More On Kashmir
Posted on November 15th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Anxiety in India over Obama’s possible intervention in the Kashmir dispute persists. Karan Thapar in The Hindustan Times writes:
But such apparently conflicting thoughts often lie at the bottom of many a politician’s thinking. It would not be unusual if that was also the case with Barack Obama. And it certainly doesn’t absolve us of the need to be cautious and gently yet firmly, talk him out of attempting to step in and resolve Kashmir.
The problem is just as we are eager he should desist, Pakistan is keen he must persist. An American role in resolving Kashmir is something Pakistan has always wanted and India has, similarly, always resisted. So Obama’s intentions could affect a triangle of relations: Delhi-Washington, Washington-Islamabad and Delhi-Islamabad.
Referring to one of the co-authors of the new Foreign Affairs essay arguing for precisely this kind of “grand bargain” involving Kashmir, Kuldip Nayar, former Indian High Commissioner to the U.K., writes:
The reported nomination of Ahmad Rashid as adviser on Afghanistan to the American forces at Kabul is a welcome development. He is liberal and has many friends in India. His advice would be sober and not smack of [a] high-and-mighty attitude. His knowledge on Afghanistan is intimate. But why has he been given the responsibility of Kashmir as well?
I have not been able to understand the linkage between Kashmir and Afghanistan. The first problem is as old as partition while the second came up after 1980 when America created a force of Taliban to bleed the Soviet Union to death. Even if the time factor is forgotten, combining the two will be like mixing chalk with cheese.
Rashid’s presence as an advisor in Afghanistan is not a guarantee that the next administration will pursue the “grand bargain” that Rashid advocates, but if Petraeus will be taking advice from him it is one more reason to be seriously concerned that Washington actually will blunder into the Kashmir dispute in a misguided attempt to get Islamabad to address the threat in western Pakistan. In light of Obama’s repeated statements in support of such a move, we have to begin treating this proposal as a real part of Obama’s agenda in South Asia and not merely idle speculation or empty campaign bluster. Once we’ve done that, there needs to be a concerted effort to dissuade him from going this route.
Filed under: India, foreign policy, politics
I think there’s another question we need to ask ourselves. What’s in it for Zardari in agreeing to attempt some kind of “Grand Bargain”? Right now we know that Obama seems to be interested in reviving the issue of Kashmir and that he talked about it with Zardari; but we haven’t seen (or at least, I’m not aware) the Pakistani President ask Obama to step in on Kashmir. That is an important question because if he doesn’t want the issue raised and tells Obama so in private, BO will never go public with his plan to solve Kashmir when both protagonists are opposed to his proposal.
Maybe Zardari hopes to increase tensions with India to bolster nationalism domestically and reinforce his standing or maybe he hopes this will quiet down the jihadists from FATA who have killed his wife and want to kill him. But in the end I don’t see how this could benefit him. As we know, talks on Kashmir will go nowhere and any nationalist surge will quickly morph into anger at the Zardari’s powerlessness (better not to try something than to try it and fail), all his enemies will decry him as another fake leader who spend more time with Americans than Pakistanis and the jihadist will be encouraged by a new round of Kashmir hostility.
I am by no mean an expert on the internal politics of Pakistan so I might be totally off track here. But I have trouble understanding why Zardari would encourage such talks.
Pakistan has consistently pushed for U.S. involvement in the Kashmir dispute in the current and previous administrations as a way of bringing pressure to bear on India. So long as the matter remains purely bilateral, Pakistani objectives are out of the question. Unless I am quite mistaken, the thinking on the Pakistani side, particularly within the military, is that those objectives are more obtainable with outside pressure. This has been true under civilian and military governments alike, in part because of the strong influence of the military on Pakistani politics generally. Besides, while the military is perhaps most ideologically committed to gaining control of Kashmir it is not alone in this desire. If Washington were to hold out the possibility that Pakistan could make gains in this area, or at least promise that Washington would attempt to mediate the dispute, I think that would be very attractive to any Pakistani government, particularly a civilian one that needs something to boost its credibility and popularity at home. Perhaps I am mistaken about this, but this is how see it. If any of the commenters from the other Kashmir threads would like to correct me on this, I welcome their insights.
I must admit ignorance on policy here, but maybe that gives me the freedom to ask why we would ever seriously consider helping Pakistan?
Nuclear proliferater? Check. (Thanks Dr. Khan, who doubles as some kind of national hero over there).
Supporter of Muslim fundamentalism through a virulently anti-American intelligence service? Check (Thanks ISI).
Safe haven provider for OBL & Co, with a myriad of excuses why it can’t or won’t weed him out or allow us to go after him in country? (Check) (Not sure exactly who to thank here, but it’s a fact).
Underminer of our military efforts and policy goals (such as they are) in Afghanistan? Check (Thanks ISI)
And we want to help this country obtain part of (all?) a long-disputed chunk of territory from India in the name of regional stability and peace? I think not.
Well, has Obama already made a foreign policy blunder EVEN BEFORE being sworn in as President ? I hope not.
What I am most worried is that he seems to have an intense desire to differentiate himself from Bush on this issue – Bush and Rice had an almost hands off policy on the Kashmir issue. Obama atleast at first glance wants to get involved rather deeply.
I might be guilty of looking at the situation with a medium/long term outlook, while the president of an unstable country such as Pakistan might be more interested in short term advantages.
From a short term perspective, by encouraging American mediated talks with India on Kashmir, Zardari pleases the military, bolster his domestic support by fanning the flames of Pakistani nationalism and might quiet down violent and suicidal opposition by jihadists while there is hope of a resolution on Kashmir.
The way I looked at it was more medium/long term. By promoting talks that are bound to fail, with an American presidents who will undoubtedly become less popular in the region as time goes, the Pakistani President makes himself vulnerable by showing his powerlessness after the talks lead to nothing and by being associated with a President who is bombing “innocent civilians” at the same time in the FATA (that’s how Obama plan to take the war to Pakistan will be regarded in the country). At the same time, bringing back the Kashmir issue would give jihadists a propaganda and recruitment opportunity, by allowing them to change the focus from their unpopular bombing of Pakistanis to a self-righteous fight with India.
But Zardari might not have the luxury of thinking medium/long term given his precarious position. So I think I agree with you that the current Pakistani President would probably be receptive to Obama’s proposal. But I think that a stronger and more stable civilian Pakistani government would think twice before supporting it.
In any case, this will be a story to follow closely.
Here is something that caught my eye
Obama links Israel peace plan to pre 1967 border
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093
Some one better tell Obama that he gets only 8 years as President according to the current version of the US Constitution.
You can accuse Obama of many things but you cannot say that this guy lacks ambition or a vanity that seems infinite even for politicians .