadi
groups have been banned. Madrasas have been put firmly under the
control of the government. Joint electorates have been announced.
Hundreds, mounting to thousands, of Pakistanis have been
imprisoned due to their activism on behalf of radical groups. Yet
to India this is not enough. What then, Mr. Vajpayee, is enough?
When will India be satisfied with Pakistan's actions?
In international politics, there is often something called
"reciprocation". Yet India never seems to be satisfied
with what Pakistan does. Does India want to provoke war? Perhaps,
since recent documents have shown that India planned to attack
Pakistan on the 10th of January this year in spite of the ongoing
efforts of Pakistan to relieve the crisis. Pakistan, as well as
the international community, has a right to demand India tell
what she desires and make clear what she wants in order to
achieve peace. Otherwise, she will not be the first country who
uses a swastika and demands appeasement.
Key to everything here is the refusal of India to deal with the
Kashmir issue for what it is: the ultimate stumbling block in the
path of peace negotiations. Ever since she seized control of part
of it in spite of the wishes of its people, India has constantly
refused to deal with this issue both in bi-lateral negotiations
and in the international community. Her brutal occupation of the
region has produced more casualties in ten years than the Israeli
occupation of Palestine has in thirty. The presence of over
750,000 military and paramilitary personnel in the region
presents the largest troop gathering of any army of any country
anywhere in the world at a time in a non-friendly environment.
Before the recent "elections" in occupied Kashmir all
participants were required, as a pre-requisite to running, to
sign a paper attesting that "Kashmir is an indisputable part
of India". What kind of elections are these? This kind of
electorate can only be likened to the kind of voting that goes on
in fascist societies.
Even more troubling for America is the fact (well suppressed by
pro-Indian supporters) that India has indeed embarked on
technology that will enable her to develop Inter-Continental
Ballistic Missiles (ICMB's) with a range to hit the United
States. Why? If her enemies are only in Pakistan and China (let
us be frank, India will never be happy with China as a powerful
competitor in the region), why need missiles that have a range
outside of, say, three thousand miles? The reason is, of course,
to one day be able to tell the United States that she can go to
hell and back it up with thousands of missiles. The possibilities
of a new cold war brought about by economic competition and
India's burgeoning economy is a real and present danger to both
the United States and Pakistan. And as far as American foreign
policy goes, while China can never be contained by India alone,
India most certainly can be kept in check by a combination
Pakistan and China.
All in all, the path that India is pursuing right now can be
spelled out simply: it is blackmail. Although the steps President
Musharraf is taking are noble and to be commended, at some point
he needs to demand of India reciprocal steps towards peace. More
than that, Pakistan needs to work with Chinese military forces to
present India with a very delicate situation: although there are
many strategists who claim that India will defeat Pakistan in a
conventional war, Chinese intervention will cut off Indian forces
in Kashmir and spell doom to any foolish Indian adventure. China
is growing increasingly impatient with India, especially as the
latter is sending high-level air-force advisors to Taiwan. It is
time, President Musharraf, to make India put up or shut up.
[The author, Anthony J. Aschettino, is a freelance journalist
and a well known expert and commentator on South Asia. He has
extensive field work experience in various parts of the world,
including the MiddleEast. He is currently on travel in Eygpt.]